| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 414 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 410 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Google, Yandex
|
| Latest Threads |
Fr. Ruiz's Sermons: Last ...
Forum: Fr. Ruiz's Sermons November 2024
Last Post: Stone
59 minutes ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 9
|
The Simulacrum: The False...
Forum: Sedevacantism
Last Post: Stone
1 hour ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 9
|
Fr. Ruiz: Renewal of the ...
Forum: Rev. Father Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
Last Post: Stone
Today, 04:56 AM
» Replies: 15
» Views: 1,180
|
Interview with the Editor...
Forum: The Recusant
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:15 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 112
|
Purgatory Explained by th...
Forum: Resources Online
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 09:03 AM
» Replies: 37
» Views: 3,531
|
Last Sunday after Penteco...
Forum: Pentecost
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 08:57 AM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 11,641
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Twen...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
11-23-2024, 10:30 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 91
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Feas...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
11-23-2024, 10:27 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 118
|
The Catholic Trumpet: Whe...
Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
Last Post: Stone
11-23-2024, 07:06 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 95
|
Bishop appointed by Commu...
Forum: Socialism & Communism
Last Post: Stone
11-22-2024, 04:57 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 95
|
|
|
| The Dangers of the New Mass |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-10-2021, 08:10 AM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition
- No Replies
|
 |
The Dangers of the New Mass
"From the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts." (Malachias 1:11)
St. Augustine said: "He who devoutly hears Holy Mass will receive a great vigor to enable him to resist mortal sin, and there shall be pardoned to him all venial sins which he may have committed up to that hour."1
Had satan been aware that Jesus Christ was the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, he would have never pushed for the Crucifixion. Every True Mass reminds him, once again, of his terrible mistake and at the same time it is a vehicle for bestowing infinite grace on mankind. It is no wonder that the devil has an intense hatred for the True Mass.
St. John Fisher said: "He who goes about to take the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass from the Church plots no less a calamity than if he tried to snatch the sun from the universe."2
St. Alphonsus said: "The devil has always attempted, by means of heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of the antichrist, who before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as a punishment for the sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel, 'And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice."3 (Daniel 8:12)
St. Robert Bellarmine said: "When we enter ornate and clean Basilicas, adorned with crosses, sacred images, altars and burning lamps, we most easily conceive devotion. But on the other hand, when we enter the temples of the heretics, where there is nothing except a chair for preaching and a table for making a meal, we feel ourselves to be entering a profane hall and not the House of God."4
Luther's slogan was: "Take away the Mass, destroy the Church."5
St. John Vianney said: "All the good works together are not of equal value with the Sacrifice of the Mass because they are the works of man, and the Holy Mass is the work of God."6
How did we get the Mass?
A general history: In his letter to the Corinthians in the year 88 A.D., Pope St. Clement of Rome (martyr and fourth Pope after St. Peter), wrote that Our Lord laid down the order of the Mass, referring to the Offertory, Consecration and Communion. St. Justin the Martyr (in his writings, 155 A.D.) stated that after His Resurrection, Our Lord taught the Apostles how to say Mass.
Many liturgical historians believe that the writings of St. Clement and St. Justin were expressed in a formal way by St. Ambrose (approximately 360 A.D.) in a book titled, De Sacramentis. De Sacramentis essentially contains the canonized Mass prayers. The Mass prayers appeared in written form only three hundred years after Jesus Christ's death. It was in the 4th century that Latin became the official language of the Church and the word missa was introduced. This was probably introduced by St. Ambrose in the Leonine Sacramentary (Pope St. Leo in 450 A.D.) and the Gelasian Sacramentary (Pope Gelasius I in 498 A.D.). The essential parts of this missal were found to be almost the same as those in the Tridentine Mass. In the year 600 A.D., Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604 A.D.) finished his Gregorian Sacramentary, which is essentially the Mass "codified" by Pope St. Pius V in 1570.7
The True Mass goes back to Apostolic times; and it was "codified", solidified, or set in stone by St. Pope Pius V in his Papal Bull Quo Primum Tempore on July 14, 1570. Pope St. Pius V specified the exact Mass ritual "of and for" the Roman Rite. Only this Liturgy or Ritual was to be used from that time until the end of time (for the Roman Rite). The Canon with the exception of one short clause, inserted by Pope Gregory the Great, had remained unchanged ". . . until 1962, when John XXIII added the name of St. Joseph to the Canon of the Mass. A total of 26 words have been added to the Traditional Canon, by Popes Leo (440-461 A.D.) and St. Gregory the Great (590-604 A.D.). Thus, as the Council of Trent accurately states, the Canon is composed out of the very words of the Lord, the tradition of the Apostles, and the pious institutions of the holy Pontiffs."8
Names Given to the Roman Rite of the Mass
It is called "the Mass of All Times" (because it dates back to the Apostles in its essential elements--though it is eternal in its nature), the "Tridentine Mass" (only because the 16th century Council of Trent <Tridentum in Latin> ordered it to be "codified"), the "Mass of Pius V" (after the Pope who actually "codified" it in 1570), and on occasion (but loosely and incorrectly) "the Latin Mass" (incorrectly because any Rite can be translated into Latin and because the Novus Ordo Missae itself was issued originally in Latin).9 The True Mass should be called the Roman Rite of the Mass. This way there isn't any confusion.
New World Order: New Order of the Mass
In the middle to late 60's, Rome started to have the Mass said in the vernacular and then in 1970, Paul VI gave us a whole new rite of Mass called the "Novus Ordo Missae". It is not by chance that the enemies of the True Faith who are building "a Novus Ordo Seclorum" (a new world order) would establish "a Novus Ordo Missae" (a new order of the Mass) to destroy the Roman Catholic Church. Even in the original Latin form, the New Mass was bad enough, but after going to the vernacular through the International Committee on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), disaster ensued, and the questions of validity were justified. A total of 35 prayers or approximately 70% of the Tridentine Mass has been replaced or discarded.10
Ambiguous, Wishful Thinking; Binding No One
Here is what Paul VI put in the new Roman Missal on April 3, 1969: #13 "We hope that the Missal will be received by the Faithful" and #15 "We wish that these, our decrees and prescriptions, may be firm and effective."11 To impose a law the Pope must make it clear to the Church that a Law is being imposed, or that he is binding the Church to use this New Mass. He did not do so. What Paul VI did had nothing to do with the Church's indefectibility or the Pope's infallibility. Paul VI said on November 19, 1969: "This Rite (New Mass) and its related rubrics are not in themselves a dogmatic definition."12 Paul VI did not and could not change the Roman Rite of the Mass.
The People Supersede the Priest as the Indispensable Element
It is not necessary to examine all four of the Eucharistic prayers in the New Mass. However, let's look at Eucharistic Prayer #3: The following words are addressed to the Lord:
Quote: "From age to age you gather a people to yourself, in order that from East and West a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your Name."13
This phrase makes it clear that it is the people, rather than the priest, who are the indispensable element in the celebration. In the Encyclical Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII condemned the statement that "the eucharistic sacrifice" is an authentic concelebration of the priest as well as of the people present.
Biblical Prefigurement of True and False Worship
The purpose of the True Mass is the praise and adoration of Almighty God through the Sacrifice of Christ, who is the invisible priest and victim. The difference between the New Mass and the True Mass is the difference between Cain and Abel. We are told: "The Lord had respect to Abel and to his offerings. But to Cain and his offerings, He had no respect" (Gen. 4:3-5). At the beginning of human history, the two brothers set the pattern of true and false religious observance for all time. One was an immolation in expiation of sin, the other merely a friendly exchange of gifts between man and God. One was acceptable, the other was not.14 It has been said that in countries, such as Poland, the Communist Party uses their "inspectors of religion," to keep under surveillance those priests who say the True Mass, but they leave alone those who say the New Mass.15
Freemasonry Wields the Axe to the Root
"Archbishop Bugnini was a consultant in the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, and in the Sacred Congregation of Holy Rites. He was also the chairman of the Concilium which drafted the Novus Ordo Missae. Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was a freemason, initiated into the Masonic Lodge on April 23, 1963 (Masonic Register of Italy dated 1976). Monsignor Bugnini was removed from his office in the Vatican when it became public that he was a Mason. And instead of being publicly reproved, or required to renounce his Masonic membership, he was appointed Papal Nuncio to Iran."16
The president of this Concilium was Cardinal Lecaro, a man whom Cardinal Bacci called, "Luther resurrected."17 When we discuss the New Mass we must consider the authors. Whereas Paul VI was formally and juridically responsible, it was actually composed by the Concilium, which consisted of some 200 individuals, many of whom had functioned as periti ("expert theologians") during Vatican Council II.
The Concilium was helped by six Protestant 'observers' (ministers) who played a huge part in developing the New Mass. ". . . Paul VI publicly thanked them for their assistance in re-editing in a new manner liturgical texts ... so that the lex orandi (the law of prayer) conformed better with the lex credendi (the law of belief)."18 You need a new liturgy for a new religion. The New Mass is the new law of non-Catholic belief.
Attempting the Destruction of the Roman Rite
Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote:
Quote:"The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the 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."19
Tearing the Heart Out of The Roman Rite
Judging the Novus Ordo Missae (New Mass) in itself, in its official Latin form, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote to Paul VI on Sept. 25, 1969:
Quote:"The Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent."20
Of the 12 Offertory prayers in the Traditional Rite, only two are retained in the New Mass.21 And of interest is the fact that the deleted prayers are the same ones that Luther and Cranmer eliminated. Why did they eliminate them? Because, as Luther said, the "smacked of Sacrifice . . . the abomination called the offertory, and from this point on almost everything stinks of oblation."22 The Offertory and Consecration are the very heart of the True Mass.
Anything But A Sacrifice
Martin Luther said:
Quote:"The Mass is not a sacrifice ... call it Benediction, Eucharist, the Lord's Table, the Lord's Supper, Memory of the Lord or whatever you like, just so long as you do not dirty it with the name of a Sacrifice."23
16th century Protestant reformer, Thomas Cranmer said:
Quote:"The use of an altar is to make sacrifice upon; the use of a table to serve men to eat upon."24
When you line up the New Mass with the Anglican schismatic Book of Common Prayer (1549), they are almost identical; in fact, the Book of Common Prayer is more reverent than the New Mass.
The Law of Prayer Establishes the Law of Belief
Christopher Monchton informs us that in the English version of the New Mass there are over 400 mistranslations from the Latin.25
Almost 100 percent of the new Masses around the world are said in the vernacular. Just changing the Mass into vernacular is, in itself, condemned. Session 12, Canon 9 of the Council of Trent says: "If anyone says ... that the Mass should be said in vernacular only, let him be anathema."26
Constitution, "Auctorem Fidei," August 28, 1794, Pope Pius VI (1775-1799) The Suitable Order to Be Observed in Worship #33. The proposition of the Synod condemns the following in regard to the Mass:
Quote:"by recalling it (the Liturgy) to a greater simplicity of Rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice."
These changes were condemned by Pope Pius VI as "rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it."27
The New Mass is Pleasing to Protestant and Jew alike. In the Offertory of the New Mass the priest says precisely the same words as those which are used in the Jewish seder service. These are the words:
Quote:"Blessed art thou, O Lord God of all creation. For through your goodness we have this bread to offer, fruit of the earth and work of human hands it will become for us the bread of life. This wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands it will become for us our spiritual drink."28
It's frightening to think that the Offertory of the New Mass is taken word for word from the seder meal of the Jewish holiday of Passover. In the New Mass the Priest offers bread and wine; however, in the True Mass, the Priest offers the Immaculate Victim. It is a blasphemy to offer God bread and wine.
In the Novus Ordo Requiem Masses (the Mass for the Dead), the word "Soul" is not mentioned even once.29
Paul VI said on May 24, 1976:
Quote:"The New Ordo has been promulgated to replace the old after mature deliberation and in order to fulfill the Council's decisions."30
Canon 6 of the Council of Trent says:
Quote:"If anyone says that there are errors in the Canon of the Mass and that therefore it should be abrogated: let him be anathema."31
Back at the Council of Trent, in Session 22, the Council Fathers realized that the Mass was being attacked, and they basically said, "Let's make sure the Mass remains intact." After the Council, Quo Primum forever defined the liturgical morals - the Mass Liturgies, both Eastern and Roman.
Quo Primum
St. Pope Pius V said dogmatically and infallibly in Quo Primum that:
Quote:"It shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by us."
The Decree of Quo Primum was irrevocable, and Pope St. Pius V went on further to state in Quo Primum:
Quote:"This present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of Law . . . And if, nevertheless, anyone would ever dare attempt any action contrary to this Order of ours, handed down for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God, and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."32 (July 14, 1570)
Binding Peter's Successors
But, can one Pope change what another Pope has done? In pastoral matters, yes; in matters of Faith, No! When we talk about the Liturgy we are talking about the Faith. Quo Primum was not a discipline. It dealt directly with Faith and morals.
Faith and Morals
Faith: What you must believe to be saved.
Social Morals: How man behaves towards other men.
Liturgical Morals: How man behaves towards God.
Liturgy is not arbitrary or dispensable. The Liturgy is the essence of Catholic Faith.
Wrath Foretold For Those Who Destroy the Immemorial Mass
The Bull on witchcraft by Pope Innocent VIII demonstrates that Quo Primum was infallible. The Bull's language is not nearly as strong as Quo Primum, but ends with these words:
Quote:"If any man dare to go contrary to this command, which God forbid, let him know that upon him will fall the wrath of Almighty God, and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."
These are the exact words used in Quo Primum at the end.
In the introduction to the 1928 Catholic Encyclopedia it says (speaking about Innocent VIII's Bull):
Quote:"If any man shall presume to go against the tenor let him know that therein he will bring down the wrath of Almighty God and The Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."
The commentary afterwards says: "Could words weightier be found?"
Defining Truth and Binding the Faithful
The Encyclopedia goes on to say:
Quote:"Are we then to class this Bull in with the Bull Dogmatica Ineffabilis Deus where Pope Pius IX proclaimed the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception? Such a position is clearly tenable, but even if we do not insist that the Bull of Innocent VIII is an infallible utterance, that it does not in set terms define a Dogma, although it does set forth sure and certain truths, it must be held to be a document of supreme and absolute authority, of dogmatic force."
Pope Pius XI said in his apostolic constitution "Divini Cultus" on December 20, 1928, addressing the connection of the Sacred Liturgy with the Church:
Quote: "The Liturgy is an undoubtedly sacred thing; for through it we are brought to God and are joined with Him; we bear witness to our Faith . . . Hence a kind of intimate relationship between Dogma and Sacred Liturgy, and likewise between Christian worship and the sanctification of the people. Therefore, Pope Celestine I proposed and expressed a Canon of Faith in the venerated formulas of the Liturgy: "Let the Law of Supplication, (prayer) establish the Law of Believing . . ."33
Anathemas Against the New Missal
7th Session, Canon 13 of the Council of Trent: The correct Latin translation says:
Quote:"If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, customarily used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments, can be despised or can be freely omitted by the ministers without sin, or can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whomsoever, let him be anathema."34
This canon states very clearly that the Pope, who is the first and supreme pastor may never change any approved Rite of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Rite was fixed forever by Pope St. Pius V in Quo Primum. Paul VI tried to establish a whole new Roman Rite. There is only one Roman Rite of the Mass; there cannot be two.
In the Profession of Faith in the Council of Trent, the following was always professed by the priest begin ordained; he promises and vows:
Quote:"I also receive and admit the accepted and approved rites of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of all the aforesaid Sacraments."35
It is indisputable that according to the previous pronouncements of the Church that the New Mass is illegal, and therefore cannot be celebrated or attended. The issue of whether there is a valid consecration in the New Mass is another question which we will now address.
The Requirements for Validity
In the decree to the Armenians in the Council of Florence, it states the following:
Quote:"All these Sacraments are dispensed in three ways, namely, by things as the matter, by words as the form, and by the person of the minister conferring the Sacrament with the intention of doing as the Church does; if any of these is lacking the Sacrament is not fulfilled."36
Minister, Intention, Matter, and Form
The four main things necessary for a valid celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:
minister: The celebrant must be a validly ordained priest.
intention: The celebrant must have the intention of confecting the Sacrament.
matter: The elements of the Mass must be wheaten bread and grape wine, made without additives.
form: The proper form (words) of consecration must be used.
According to the Council of Trent, these requirements cannot be altered by anyone, not even the Church itself, since they were established by Christ.
Is the New Mass Valid?
Let's first cover the issue as to whether the New Mass is valid by reviewing the vernacular. In most every vernacular translation of the New Mass, the words "many" have been changed to "all" in the Consecration. This is not a minor change! It will be argued that in the New Mass the priest says, "This is My Body" which are the same words used in the Tridentine Mass and so, if we use the right words for the Consecration of the Body, "This is My Body," we have a Sacrament. They do not believe anything else is required. Those who hold to this position ignore the defects in the "form" of the New Mass (essential words needed to confect the Sacrament).
Furthermore, they ignore the fact that the words in the form of the New Mass, while themselves essential to the form of the Sacrament, do not constitute the complete form of the Sacrament. Others will argue that both consecrations are not imperative to have a valid Sacrament. This is also contrary to the teaching of the Church. The proper intention necessary is an intention to confect not one, but both Sacraments. This is essential for a valid celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Both Consecrations are Necessary for a Valid Mass
St. Thomas Aquinas says:
Quote:"As often as the Sacrifice is offered, the consecration of both species is required, according to the will and institution of Christ. For Christ at the Last Supper, consecrating each (both) species, commanded: 'Do this in commemoration of me' . . . the very notion of sacrifice . . . demands the consecration of both species.37
De Defectibus
De Defectibus is a long document written by Pope St. Pius V which discusses certain defects which could arise in the celebration of Mass. It is largely a point of reference so the celebration of Mass would remain the same in all lands for all times. Defects were described in detail so that priests would always say Mass in the same manner.
Quo Primum and De Defectibus emanated from the Council of Trent. Both of these documents were found in the front of all Altar Missals as an easy reference for priest offering the Holy Mass. Quo Primum and De Defectibus were first included in the Missale Romanum in 1572. They were deleted from the ICEL (Committee on English in the Liturgy) version in 1969.
De Defectibus Chapter X, Part 3, prescribes that a Mass interrupted after the Consecration of the Host (because of illness or death of the celebrant) must be continued by another priest, i.e., that the wine must be consecrated to complete and effect the Sacrifice.
In the 1917 Code, Canon 817 states:
Quote:"It is unlawful even in the case of necessity, to consecrate one species without the other, or to consecrate both outside the Mass."
The complete form or words of Consecration needed for a valid Sacrament were clearly stated in the Council of Florence.
The Council of Florence, in 1442, declared that the following words must be used for a valid Consecration in the Mass:
Quote:"Wherefore the words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: 'For this is My Body: For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins."38
Various Mass Rites: "For Many" or "For All"
". . . The Church hast traditionally recognized as valid -- some 76 different rites in various languages, many of which date back to Apostolic times, not one however, has ever used "all" in the form for the Consecration of the Wine."39
Even the Anglican Common Prayer Book of 1549 didn't change the word "many to "all" in the consecration and it was still declared by Pope Leo XIII to be invalid.
Little Words and Letters Can Mean a Lot
Some people may say that discarding or changing a word or words in the Mass isn't a big deal. Church history has proven that little words, even little letters, can mean a lot.
The combats sustained by the Nicean Fathers against the Arians over the definition of the dogma of the Incarnation are witness to the uncompromising zeal for stating the truth without shade of alteration, gloss, or ambiguity which the faith demand in a time of crisis. Major differences could have been settled at that time by the addition of one single letter. The problematic homoousios denoting "consubstantial" needed only have been softened to homoiousios denoting "similar in nature."40
Jesus Christ, The Word of God has Spoken
Luke 16:17: "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the Law to fall."
Matthew 5:18: "For Amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth shall pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the Law, till all be fulfilled."
Our Lord Jesus Christ did not use the word "all" in the upper room in Matthew 26:26. He used the word "many." God help the New Order priest who uses the words which are different from the words that Jesus Christ used.
Perpetual Teaching of the Universal Church
The Church has always taught that the word "all", for very specific reasons, is purposely not used in the Consecration!
St. Alphonsus tells us:
Quote:"The words pro vobis et pro multis (for you and for many) are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the blood of Our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men but its fruits are applied only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault."41
Or, as the theologians say, this Precious Blood is sufficient to save all men, but in reality it does not save all -- it saves only those who cooperate with Grace.
The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is not a Sacrament for all men; it is a Sacrament for you and for many.
The Catechism by Decree of The Holy Council of Trent teaches that the additional words:
Quote:"for you and for many, are taken, some from St. Matthew, some from St. Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God . . . With reason, therefore, were the words 'for all' not used, as in this place the fruits of the passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation."42
St. Thomas Aquinas expressed the same opinion in the Summa, III, Q78, Art. 4, Reply to Objection 8. Pope Benedict XIV also expressed this opinion in De Missae Sacrificio.
Doubtful Consecration; Must Not Participate
Just for the reason that there is a doubtful Consecration in the New Mass, Catholics are obliged to abstain from any participation in such rites. Fr. Jone's Moral Theology, Chapter under the Efficacy of the Sacraments Part IV #2, states under examples:
Quote:"To administer or receive a Sacrament invalidly is a much greater sin than to administer or receive it unfruitfully."43
Pope Innocent XI, in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679, condemned the idea that a person could follow a probable opinion regarding the value of a sacrament and abandon the safer course.44 Pope Innocent XI condemned this thinking not once, but twice!
Pope Innocent XI
Errors of Michael of Molinos (Condemned in the decree of the Sacred Office, August 28, 1687, and in the Constitutions "Coelestis Pastor," Nov. 20, 1687)45
Quote:11. It is not necessary to reflect upon doubts whether one is proceeding rightly or not." (Condemned)46
"Condemned as heretical, suspect, erroneous, scandalous, blasphemous, offensive to pious ears, rash, or relaxed Christian discipline, subversive, and seditious respectively."47
Fr. Henry Davis says in his Moral and Pastoral Theology Vol. 2 p. 27:
Quote:"In conferring the Sacrament, as also in the Consecration in the Mass, it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course. The contrary was explicitly condemned by Pope Innocent XI (1676-1689); to do so would be a grievous sin against religion, namely an act of irreverence towards what Christ Our Lord has instituted."48
"It would be a grievous sin against Charity, as the recipient would probably be deprived of the graces and effects of the Sacrament. It would be a grievous sin against Justice, as the recipient has a right to valid Sacraments. Matter and form must be certainly valid. Hence, one may not follow a probable opinion and use either doubtful matter or form. Acting otherwise, one commits a sacrilege."49
That is one reason why the New Mass is a sacrilege.
Sacrilege By Which He is Offended
The New Mass is a sacrilege because it is a deliberate counterfeit of the established Mass of the Roman Rite. The True Mass was given a definite and unchangeable form by St. Pope Pius V so sacrilege could be avoided and condemned.
St. Thomas Aquinas describes a sacrilege:
Quote:"In a sacrilege, we find a special type of deformation, namely the violation of a sacred thing by treating it with irreverence." (Summa. II Q. 99, Art. 2)
What Part Does Truth Have With Error?
If the Novus Ordo Missae is not Catholic, then it cannot satisfy one's Sunday obligation, and would be a grievous sin to attend. St. Thomas Aquinas said:
Quote: "Falsehood in outward worship occurs on the part of the worshipper, and especially, in common worship which is offered by minister 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 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 the ecclesiastical custom. Hence, St. Ambrose says: "He is unworthy who celebrates the mystery otherwise than as Christ delivered it."50
Pope Innocent III, one of the greatest jurists, said:
Quote:"No one may depart from the universal customs of the Church."51
Saint Pope Pius X said in Pascendi Dominic Gregis:
Quote:"For Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the Second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those who dare, after the impious novelties of some kind or to endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow anyone of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church."
The English Martyrs' Blood Testifies Against the New Mass
The New Mass is strikingly similar to the service instituted by Cranmer (the liturgist of Henry VIII) following the Protestant Reformation. Pope St. Pius V told Catholics, at that time, that they were forbidden to attend such services. In fact, many went to their death rather than go to the churches where Cranmer's form of prayer was being said. If true Catholics went to their death rather than attend a mass such as the Novus Ordo, the response of the faithful today must be the same.
A New Liturgy For A New Religion
You need a new liturgy for a new religion. Just because the original Novus Ordo Missae had a few similarities to the True Mass, that doesn't make it Catholic. Consider the following description of the early Lutheran service, as given by the great Jesuit scholar, Hartmann Grisar:
Quote:"One who entered the parish church at Wittenburg after Luther's 'victory' discovered that the same vestments were used for divine service as before, and heard the same old Latin hymns. The host was elevated and exhibited at the consecration. In the eyes of the people it was the same Mass as before, despite the fact that Luther omitted all the prayers which represented the sacred function of the Sacrifice. The people were intentionally kept in the dark on this point. 'We cannot draw the common people away from the Sacrament, and it will probably be thus until the Gospel is well understood,' said Luther. 'The rite of celebration of the Mass,' he explained, is a 'purely external thing,' and he said further that 'the damnable words referring to the Sacrifice could be omitted all the more readily, since the ordinary Christian would not notice the omission and hence there was no danger of scandal.'"52
The Morality of the New Mass
The Council of Trent, Canons on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 3 says:
Quote:"If anyone says that the Sacrifice of the Mass is merely an offering of praise and thanksgiving, or that it is a simple memorial of the Sacrifice offered on the Cross, and that it should not be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfaction, and other necessities: let him be anathema."53
The New Mass is only an offering of praise and thanksgiving. At the New Mass anything can and does go. If the only church in town happened to be a protestant church, a Catholic surely could not attend services there. The same principle applies to the New Mass. Since it is not a Catholic Mass, a Catholic has no business being there. In fact, in most churches the New Mass would not even qualify to be a Protestant service. Many New Masses have laughing, joking, clapping, singing, dancing, hugging, kissing, flutes, guitars, charismatics calling up spirits, homosexual priests, Eucharistic ministers, communion in the hand, immodest dress, no dresses, no head coverings, no reverence, etc...
As the Antichrist will be so evil because he will claim to be the Real Jesus and will not be, so the New Mass is evil because it claims to be the Real Mass and is not. The New Mass is a deliberate counterfeit of the True Mass, and a non-Catholic service. It is very clear that according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church it would be a grievous sin to attend the New Mass. This is why the New Mass is deadly.
Notes
1. St. Leonard, The Hidden Treasure , p. 157
2. Rev. T. E. Bridgett, The Life of Blessed John Fisher (London: Burns & Oates, 1888). Bishop St. John Fisher was martyred, along with St. Thomas More, by Henry VIII in 1535.
3. St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Dignities and Duties Of The Priest (London: Benzinger Bros., 1889), p. 212.
4. Octava Controversia Generalis. Liber Ii. Controversia Quinta. Caput XXXI.
5. Fr. Paul Trinchard, Holy Mass, Holy Mary (MAETA: P.O. Box 6012, Metairie, LA, 1997), p. 41.
6. St. Leonard, The Hidden Treasure , p. 157
7. Fr. Paul Trinchard, Holy Mass, Holy Mary (MAETA: P.O. Box 6012, Metairie, LA, 1997), p. 4,5.
8. Dr. Rara Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, p. 11.
9. Ibid, p. 9.
10. Fr. Paul Trinchard, New Mass in Light of the Old (MAETA: P.O. Box 6012, Metairie, LA, 1995), p. 20.
11. Fr. James Wathen, The Great Sacrilege, p. 178, 179.
12. Fr. Paul Trinchard, Novus Ordo Condemned (MAETA: P.O. Box 6012, Metairie, LA, 1997), p. 34.
13. Comment of Fr. Joseph Jungmann, the Mass: An Historical, Theological And Pastoral Survey (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1976), p. 201.
14. Solange Hertz, On the Contrary (Veritas Press, Box 1704, Santa Monica, CA), p. 50.
15. Most Asked Questions About The Society Of Saint Pius X (Angelus Press, 2918 Tracy Ave., Kansas City, MO), p. 26.
16. Fr. James Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?, p. 178, 179.
17. La Tunica Stracciata by Tito Casini, Rome 1967 / Fr. Paul Leonard, A Theological Vindication Of Roman Catholic Traditionalism (Angelus Press, 2918 Tracy Ave., Kansas City, MO), p. 43.
18. Dr. Rara Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass , p. 24.
19. Latin Mass Magazine, Winter, 1995 / Christian Order, Oct. 1994.
20. Most Asked Questions About The Society Of Saint Pius X (Angelus Press, 2918 Tracy Ave., Kansas City, MO), p. 26.
21. Msgr. Frederick McManus, The Revival of the Liturgy, p. 217.
22. Dr. Rara Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass , p. 34.
23. Ibid., p. 29.
24. The Works of Thomas Cranmer (London: Parker Society), V. 2, p. 524.
25. Faith, Nov 1979.
26. Denzinger 956.
27. Denzinger 1533.
28. Fr. Donald Sanborn, Changes of Vatican II, Part IV (Catholic Restoration Bookstore, 2850 Parent, Warren, MI).
29. Fr. Anthony Cekada, "A Response", The Roman Catholic, Jan. 1987.
30. Fr. James Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?, p. 523.
31. Denzinger 953.
32. Fr. James Wathen, The Great Sacrilege, p. 173-175.
33. Denzinger 2200.
34. Denzinger 856.
35. Denzinger 996.
36. Denzinger 695.
37. De Eucharistia, Noldin-Schmitt, S. J., in "Summa Theologiae Moralis," III Innsbruck, 1940.
38. Denzinger 715.
39. Dr. Rara Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass , p. 55.
40. Solange Hertz, On the Contrary (Veritas Press, Box 1704, Santa Monica, CA), p. 75.
41. St. Alphonsus, Treatise On The Holy Eucharist
42. Patrick Henry Omlor, Questioning The Validity Of The Masses Using The New, All-English Canon (Athanasius Press; Reno, NV), p. 59.
43. Fr. Heribet Jone, Moral Theology (The Neumann Press, Westminster, MD, 1952), p. 311.
44. Denzinger 1151.
45. Denzinger p. 331.
46. Denzinger 1231.
47. Denzinger 1288.
48. Fr. Henry Davis, S. J., Moral And Pastoral Theology (London: Sheed And Ward, 1936), V. 2, p. 27.
49. Fr. Heribet Jone, Moral Theology (The Neumann Press, Westminster, MD, 1952), p. 323.
50. Dr. Rara Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass , p. 86.
51. Innocent III, de Consuetudine Theol. II-II, 104-105.
52. Dr. Rara Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass , p. 18.
53. Denzinger 950.
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
| The Dangers of the New Mass |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-10-2021, 08:10 AM - Forum: New Rite Sacraments
- Replies (9)
|
|
The Dangers of the New Mass
"From the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts." (Malachias 1:11)
St. Augustine said: "He who devoutly hears Holy Mass will receive a great vigor to enable him to resist mortal sin, and there shall be pardoned to him all venial sins which he may have committed up to that hour."1
Had satan been aware that Jesus Christ was the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, he would have never pushed for the Crucifixion. Every True Mass reminds him, once again, of his terrible mistake and at the same time it is a vehicle for bestowing infinite grace on mankind. It is no wonder that the devil has an intense hatred for the True Mass.
St. John Fisher said: "He who goes about to take the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass from the Church plots no less a calamity than if he tried to snatch the sun from the universe."2
St. Alphonsus said: "The devil has always attempted, by means of heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of the antichrist, who before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as a punishment for the sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel, 'And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice."3 (Daniel 8:12)
St. Robert Bellarmine said: "When we enter ornate and clean Basilicas, adorned with crosses, sacred images, altars and burning lamps, we most easily conceive devotion. But on the other hand, when we enter the temples of the heretics, where there is nothing except a chair for preaching and a table for making a meal, we feel ourselves to be entering a profane hall and not the House of God."4
Luther's slogan was: "Take away the Mass, destroy the Church."5
St. John Vianney said: "All the good works together are not of equal value with the Sacrifice of the Mass because they are the works of man, and the Holy Mass is the work of God."6
How did we get the Mass?
A general history: In his letter to the Corinthians in the year 88 A.D., Pope St. Clement of Rome (martyr and fourth Pope after St. Peter), wrote that Our Lord laid down the order of the Mass, referring to the Offertory, Consecration and Communion. St. Justin the Martyr (in his writings, 155 A.D.) stated that after His Resurrection, Our Lord taught the Apostles how to say Mass.
Many liturgical historians believe that the writings of St. Clement and St. Justin were expressed in a formal way by St. Ambrose (approximately 360 A.D.) in a book titled, De Sacramentis. De Sacramentis essentially contains the canonized Mass prayers. The Mass prayers appeared in written form only three hundred years after Jesus Christ's death. It was in the 4th century that Latin became the official language of the Church and the word missa was introduced. This was probably introduced by St. Ambrose in the Leonine Sacramentary (Pope St. Leo in 450 A.D.) and the Gelasian Sacramentary (Pope Gelasius I in 498 A.D.). The essential parts of this missal were found to be almost the same as those in the Tridentine Mass. In the year 600 A.D., Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604 A.D.) finished his Gregorian Sacramentary, which is essentially the Mass "codified" by Pope St. Pius V in 1570.7
The True Mass goes back to Apostolic times; and it was "codified", solidified, or set in stone by St. Pope Pius V in his Papal Bull Quo Primum Tempore on July 14, 1570. Pope St. Pius V specified the exact Mass ritual "of and for" the Roman Rite. Only this Liturgy or Ritual was to be used from that time until the end of time (for the Roman Rite). The Canon with the exception of one short clause, inserted by Pope Gregory the Great, had remained unchanged ". . . until 1962, when John XXIII added the name of St. Joseph to the Canon of the Mass. A total of 26 words have been added to the Traditional Canon, by Popes Leo (440-461 A.D.) and St. Gregory the Great (590-604 A.D.). Thus, as the Council of Trent accurately states, the Canon is composed out of the very words of the Lord, the tradition of the Apostles, and the pious institutions of the holy Pontiffs."8
Names Given to the Roman Rite of the Mass
It is called "the Mass of All Times" (because it dates back to the Apostles in its essential elements--though it is eternal in its nature), the "Tridentine Mass" (only because the 16th century Council of Trent <Tridentum in Latin> ordered it to be "codified"), the "Mass of Pius V" (after the Pope who actually "codified" it in 1570), and on occasion (but loosely and incorrectly) "the Latin Mass" (incorrectly because any Rite can be translated into Latin and because the Novus Ordo Missae itself was issued originally in Latin).9 The True Mass should be called the Roman Rite of the Mass. This way there isn't any confusion.
New World Order: New Order of the Mass
In the middle to late 60's, Rome started to have the Mass said in the vernacular and then in 1970, Paul VI gave us a whole new rite of Mass called the "Novus Ordo Missae". It is not by chance that the enemies of the True Faith who are building "a Novus Ordo Seclorum" (a new world order) would establish "a Novus Ordo Missae" (a new order of the Mass) to destroy the Roman Catholic Church. Even in the original Latin form, the New Mass was bad enough, but after going to the vernacular through the International Committee on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), disaster ensued, and the questions of validity were justified. A total of 35 prayers or approximately 70% of the Tridentine Mass has been replaced or discarded.10
Ambiguous, Wishful Thinking; Binding No One
Here is what Paul VI put in the new Roman Missal on April 3, 1969: #13 "We hope that the Missal will be received by the Faithful" and #15 "We wish that these, our decrees and prescriptions, may be firm and effective."11 To impose a law the Pope must make it clear to the Church that a Law is being imposed, or that he is binding the Church to use this New Mass. He did not do so. What Paul VI did had nothing to do with the Church's indefectibility or the Pope's infallibility. Paul VI said on November 19, 1969: "This Rite (New Mass) and its related rubrics are not in themselves a dogmatic definition."12 Paul VI did not and could not change the Roman Rite of the Mass.
The People Supersede the Priest as the Indispensable Element
It is not necessary to examine all four of the Eucharistic prayers in the New Mass. However, let's look at Eucharistic Prayer #3: The following words are addressed to the Lord:
Quote: "From age to age you gather a people to yourself, in order that from East and West a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your Name."13
This phrase makes it clear that it is the people, rather than the priest, who are the indispensable element in the celebration. In the Encyclical Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII condemned the statement that "the eucharistic sacrifice" is an authentic concelebration of the priest as well as of the people present.
Biblical Prefigurement of True and False Worship
The purpose of the True Mass is the praise and adoration of Almighty God through the Sacrifice of Christ, who is the invisible priest and victim. The difference between the New Mass and the True Mass is the difference between Cain and Abel. We are told: "The Lord had respect to Abel and to his offerings. But to Cain and his offerings, He had no respect" (Gen. 4:3-5). At the beginning of human history, the two brothers set the pattern of true and false religious observance for all time. One was an immolation in expiation of sin, the other merely a friendly exchange of gifts between man and God. One was acceptable, the other was not.14 It has been said that in countries, such as Poland, the Communist Party uses their "inspectors of religion," to keep under surveillance those priests who say the True Mass, but they leave alone those who say the New Mass.15
Freemasonry Wields the Axe to the Root
"Archbishop Bugnini was a consultant in the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, and in the Sacred Congregation of Holy Rites. He was also the chairman of the Concilium which drafted the Novus Ordo Missae. Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was a freemason, initiated into the Masonic Lodge on April 23, 1963 (Masonic Register of Italy dated 1976). Monsignor Bugnini was removed from his office in the Vatican when it became public that he was a Mason. And instead of being publicly reproved, or required to renounce his Masonic membership, he was appointed Papal Nuncio to Iran."16
The president of this Concilium was Cardinal Lecaro, a man whom Cardinal Bacci called, "Luther resurrected."17 When we discuss the New Mass we must consider the authors. Whereas Paul VI was formally and juridically responsible, it was actually composed by the Concilium, which consisted of some 200 individuals, many of whom had functioned as periti ("expert theologians") during Vatican Council II.
The Concilium was helped by six Protestant 'observers' (ministers) who played a huge part in developing the New Mass. ". . . Paul VI publicly thanked them for their assistance in re-editing in a new manner liturgical texts ... so that the lex orandi (the law of prayer) conformed better with the lex credendi (the law of belief)."18 You need a new liturgy for a new religion. The New Mass is the new law of non-Catholic belief.
Attempting the Destruction of the Roman Rite
Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote:
Quote:"The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the 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."19
Tearing the Heart Out of The Roman Rite
Judging the Novus Ordo Missae (New Mass) in itself, in its official Latin form, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote to Paul VI on Sept. 25, 1969:
Quote:"The Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent."20
Of the 12 Offertory prayers in the Traditional Rite, only two are retained in the New Mass.21 And of interest is the fact that the deleted prayers are the same ones that Luther and Cranmer eliminated. Why did they eliminate them? Because, as Luther said, the "smacked of Sacrifice . . . the abomination called the offertory, and from this point on almost everything stinks of oblation."22 The Offertory and Consecration are the very heart of the True Mass.
Anything But A Sacrifice
Martin Luther said:
Quote:"The Mass is not a sacrifice ... call it Benediction, Eucharist, the Lord's Table, the Lord's Supper, Memory of the Lord or whatever you like, just so long as you do not dirty it with the name of a Sacrifice."23
16th century Protestant reformer, Thomas Cranmer said:
Quote:"The use of an altar is to make sacrifice upon; the use of a table to serve men to eat upon."24
When you line up the New Mass with the Anglican schismatic Book of Common Prayer (1549), they are almost identical; in fact, the Book of Common Prayer is more reverent than the New Mass.
The Law of Prayer Establishes the Law of Belief
Christopher Monchton informs us that in the English version of the New Mass there are over 400 mistranslations from the Latin.25
Almost 100 percent of the new Masses around the world are said in the vernacular. Just changing the Mass into vernacular is, in itself, condemned. Session 12, Canon 9 of the Council of Trent says: "If anyone says ... that the Mass should be said in vernacular only, let him be anathema."26
Constitution, "Auctorem Fidei," August 28, 1794, Pope Pius VI (1775-1799) The Suitable Order to Be Observed in Worship #33. The proposition of the Synod condemns the following in regard to the Mass:
Quote:"by recalling it (the Liturgy) to a greater simplicity of Rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice."
These changes were condemned by Pope Pius VI as "rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it."27
The New Mass is Pleasing to Protestant and Jew alike. In the Offertory of the New Mass the priest says precisely the same words as those which are used in the Jewish seder service. These are the words:
Quote:"Blessed art thou, O Lord God of all creation. For through your goodness we have this bread to offer, fruit of the earth and work of human hands it will become for us the bread of life. This wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands it will become for us our spiritual drink."28
It's frightening to think that the Offertory of the New Mass is taken word for word from the seder meal of the Jewish holiday of Passover. In the New Mass the Priest offers bread and wine; however, in the True Mass, the Priest offers the Immaculate Victim. It is a blasphemy to offer God bread and wine.
In the Novus Ordo Requiem Masses (the Mass for the Dead), the word "Soul" is not mentioned even once.29
Paul VI said on May 24, 1976:
Quote:"The New Ordo has been promulgated to replace the old after mature deliberation and in order to fulfill the Council's decisions."30
Canon 6 of the Council of Trent says:
Quote:"If anyone says that there are errors in the Canon of the Mass and that therefore it should be abrogated: let him be anathema."31
Back at the Council of Trent, in Session 22, the Council Fathers realized that the Mass was being attacked, and they basically said, "Let's make sure the Mass remains intact." After the Council, Quo Primum forever defined the liturgical morals - the Mass Liturgies, both Eastern and Roman.
Quo Primum
St. Pope Pius V said dogmatically and infallibly in Quo Primum that:
Quote:"It shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by us."
The Decree of Quo Primum was irrevocable, and Pope St. Pius V went on further to state in Quo Primum:
Quote:"This present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of Law . . . And if, nevertheless, anyone would ever dare attempt any action contrary to this Order of ours, handed down for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God, and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."32 (July 14, 1570)
Binding Peter's Successors
But, can one Pope change what another Pope has done? In pastoral matters, yes; in matters of Faith, No! When we talk about the Liturgy we are talking about the Faith. Quo Primum was not a discipline. It dealt directly with Faith and morals.
Faith and Morals
Faith: What you must believe to be saved.
Social Morals: How man behaves towards other men.
Liturgical Morals: How man behaves towards God.
Liturgy is not arbitrary or dispensable. The Liturgy is the essence of Catholic Faith.
Wrath Foretold For Those Who Destroy the Immemorial Mass
The Bull on witchcraft by Pope Innocent VIII demonstrates that Quo Primum was infallible. The Bull's language is not nearly as strong as Quo Primum, but ends with these words:
Quote:"If any man dare to go contrary to this command, which God forbid, let him know that upon him will fall the wrath of Almighty God, and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."
These are the exact words used in Quo Primum at the end.
In the introduction to the 1928 Catholic Encyclopedia it says (speaking about Innocent VIII's Bull):
Quote:"If any man shall presume to go against the tenor let him know that therein he will bring down the wrath of Almighty God and The Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."
The commentary afterwards says: "Could words weightier be found?"
Defining Truth and Binding the Faithful
The Encyclopedia goes on to say:
Quote:"Are we then to class this Bull in with the Bull Dogmatica Ineffabilis Deus where Pope Pius IX proclaimed the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception? Such a position is clearly tenable, but even if we do not insist that the Bull of Innocent VIII is an infallible utterance, that it does not in set terms define a Dogma, although it does set forth sure and certain truths, it must be held to be a document of supreme and absolute authority, of dogmatic force."
Pope Pius XI said in his apostolic constitution "Divini Cultus" on December 20, 1928, addressing the connection of the Sacred Liturgy with the Church:
Quote: "The Liturgy is an undoubtedly sacred thing; for through it we are brought to God and are joined with Him; we bear witness to our Faith . . . Hence a kind of intimate relationship between Dogma and Sacred Liturgy, and likewise between Christian worship and the sanctification of the people. Therefore, Pope Celestine I proposed and expressed a Canon of Faith in the venerated formulas of the Liturgy: "Let the Law of Supplication, (prayer) establish the Law of Believing . . ."33
Anathemas Against the New Missal
7th Session, Canon 13 of the Council of Trent: The correct Latin translation says:
Quote:"If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, customarily used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments, can be despised or can be freely omitted by the ministers without sin, or can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whomsoever, let him be anathema."34
This canon states very clearly that the Pope, who is the first and supreme pastor may never change any approved Rite of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Rite was fixed forever by Pope St. Pius V in Quo Primum. Paul VI tried to establish a whole new Roman Rite. There is only one Roman Rite of the Mass; there cannot be two.
In the Profession of Faith in the Council of Trent, the following was always professed by the priest begin ordained; he promises and vows:
Quote:"I also receive and admit the accepted and approved rites of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of all the aforesaid Sacraments."35
It is indisputable that according to the previous pronouncements of the Church that the New Mass is illegal, and therefore cannot be celebrated or attended. The issue of whether there is a valid consecration in the New Mass is another question which we will now address.
The Requirements for Validity
In the decree to the Armenians in the Council of Florence, it states the following:
Quote:"All these Sacraments are dispensed in three ways, namely, by things as the matter, by words as the form, and by the person of the minister conferring the Sacrament with the intention of doing as the Church does; if any of these is lacking the Sacrament is not fulfilled."36
Minister, Intention, Matter, and Form
The four main things necessary for a valid celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:
minister: The celebrant must be a validly ordained priest.
intention: The celebrant must have the intention of confecting the Sacrament.
matter: The elements of the Mass must be wheaten bread and grape wine, made without additives.
form: The proper form (words) of consecration must be used.
According to the Council of Trent, these requirements cannot be altered by anyone, not even the Church itself, since they were established by Christ.
Is the New Mass Valid?
Let's first cover the issue as to whether the New Mass is valid by reviewing the vernacular. In most every vernacular translation of the New Mass, the words "many" have been changed to "all" in the Consecration. This is not a minor change! It will be argued that in the New Mass the priest says, "This is My Body" which are the same words used in the Tridentine Mass and so, if we use the right words for the Consecration of the Body, "This is My Body," we have a Sacrament. They do not believe anything else is required. Those who hold to this position ignore the defects in the "form" of the New Mass (essential words needed to confect the Sacrament).
Furthermore, they ignore the fact that the words in the form of the New Mass, while themselves essential to the form of the Sacrament, do not constitute the complete form of the Sacrament. Others will argue that both consecrations are not imperative to have a valid Sacrament. This is also contrary to the teaching of the Church. The proper intention necessary is an intention to confect not one, but both Sacraments. This is essential for a valid celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Both Consecrations are Necessary for a Valid Mass
St. Thomas Aquinas says:
Quote:"As often as the Sacrifice is offered, the consecration of both species is required, according to the will and institution of Christ. For Christ at the Last Supper, consecrating each (both) species, commanded: 'Do this in commemoration of me' . . . the very notion of sacrifice . . . demands the consecration of both species.37
De Defectibus
De Defectibus is a long document written by Pope St. Pius V which discusses certain defects which could arise in the celebration of Mass. It is largely a point of reference so the celebration of Mass would remain the same in all lands for all times. Defects were described in detail so that priests would always say Mass in the same manner.
Quo Primum and De Defectibus emanated from the Council of Trent. Both of these documents were found in the front of all Altar Missals as an easy reference for priest offering the Holy Mass. Quo Primum and De Defectibus were first included in the Missale Romanum in 1572. They were deleted from the ICEL (Committee on English in the Liturgy) version in 1969.
De Defectibus Chapter X, Part 3, prescribes that a Mass interrupted after the Consecration of the Host (because of illness or death of the celebrant) must be continued by another priest, i.e., that the wine must be consecrated to complete and effect the Sacrifice.
In the 1917 Code, Canon 817 states:
Quote:"It is unlawful even in the case of necessity, to consecrate one species without the other, or to consecrate both outside the Mass."
The complete form or words of Consecration needed for a valid Sacrament were clearly stated in the Council of Florence.
The Council of Florence, in 1442, declared that the following words must be used for a valid Consecration in the Mass:
Quote:"Wherefore the words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: 'For this is My Body: For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins."38
Various Mass Rites: "For Many" or "For All"
". . . The Church hast traditionally recognized as valid -- some 76 different rites in various languages, many of which date back to Apostolic times, not one however, has ever used "all" in the form for the Consecration of the Wine."39
Even the Anglican Common Prayer Book of 1549 didn't change the word "many to "all" in the consecration and it was still declared by Pope Leo XIII to be invalid.
Little Words and Letters Can Mean a Lot
Some people may say that discarding or changing a word or words in the Mass isn't a big deal. Church history has proven that little words, even little letters, can mean a lot.
The combats sustained by the Nicean Fathers against the Arians over the definition of the dogma of the Incarnation are witness to the uncompromising zeal for stating the truth without shade of alteration, gloss, or ambiguity which the faith demand in a time of crisis. Major differences could have been settled at that time by the addition of one single letter. The problematic homoousios denoting "consubstantial" needed only have been softened to homoiousios denoting "similar in nature."40
Jesus Christ, The Word of God has Spoken
Luke 16:17: "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the Law to fall."
Matthew 5:18: "For Amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth shall pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the Law, till all be fulfilled."
Our Lord Jesus Christ did not use the word "all" in the upper room in Matthew 26:26. He used the word "many." God help the New Order priest who uses the words which are different from the words that Jesus Christ used.
Perpetual Teaching of the Universal Church
The Church has always taught that the word "all", for very specific reasons, is purposely not used in the Consecration!
St. Alphonsus tells us:
Quote:"The words pro vobis et pro multis (for you and for many) are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the blood of Our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men but its fruits are applied only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault."41
Or, as the theologians say, this Precious Blood is sufficient to save all men, but in reality it does not save all -- it saves only those who cooperate with Grace.
The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is not a Sacrament for all men; it is a Sacrament for you and for many.
The Catechism by Decree of The Holy Council of Trent teaches that the additional words:
Quote:"for you and for many, are taken, some from St. Matthew, some from St. Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God . . . With reason, therefore, were the words 'for all' not used, as in this place the fruits of the passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation."42
St. Thomas Aquinas expressed the same opinion in the Summa, III, Q78, Art. 4, Reply to Objection 8. Pope Benedict XIV also expressed this opinion in De Missae Sacrificio.
Doubtful Consecration; Must Not Participate
Just for the reason that there is a doubtful Consecration in the New Mass, Catholics are obliged to abstain from any participation in such rites. Fr. Jone's Moral Theology, Chapter under the Efficacy of the Sacraments Part IV #2, states under examples:
Quote:"To administer or receive a Sacrament invalidly is a much greater sin than to administer or receive it unfruitfully."43
Pope Innocent XI, in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679, condemned the idea that a person could follow a probable opinion regarding the value of a sacrament and abandon the safer course.44 Pope Innocent XI condemned this thinking not once, but twice!
Pope Innocent XI
Errors of Michael of Molinos (Condemned in the decree of the Sacred Office, August 28, 1687, and in the Constitutions "Coelestis Pastor," Nov. 20, 1687)45
Quote:11. It is not necessary to reflect upon doubts whether one is proceeding rightly or not." (Condemned)46
"Condemned as heretical, suspect, erroneous, scandalous, blasphemous, offensive to pious ears, rash, or relaxed Christian discipline, subversive, and seditious respectively."47
Fr. Henry Davis says in his Moral and Pastoral Theology Vol. 2 p. 27:
Quote:"In conferring the Sacrament, as also in the Consecration in the Mass, it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course. The contrary was explicitly condemned by Pope Innocent XI (1676-1689); to do so would be a grievous sin against religion, namely an act of irreverence towards what Christ Our Lord has instituted."48
"It would be a grievous sin against Charity, as the recipient would probably be deprived of the graces and effects of the Sacrament. It would be a grievous sin against Justice, as the recipient has a right to valid Sacraments. Matter and form must be certainly valid. Hence, one may not follow a probable opinion and use either doubtful matter or form. Acting otherwise, one commits a sacrilege."49
That is one reason why the New Mass is a sacrilege.
Sacrilege By Which He is Offended
The New Mass is a sacrilege because it is a deliberate counterfeit of the established Mass of the Roman Rite. The True Mass was given a definite and unchangeable form by St. Pope Pius V so sacrilege could be avoided and condemned.
St. Thomas Aquinas describes a sacrilege:
Quote:"In a sacrilege, we find a special type of deformation, namely the violation of a sacred thing by treating it with irreverence." (Summa. II Q. 99, Art. 2)
What Part Does Truth Have With Error?
If the Novus Ordo Missae is not Catholic, then it cannot satisfy one's Sunday obligation, and would be a grievous sin to attend. St. Thomas Aquinas said:
Quote: "Falsehood in outward worship occurs on the part of the worshipper, and especially, in common worship which is offered by minister 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 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 the ecclesiastical custom. Hence, St. Ambrose says: "He is unworthy who celebrates the mystery otherwise than as Christ delivered it."50
Pope Innocent III, one of the greatest jurists, said:
Quote:"No one may depart from the universal customs of the Church."51
Saint Pope Pius X said in Pascendi Dominic Gregis:
Quote:"For Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the Second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those who dare, after the impious novelties of some kind or to endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow anyone of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church."
The English Martyrs' Blood Testifies Against the New Mass
The New Mass is strikingly similar to the service instituted by Cranmer (the liturgist of Henry VIII) following the Protestant Reformation. Pope St. Pius V told Catholics, at that time, that they were forbidden to attend such services. In fact, many went to their death rather than go to the churches where Cranmer's form of prayer was being said. If true Catholics went to their death rather than attend a mass such as the Novus Ordo, the response of the faithful today must be the same.
A New Liturgy For A New Religion
You need a new liturgy for a new religion. Just because the original Novus Ordo Missae had a few similarities to the True Mass, that doesn't make it Catholic. Consider the following description of the early Lutheran service, as given by the great Jesuit scholar, Hartmann Grisar:
Quote:"One who entered the parish church at Wittenburg after Luther's 'victory' discovered that the same vestments were used for divine service as before, and heard the same old Latin hymns. The host was elevated and exhibited at the consecration. In the eyes of the people it was the same Mass as before, despite the fact that Luther omitted all the prayers which represented the sacred function of the Sacrifice. The people were intentionally kept in the dark on this point. 'We cannot draw the common people away from the Sacrament, and it will probably be thus until the Gospel is well understood,' said Luther. 'The rite of celebration of the Mass,' he explained, is a 'purely external thing,' and he said further that 'the damnable words referring to the Sacrifice could be omitted all the more readily, since the ordinary Christian would not notice the omission and hence there was no danger of scandal.'"52
The Morality of the New Mass
The Council of Trent, Canons on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 3 says:
Quote:"If anyone says that the Sacrifice of the Mass is merely an offering of praise and thanksgiving, or that it is a simple memorial of the Sacrifice offered on the Cross, and that it should not be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfaction, and other necessities: let him be anathema."53
The New Mass is only an offering of praise and thanksgiving. At the New Mass anything can and does go. If the only church in town happened to be a protestant church, a Catholic surely could not attend services there. The same principle applies to the New Mass. Since it is not a Catholic Mass, a Catholic has no business being there. In fact, in most churches the New Mass would not even qualify to be a Protestant service. Many New Masses have laughing, joking, clapping, singing, dancing, hugging, kissing, flutes, guitars, charismatics calling up spirits, homosexual priests, Eucharistic ministers, communion in the hand, immodest dress, no dresses, no head coverings, no reverence, etc...
As the Antichrist will be so evil because he will claim to be the Real Jesus and will not be, so the New Mass is evil because it claims to be the Real Mass and is not. The New Mass is a deliberate counterfeit of the True Mass, and a non-Catholic service. It is very clear that according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church it would be a grievous sin to attend the New Mass. This is why the New Mass is deadly.
Notes
1. St. Leonard, The Hidden Treasure , p. 157
2. Rev. T. E. Bridgett, The Life of Blessed John Fisher (London: Burns & Oates, 1888). Bishop St. John Fisher was martyred, along with St. Thomas More, by Henry VIII in 1535.
3. St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Dignities and Duties Of The Priest (London: Benzinger Bros., 1889), p. 212.
4. Octava Controversia Generalis. Liber Ii. Controversia Quinta. Caput XXXI.
5. Fr. Paul Trinchard, Holy Mass, Holy Mary (MAETA: P.O. Box 6012, Metairie, LA, 1997), p. 41.
6. St. Leonard, The Hidden Treasure , p. 157
7. Fr. Paul Trinchard, Holy Mass, Holy Mary (MAETA: P.O. Box 6012, Metairie, LA, 1997), p. 4,5.
8. Dr. Rara Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, p. 11.
9. Ibid, p. 9.
10. Fr. Paul Trinchard, New Mass in Light of the Old (MAETA: P.O. Box 6012, Metairie, LA, 1995), p. 20.
11. Fr. James Wathen, The Great Sacrilege, p. 178, 179.
12. Fr. Paul Trinchard, Novus Ordo Condemned (MAETA: P.O. Box 6012, Metairie, LA, 1997), p. 34.
13. Comment of Fr. Joseph Jungmann, the Mass: An Historical, Theological And Pastoral Survey (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1976), p. 201.
14. Solange Hertz, On the Contrary (Veritas Press, Box 1704, Santa Monica, CA), p. 50.
15. Most Asked Questions About The Society Of Saint Pius X (Angelus Press, 2918 Tracy Ave., Kansas City, MO), p. 26.
16. Fr. James Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?, p. 178, 179.
17. La Tunica Stracciata by Tito Casini, Rome 1967 / Fr. Paul Leonard, A Theological Vindication Of Roman Catholic Traditionalism (Angelus Press, 2918 Tracy Ave., Kansas City, MO), p. 43.
18. Dr. Rara Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass , p. 24.
19. Latin Mass Magazine, Winter, 1995 / Christian Order, Oct. 1994.
20. Most Asked Questions About The Society Of Saint Pius X (Angelus Press, 2918 Tracy Ave., Kansas City, MO), p. 26.
21. Msgr. Frederick McManus, The Revival of the Liturgy, p. 217.
22. Dr. Rara Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass , p. 34.
23. Ibid., p. 29.
24. The Works of Thomas Cranmer (London: Parker Society), V. 2, p. 524.
25. Faith, Nov 1979.
26. Denzinger 956.
27. Denzinger 1533.
28. Fr. Donald Sanborn, Changes of Vatican II, Part IV (Catholic Restoration Bookstore, 2850 Parent, Warren, MI).
29. Fr. Anthony Cekada, "A Response", The Roman Catholic, Jan. 1987.
30. Fr. James Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?, p. 523.
31. Denzinger 953.
32. Fr. James Wathen, The Great Sacrilege, p. 173-175.
33. Denzinger 2200.
34. Denzinger 856.
35. Denzinger 996.
36. Denzinger 695.
37. De Eucharistia, Noldin-Schmitt, S. J., in "Summa Theologiae Moralis," III Innsbruck, 1940.
38. Denzinger 715.
39. Dr. Rara Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass , p. 55.
40. Solange Hertz, On the Contrary (Veritas Press, Box 1704, Santa Monica, CA), p. 75.
41. St. Alphonsus, Treatise On The Holy Eucharist
42. Patrick Henry Omlor, Questioning The Validity Of The Masses Using The New, All-English Canon (Athanasius Press; Reno, NV), p. 59.
43. Fr. Heribet Jone, Moral Theology (The Neumann Press, Westminster, MD, 1952), p. 311.
44. Denzinger 1151.
45. Denzinger p. 331.
46. Denzinger 1231.
47. Denzinger 1288.
48. Fr. Henry Davis, S. J., Moral And Pastoral Theology (London: Sheed And Ward, 1936), V. 2, p. 27.
49. Fr. Heribet Jone, Moral Theology (The Neumann Press, Westminster, MD, 1952), p. 323.
50. Dr. Rara Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass , p. 86.
51. Innocent III, de Consuetudine Theol. II-II, 104-105.
52. Dr. Rara Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass , p. 18.
53. Denzinger 950.
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
|
| April 18th - Blessed Mary of the Incarnation and St. Apollonius |
|
Posted by: Elizabeth - 03-09-2021, 11:05 PM - Forum: April
- Replies (1)
|
 |
Blessed Mary of the Incarnation
Carmelite
(1565-1618)
Blessed Mary of the Incarnation was born in Paris in February 1565; both of her parents were members of the most ancient families of that great city. Before she was born, several other children had seen the light of day, but all died in their infancy. During the time her mother awaited this child, she vowed her to the Blessed Virgin and Saint Claude, promising to clothe her in white until the age of seven and to offer her in a church of the Blessed Virgin. She was born a very healthy babe, and baptized with the name of Barbara, on the day after the Purification of Our Lady. She was of a gentle temperament and an angelic modesty, and at the age of eleven was placed as a intern student in a religious house of the Order of Saint Clare near Paris, where she had a maternal aunt. She continually advanced in virtue and felt great distaste for all the things of this world, along with an insatiable ardor for those of heaven.
When she returned home at the age of fourteen, she wished to enter a religious Order for the care of the sick in Paris, but her parents opposed this plan. Her mother informed her she would never permit her to become a nun. The young girl believed God was speaking to her through her mother and obeyed.
Several offers of marriage were presented, and before her eighteenth birthday she married Pierre Acarie de Villemor, a man of great nobility, piety and charity. Six children were born to them, and their pious mother raised them with great care. She taught them never to complain of circumstances or persons, inspired in them horror for lying, and strove to make them recognize in their hearts any sentiments of vainglory. Her three daughters became Carmelites, and her three sons entered, in turn, the magistracy, the priesthood and the military career.
When her husband encountered difficulties of a political nature, his household was seized, and the very furniture where the family was seated at table was removed from beneath them. She accepted these circumstances without growing troubled, and in fact defended her husband in court, drafting memoirs, writing letters and furnishing proofs of his innocence. He was acquitted and enabled to return to the city after three years.
Blessed Mary was so sage in her almsgiving that during a famine the wealthy persons who desired to help the poor caused their alms to pass through her hands, and this holy woman was universally honored. She entered into the spirit of the current reforms of the religious Orders and the foundation of new Congregations which were reviving the spirit of piety in France. Through her efforts she merited the title of Foundress of the Carmelites in France. Six nuns from Spain brought the spirit of Saint Teresa with them, and soon the principal cities of France had a house of this Order. Blessed Mary of the Incarnation also contributed to the works of the first Ursulines in Paris for the education of youth, and to the establishment of the Oratorians of Italy in France.
Her worthy spouse died in 1613; she then requested admission to the Carmelite Order herself. She arrived saying, I am a poor mendicant who begs of you the divine mercy, and that I may cast myself into the arms of religion. At Amiens where she dwelt, her own daughter was Superior; and a perpetual contest in humility began, observed by all. She died in 1618, on Wednesday of Easter week, at the age of fifty-two years, loved and praised by all who had known her. She was beatified by Pope Pius VI; her mortal remains are in the chapel of the Carmelites of Pontoise.
Saint Apollonius
Martyr
(† 186)
The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius had persecuted the Christians, but his son Commodus, who in 180 succeeded to the throne, was favorable to them, out of regard to his Empress Marcia, an admirer of the Faith. During this calm the number of the faithful greatly increased, and many persons of first rank, among them Apollonius, a Roman senator, enlisted themselves under the banner of the cross. He was already very well versed both in philosophy and Holy Scripture, as we learn from Saint Jerome, who had read and admired his discourse in the Senate of Rome on behalf of the Christian religion. The loss of this document is much regretted.
In the midst of the peace which the Church enjoyed, Saint Apollonius was publicly accused of Christianity by one of his own slaves. What followed evokes our surprise. Marcus Aurelius, during his reign, had published an edict ordering that the accusers of Christians be put to death, but he had done so without repealing the former laws against convicted Christians. Thus the slave was immediately condemned to have his legs broken and be put to death; but immediately afterwards, to ascertain whether the accusation was true, the same judge sent an order to Saint Apollonius to renounce his religion if he valued his life and fortune. The Saint courageously rejected such ignominious terms of safety, whereupon the judge referred him to the Roman senate, to give an account of his faith to that body, very hostile to Christians. Persisting in his refusal to comply with the condition, Saint Apollonius was condemned by their decree and beheaded.
|
|
|
|
| Visions of Hell of St. Frances of Rome |
|
Posted by: Elizabeth - 03-09-2021, 10:57 PM - Forum: The Saints
- Replies (11)
|
|
I will be attaching the PDF of the book on the last post.
St. Frances of Rome’s Visions of Hell
TAKEN FROM THE FRENCH BOOK: THE DEVIL IN THE LIVES OF THE SAINTS
Translated December 2019
APPROBATION
Being a part of the Choice of Ascetic Readings published by Mr. Thibaud-Landriot and Co., we had one of our grand vicars examine the book entitled “Vie de Sainte Françoise Romaine” (The Life of St. Frances of Rome). According to the report that has been made to us, we willingly give our approval of the book, and we strongly recommend reading it.
In Clermont, on January 22nd, 1841.
L.C., Bishop of Clermont
By Monsignor:
Boucard, Chan., Secretary-General
All formalities prescribed by law have been fulfilled by the undersigned Publisher-Owners.
Thibaud-Landriot and Co.
Index
Part One
15th century
Chapter I
Diabolic Persecution
Against Saint Frances of Rome
Brought corpse. – On burning coals. - In the ashes. – Satanic perfidy. – Infernal group. - Blessed candles. - Hungarian delivered.
Chapter II
Visions of Saint Frances of Rome. - Entrance to hell. - The divisions of the fallen angels.
Chapter III
The tactics of temptation. - Immediately after death. - The name of Jesus.
Chapter IV
Limbo.
Chapter V
Lucifer's judgment. - The general torments of hell. - The blasphemies of the damned.
Chapter VI
The torments for each sin and for each kind of damnation
Laziness.
Gluttony.
Dancers.
Vanity.
Married Women.
Vicious Widows.
Impure Thoughts.
The Incest.
Sodomites.
Procuring Parents.
Religious Who are Unfaithful to the Vow of Chastity.
Ungrateful Children.
Envy.
Haters.
Anger.
Homicides.
Avarice.
Usurers.
Gamblers.
The Prideful.
Blasphemers.
Traitors.
Falsifying Wine Merchants.
Fraudulent Butchers.
Doctors without a conscience.
Dishonest pharmacists.
Bribable Judges.
Liars and False Witnesses.
Slanderers.
Bad Preachers.
Unworthy Confessors.
Sovereign Pontiffs.
Magicians.
Renegades and Apostates.
The Excommunicated.
|
|
|
|
| Gov Hutchinson signs new Arkansas anti-abortion bill |
|
Posted by: Deus Vult - 03-09-2021, 08:27 PM - Forum: Abortion
- No Replies
|
 |
Gov. Hutchinson signs new Arkansas anti-abortion bill
Around Arkansas
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – Gov. Asa Hutchinson has released a statement announcing his intention to sign Senate Bill 6, which would ban abortion in Arkansas except to save the life of the mother.
The measure, titled “Arkansas Unborn Child Protection Act,” was introduced by Senator Jason Rapert and Senator Mary Bently.
Hutchinson noted the bill does not include exceptions for rape or incest, which contradicts current precedents set by the Supreme Court.
The governor said that he would have wanted to see those exceptions in the bill but believes it is the “intent of the legislation to set the stage for the Supreme Court overturning current case law.”
“SB6 is a pro-life bill that prohibits abortion in all cases except to save the life of the mother in a medical emergency. It does not include exceptions for rape and incest.
Quote:“I will sign SB6 because of overwhelming legislative support and my sincere and long-held pro-life convictions. SB6 is in contradiction of binding precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court, but it is the intent of the legislation to set the stage for the Supreme Court overturning current case law. I would have preferred the legislation to include the exceptions for rape and incest, which has been my consistent view, and such exceptions would increase the chances for a review by the U.S. Supreme Court.”
The bill passed with overwhelming majorities in the Arkansas legislature, going through the Senate on a 27 to 7 vote with 1 “present” vote, and through the House 76 to 19, with 4 representatives abstaining and a single “present” vote.
|
|
|
|
| The Eucharistic Meditations of the Cure d'Ars (St. John Mary Vianney) |
|
Posted by: Hildegard of Bingen - 03-09-2021, 05:14 PM - Forum: The Saints
- Replies (16)
|
 |
THE EUCHARISTIC MEDITATIONS OF THE CURÉ D’ARS
The “Eucharistic Meditations of the Curé d’Ars”
– St John Baptist Mary Vianney – was first published in
English by Carmelite Publications in 1961, following the centenary celebrations of the saint’s death in 1959.
© Carmelite Publications 1961.
In the Foreword for the original edition we find the following words, equally applicable and apt for today, for the post-Vatican II Church, indeed even more significant:
“His discourses on the Most Blessed Sacrament can truly be said to be the most expressive of him and of his love for God . . . From them we can learn the most precious lessons of Eucharistic devotion. For these reasons we hope thatthis little book of Eucharistic meditations may have the effect of enkindling in many hearts something of the saint’s
own love for our Eucharistic Lord.”
THE CURÉ D’ARS: John Baptist Mary Vianney was born in Dardilly in France in 1786. He was ordained priest in 1815 and appointed cure of Ars – a village near Lyons – in 1818. He completely immersed himself in the work of his parish but soon gained a reputation right across Europe as a confessor and spiritual guide. He also the gift of healing and
of hidden knowledge but he was also tormented in life by evil spirits. He gave all he had to the poor and needy and went about in ragged clothes, eat poorly, and slept little. In the twelve months before he died in 1859 he was visited by over one hundred thousand people. He was canonized in 1925 and declared Patron of Parish Clergy in 1929.
MEDITATION 1: JESUS CHRIST IS PRESENT IN THE EUCHARIST
At the moment when the Mother of St. Alexis recognised her son in the dead body of thebeggar, who had lived for thirty years under the stairs in her palace, she exclaimed:
“O my son! too late have I known thee!” The soul leaving this life will see at last Him, whom it
possessed in the Eucharist, and at the sight of the consolations, beauties and riches that she had
ignored, she will likewise cry out:
“O Jesus! O my Life! O my Treasure!
O my Love! too late have I known Thee!”
Divine Saviour, while I meditate on the proofs of your presence under the sacramental veils,
enlighten my mind, influence my heart, inspire me with the lively, ardent faith, which is already a
vision of your eternal beauty.
Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist with His Body and Blood, His Soul and Divinity. Do
you wish for proofs clear and convincing?
1. OUR LORD HAS SAID IT.
The evening of the Last Supper, He took bread, blessed it, broke it and gave it to the Apostles,
and said: “Take and eat. This is My Body.” Then He took the chalice containing wine, and said:
“Drink ye all of this. This is My Blood. Do this in memory of Me.”
“This is My Body” - then it is no longer bread. “This is My Blood” - then it is no longer wine.
Jesus Christ has said it. I believe because He is the Truth, who does not deceive, the Power that all
things obey.
But why reason, O my soul? Believe and adore. Believe that Jesus Christ is in this sacrament as
truly as He was nine months in the womb of Mary, as really as He was nailed to the Cross. Adore
in humility and gratitude.
2. IT IS A FACT THAT IS IN ACCORD WITH REASON.
Our Lord has said: “All that you ask the Father in My Name He will give it to you.” Never
would we have thought of asking God to give us His own Son. But what man could not have even
imagined, God has done. What man could not say or think, and what he could not have dared to
desire, God, in His love has said it, planned it and carried His design into execution.
Would we have dared to ask God to deliver His Son to death for us: to give us His Flesh to eat
and His Blood to drink? If all this is not true, then man has been able to imagine things greater
than God can do. He would have gone further than God in the inventions of love. This is not
possible. In other words, what man could not even conceive, God has executed.
If the Eucharist, mystery of an infinite love, was an invention of the human spirit we would
have a greater idea of the love of God for men than that which God has realized.
But God does not let Himself be outdone in love, and we are compelled to say with St.
Ambrose, who applies to the Eucharist the words of St. Paul, “Eye hath not seen nor ear heard,
neither hath it entered into the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love Him.”
May He be blessed forever.
3. IT IS A FACT MADE EVIDENT BY A KIND OF INTUITION.
There is no room for doubting that Our Lord is in the Holy Eucharist. One knows well that
He is there. One feels it.
In receiving Holy Communion one feels something extraordinary, a sense of well-being which
pervades his whole body. What is this sense of well-being? It is Our Lord who communicates
Himself to all parts of our bodies, and makes them thrill with joy. We are compelled to cry out
with St. John: “It is the Lord.”
O Jesus, without wishing to aspire after the favours granted to your saints, give me, I pray, the
proof of your presence in Holy Communion by the unction of your grace, by the spiritual joy and
generous enthusiasm in the practice of virtue.
4. IT IS A FACT ATTESTED BY HISTORY.
A priest was saying Mass in a church of Bolsene and after pronouncing the words of
Consecration doubted the Host. At that instant the Sacred Host was quite covered with Blood.
Jesus Christ seemed to wish to reproach His minister for his infidelity, and to make him ashamed,
and at the same time to show us by this great miracle how convinced we ought to be of His holy
Presence in the Eucharist. This holy Host poured forth blood in such abundance that the corporal,
altar cloth and even the altar itself were covered. The Pope, who was informed of the miracle,
ordered that the corporal all saturated with blood should be brought to him. When it reached the
town of Orvieto it was received with the greatest ceremony, and exposed in the church. Each year,
this precious relic is carried in procession on Corpus Christi.
ANOTHER PROOF, THIS TIME PERSONAL.
“Do you believe that a piece of bread could detach itself and go on its own and place itself on
the tongue of one who was coming to receive it?” I asked this one day of two Protestant ministers
who did not believe in the Real Presence of Our Lord. “No.” Then it is not bread. Here is a story of
which I myself am a witness. A man had temptations against faith in the Real Presence. How does
one know it? It is not certain. The Consecration, what is it? What happens on the altar at that
moment? But he wished to be delivered from these temptations, and he prayed to the Blessed
Virgin to obtain for him a faith simple and peaceful. Listen now. I do not say that this happened
somewhere. I say that it happened to me. At the moment when this man came to receive
Communion, the Sacred Host left my fingers while I was yet a good distance away. It went of Itself
and placed Itself on the tongue of this man.
See how that ought to strengthen our faith! But, my God, what need have we of proofs after
the words of Jesus Christ Himself.
5. HOW DOES OUR LORD DWELL IN THE EUCHARIST?
In an invisible manner, hidden under the species of bread. He accommodates Himself to our
weakness. In heaven, when we will be triumphant and glorious, we shall see Him in His glory. If He
showed Himself now before us with this glory, we would not dare to approach Him, but He hides
Himself as someone in prison and says to us: You do not see Me, but this does not matter: ask Me
all that you wish, I will give it to you.
Oh! if we had the faith . . . if we were really persuaded of the Real Presence of Him who thus
hides Himself out of love, and who is there, His hands full of graces, longing to distribute them,
with what reverence we would come before Him, with what confidence we should invoke Him.
|
|
|
|
| Little Chaplet of the Five Wounds of Jesus Crucified - Devotion to the Passion by St. Alphonsus |
|
Posted by: Hildegard of Bingen - 03-09-2021, 01:24 PM - Forum: In Honor of Our Lord
- No Replies
|
|
DEVOTION TO THE PASSION
Little Chaplet of the Five Wounds of Jesus Crucified.
(Taken from St. Alphonsus’ Prayer-Book – pages 454-456)
O my Lord Jesus Christ, I adore the Wound in Thy left Foot. I thank Thee for having suffered it for me with so much sorrow and with so much love. I compassionate Thy pain, and that of Thine afflicted Mother. And, by the merit of this sacred Wound, I pray Thee to grant me the pardon of my sins, of which I repent with all my heart, because they have offended Thine infinite goodness. O sorrowing Mary, pray to Jesus for me.
“Our Father”, “Hail Mary,” “Glory be,” etc.
O my Lord Jesus Christ, I adore the Wound in Thy right Foot. I thank Thee for having suffered it for me with so much sorrow and with so much love. I compassionate Thy pain, and that of Thine afflicted Mother. And, by the merit of this sacred Wound, I pray Thee to give me the strength not to fall into mortal sin for the future, but to persevere in Thy grace unto my death. O sorrowing Mary, pray to Jesus for me.
“Our Father”, “Hail Mary,” “Glory be,” etc.
O my Lord Jesus Christ, I adore the Wound in Thy left Hand. I thank Thee for having suffered it for me with so much sorrow and with so much love. I compassionate Thy pain, and that of Thine afflicted Mother. And, by the merit of this sacred Wound, I pray Thee to deliver me from hell, which I have so often deserved, and where I could never love Thee more. O sorrowing Mary, pray to Jesus for me.
“Our Father”, “Hail Mary,” “Glory be,” etc.
O my Lord Jesus Christ, I adore the Wound in Thy right Hand. I thank Thee for having suffered it for me with so much sorrow and with so much love. I compassionate Thy pain, and that of Thy most afflicted Mother. And, by the merit of this sacred Wound, I pray Thee to give me the glory of paradise, where I shall love Thee perfectly, and with all my strength. O sorrowing Mary, pray to Jesus for me.
“Our Father”, “Hail Mary,” “Glory be,” etc.
O my Lord Jesus Christ, I adore the Wound in Thy Side. I thank Thee for having willed, even Thy Side. I thank Thee for having willed, even after Thy death, to suffer this additional injury, without pain indeed; yet with consummate love. I compassionate Thine afflicted Mother, who alone felt all its pain. And, by the merit of this sacred Wound, I pray Thee to bestow upon me the gift of holy love for Thee, that so I may ever love Thee in this life, and, in the other, face to face to all eternity in paradise. O sorrowing Mary, pray for me.
“Our Father”, “Hail Mary,” “Glory be,” etc.
Eternal Father, I offer Thee the precious Blood, the Passion and the Death of Jesus Christ, the sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of St. Joseph, in expiation of my sins, for the deliverance of the souls in purgatory, for the needs of our holy mother the Church, and for the conversion of sinners.
In the following pdf document, you will find all the prayers "Devotion to the Passion" by St. Alphonsus Liguori from his Prayer Book.
Devotion to the Passion - Prayers to Jesus Christ.pdf (Size: 892.3 KB / Downloads: 0)
|
|
|
|
| The Satanic Temple sues Texas: Interference with Their Abortion Rituals |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-09-2021, 12:33 PM - Forum: Abortion
- No Replies
|
|
The Satanic Temple sues Texas for regulations that ‘interfere’ with their abortion ‘destruction ritual’
According to The Satanic Temple, regulations such as waiting periods interfere with a ritual that ‘sanctifies the abortion process’
March 9, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The Satanic Temple has sued the State of Texas, complaining that its abortion regulations, such as its sonogram-viewing requirement, interfere with the Temple’s “religious” abortion ritual and therefore violate their “religious liberty.”
A Satanic Temple attorney for plaintiff “Ann Doe” argued that “It is a substantial interference per se for the state to place a regulatory hurdle – one that costs money – in front of a religious exercise. The state might as well tax and regulate Mass."
The lawsuit echoes The Satanic Temple’s (TST) official belief that first trimester satanic ritual abortions are “exempt” from “unnecessary regulations” such as mandatory waiting periods and required reading materials.
TST’s information sheet on “Satanic Abortion Rituals” further explains their public stance on why they consider regulations to be a hindrance to a ritual that they have claimed “sanctifies the abortion process by instilling confidence and protecting bodily rights.”
Quote:“The Satanic Abortion ritual is a destruction ritual that serves as a protective rite. Its purpose is to case off notions of shame, guilt, and mental discomfort that a patient may be experiencing due to choosing to have a legal and medically safe abortion,” the document states.
“Even the most confident and unapologetic individual can experience uncomfortable feelings and anxiety for choosing to terminate their pregnancy. Laws in many states that impose waiting periods and state-mandated counseling can exacerbate these feelings, as can social condemnation and outright harassment by those who oppose abortion,” TST continues.
Texas abortion law requires that prior to obtaining an abortion, which is legal in Texas before the 20-week milestone, a woman must “must undergo ultrasound, be shown the image [of the unborn child], and have the image described to her,” and wait at least 24 hours after the ultrasound before obtaining an abortion.
The law also mandates the provision of materials that include a “comprehensive list of adoption agencies” and “realistic” color pictures showing the development of the unborn child “at two-week gestational increments.”
The TST abortion ritual involves the recitation of a so-called “personal affirmation”, which reads: “By my body, my blood, by my will it is done.”
Ritual participants are also to recite the TST tenets “One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s will alone,” and “beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.”
Naturally, no mention is made in TST writings of the unique human DNA and separate bodies of unborn children.
While perhaps most of the publicity surrounding The Satanic Temple has focused on its high profile black masses and its Baphomet statue outside the Arkansas capitol building, one of TST’s central campaigns is its defense of ritual abortions and their freedom from regulations.
Their website provides a letter that “lays out a claim for a religious exemption” to state abortion restriction laws, and also declares their commitment to “challenge states that fail to enforce their Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) laws.”
The Satanic Temple, which was founded in 2013 and recognized as a “church” by the IRS in 2019, began as a political organization aiming to reduce the presence of religion in the public sphere. In 2017, after Donald Trump signed a “religious freedom” executive order, TST’s co-founder Lucien Greaves declared in a newsletter that TST “must re-evaluate its prior principled refusal to accept religious tax-exemption.”
“It appears that now is a time in which a more principled stand is to meet our opponent on equal footing, so as to balance, as best we can, what has been a frighteningly asymmetrical battle. As ‘the religious’ are increasingly gaining ground as a privileged class, we must ensure that this privilege is available to all, and that superstition doesn’t gain exclusive rights over non-theistic religions or non-belief,” Greaves continued.
Since then, they have claimed that their “deeply held beliefs,” “narrative structure,” and use of symbols and practices make them a church.
TST sued the State of Missouri in 2015 and again in 2019 for similar abortion regulations. In these cases, they objected to Missouri’s “informed consent” law, which mandated a 72-hour waiting period as well as the presentation of information about abortion’s medical risks and the humanity of the preborn child. This information included a definitive statement that “the life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.”
The Satanists argued that these regulations violated the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), claiming that the informed consent materials communicated “religious opinion.”
“The question of when life begins is absolutely a religious opinion, and the state has no business proselytizing religious beliefs,” TST stated.
While TST vehemently opposes viewing sonograms of unborn children or reading information sheets that affirm the biological reality of an unborn child’s humanity, it states in its abortion ritual info sheet that, “Before performing the ritual, you may choose to review the safety, the debunked claims, and the scientific reality regarding abortion.”
In 2015, then-Attorney General Chris Koster noted that the Temple could not “cite a single opinion from any state or federal court holding that a state’s expression of a value judgment about abortion constitutes an establishment of religion.”
|
|
|
|
| Practice of Christian Mortification |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-09-2021, 12:11 PM - Forum: Lenten Devotions
- Replies (1)
|
|
Practice of Christian Mortification
N.B.: All the practices of mortification which we have collected here are derived from the examples of the saints, especially Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Teresa, Saint Francis de Sales, Saint John Berchmans; or they are recommended by acknowledged masters of the spiritual life, such as the Venerable Louis de Blois, Rodriguez, Scaramelli, Msgr Gay, Abbé Allemand, Abbé Hamon, Abbé Dubois, etc…
Mortification of the body
1 — In the matter of food, restrict yourself as far as possible to simple necessity. Consider these words which Saint Augustine addressed to God: “O my God, Thou hast taught me to take food only as a remedy. Ah! Lord, who is there among us who does not sometimes exceed the limit here? If there is such a one, I say that man is great, and must give great glory to Thy name.” (Confessions, book X, ch. 31)
2— Pray to God often, pray to God daily to help you by His grace so that you do not overstep the limits of necessity and do not permit yourself to give way to pleasure.
3— Take nothing between meals, unless out of necessity or for the sake of convenience.
4— Practise fasting and abstinence, but practise them only under obedience and with discretion.
5— It is not forbidden for you to enjoy some bodily satisfaction, but do so with a pure intention, giving thanks to God.
6— Regulate your sleep, avoiding in this all faint-heartedness, all softness, especially in the morning. Set an hour, if you can, for going to bed and getting up, and keep strictly to it.
7— In general, take your rest only in so far as it is necessary; give yourself generously to work, not sparing your labour. Take care not to exhaust your body, but guard against indulging it; as soon as you feel it even a little disposed to play the master, treat it at once as a slave.
8— If you suffer some slight indisposition, avoid being a nuisance to others through your bad mood; leave to your companions the task of complaining for you; for yourself, be patient and silent as the Divine Lamb who has truly borne all our weaknesses.
9— Guard against making the slightest illness a reason for dispensation or exemption from your daily schedule. “One must detest like the plague every exception when it comes to rules,” wrote Saint John Berchmans.
10 —Accept with docility, endure humbly, patiently and with perseverance, the tiresome mortification called illness.
Mortification of the senses, of the imagination and the passions
1 — Close your eyes always and above all to every dangerous sight, and even – have the courage to do it – to every frivolous and useless sight. See without looking; do not gaze at anybody to judge of their beauty or ugliness.
2—Keep your ears closed to flattering remarks, to praise, to persuasion, to bad advice, to slander, to uncharitable mocking, to indiscretions, to ill-disposed criticism, to suspicions voiced, to every word capable of causing the very smallest coolness between two souls.
3 — If the sense of smell has something to suffer due to your neighbour’s infirmity or illness, far be it from you ever to complain of it; draw from it a holy joy.
4 — In what concerns the quality of food, have great respect for Our Lord’s counsel: “Eat such things as are set before you.” “Eat what is good without delighting in it, what is bad without expressing aversion to it, and show yourself equally indifferent to the one as to the other. There,”says Saint Francis de Sales, “is real mortification.”
5 — Offer your meals to God; at table impose on yourself a tiny penance: for example, refuse a sprinkling of salt, a glass of wine, a sweet, etc.; your companions will not notice it, but God will keep account of it.
6— If what you are given appeals to you very much, think of the gall and the vinegar given to Our Lord on the cross: that cannot keep you from tasting, but will serve as a counterbalance to the pleasure.
7— You must avoid all sensual contact, every caress in which you set some passion, by which you look for passion, from which you take a joy which is principally of the senses.
8— Refrain from going to warm yourself, unless this is necessary to save you from being unwell.
9— Bear with everything which naturally grieves the flesh, especially the cold of winter, the heat of summer, a hard bed and every inconvenience of that kind. Whatever the weather, put on a good face; smile at all temperatures. Say with the prophet: “Cold, heat, rain, bless ye the Lord.” It will be a happy day for us when we are able to say with a good heart these words which were familiar to Saint Francis de Sales: “I am never better than when I am not well.”
10— Mortify your imagination when it beguiles you with the lure of a brilliant position, when it saddens you with the prospect of a dreary future, when it irritates you with the memory of a word or deed which offended you.
11— If you feel within you the need to day-dream, mortify it without mercy.
12— Mortify yourself with the greatest care in the matter of impatience, of irritation, or of anger.
13— Examine your desires thoroughly; submit them to the control of reason and of faith: Do you never desire a long life rather than a holy life, wish for pleasure and well-being without trouble or sadness, victory without battle, success without setbacks, praise without criticism, a comfortable, peaceful life without a cross of any sort – a that is to say, a life quite opposite to that of Our Divine Lord?
14—Take care not to acquire certain habits which, without being positively bad, can become injurious, such as habits of frivolous reading, of playing at games of chance, etc..
15— Seek to discover your predominant failing and, as soon as you have recognised it, pursue it all the way to its last retreat. To that purpose, submit with good will to whatever could be monotonous or boring in the practice of the examination of conscience.
16— You are not forbidden to have a heart and to show it, but be on your guard against the danger of exceeding due measure. Resist attachments which are too natural, particular friendships and all softness of the heart.
Mortification of the mind and of the will
1— Mortify your mind by denying it all fruitless imaginings, all ineffectual or wandering thoughts which waste time, dissipate the soul, and render work and serious things distasteful.
2— Every gloomy and anxious thought should be banished from your mind. Concern about all that could happen to you later on should not worry you at all. As for the bad thoughts which bother you in spite of yourself, you should, in dismissing them, make of them a subject for patience. Being involuntary, they will simply be for you an occasion of merit.
3—Avoid obstinacy in your ideas, stubbornness in your sentiments. You should willingly let the judgments of others prevail, unless there is a question of matters on which you have a duty to give your opinion and speak out.
4— Mortify the natural organ of your mind, which is to say the tongue. Practise silence gladly, whether your rule prescribes it for you or whether you impose it on yourself of your own accord.
5— Prefer to listen to others rather than to speak yourself; and yet speak appropriately, avoiding as extremes both speaking too much, which prevents others from telling their thoughts, and speaking too little, which suggests a hurtful lack of interest in what they say.
6— Never interrupt somebody who is speaking and do not forestall, by answering too swiftly, a question he would put to you.
7— Always have a moderate tone of voice, never abrupt or sharp. Avoid exaggeration, as being horrible.
Mortifications to practice in our exterior actions
1 — You ought to show the greatest exactitude in observing all the points of your rule of life, obeying them without delay, remembering Saint John Berchmans, who said: “Penance for me is to lead the common life”; “To have the highest regard for the smallest things, such is my motto”; “Rather die than break a single rule.”
2 —In the exercise of your duties of state, try to be well-pleased with whatever happens to be most unpleasant or boring for you, recalling again here the words of Saint Francis: “I am never better than when I am not well.”
3 — Never give one moment over to sloth: from morning until night keep busy without respite.
4 — If your life is, at least partly, spent in study, apply to yourself this advice from Saint Thomas Aquinas to his pupils: “Do not be content to take in superficially what you read and hear, but endeavour to go into it deeply and to fathom the whole sense of it. Never remain in doubt about what you could know with certainty. Work with a holy eagerness to enrich your mind; arrange and classify in your memory all the knowledge you are able to acquire. On the other hand, do not seek to penetrate mysteries which are beyond your intelligence.”
5 — Devote yourself solely to your present occupation, without looking back on what went before or anticipating in thought what will follow. Say with Saint Francis: “While I am doing this I am not obliged to do anything else”; “let us make haste very calmly; all in good time.”
6 — Be modest in your bearing. Nothing was so perfect as Saint Francis’s deportment; he always kept his head straight, avoiding alike the inconstancy which turns it in all directions, the negligence which lets it droop forward and the proud and haughty disposition which throws it back. His countenance was always peaceful, free from all annoyance, always cheerful, serene and open; without however any merriment or indiscreet humour, without loud, immoderate or too frequent laughter.
He was as composed when alone as in a large gathering. He did not cross his legs, never supported his head on his elbow. When he prayed he was motionless as a statue. When nature suggested to him he should relax, he did not listen.
7 — Regard cleanliness and order as a virtue, uncleanness and untidyness as a vice; do not have dirty, stained or torn clothes. On the other hand, regard luxury and worldliness as a greater vice still. Make sure that, on seeing your way of dressing, nobody calls it “slovenly” or “elegant”, but that everybody is bound to think it “decent”.
Mortifications to practice in our relations with our neighbour
1 — Bear with your neighbour’s defects; defects of education, of mind, of character. Bear with everything about him which irritates you: his gait, his posture, tone of voice, accent, or whatever.
2 — Bear with everything in everybody and endure it to the end and in a Christian spirit. Never with that proud patience which makes one say: “What have I to do with so and so? How does what he says affect me? What need have I for the affection, the kindness or even the politeness of any creature at all and of that person in particular?” Nothing accords less with the will of God than this haughty unconcern, this scornful indifference; it is worse, indeed, than impatience.
3 — Are you tempted to be angry? For the love of Jesus, be meek.
- To avenge yourself? Return good for evil; it is said the great secret of touching Saint Teresa’s heart was to do her a bad turn.
- To look sourly at someone? Smile at him with good nature.
- To avoid meeting him? Seek him out willingly.
- To talk badly of him? Talk well of him.
- To speak harshly to him? Speak very gently, warmly, to him.
4 — Love to give praise to your companions, especially those you are naturally most inclined to envy.
5 — Do not be witty at the expense of charity.
6 — If somebody in your presence should take the liberty of making remarks which are rather improper, or if someone should hold conversations likely to injure his neighbour’s reputation, you may sometimes rebuke the speaker gently, but more often it will be better to divert the conversation skillfully, or indicate by a gesture of sorrow or of deliberate inattention that what is said displeases you.
7 — It costs you an effort to render a small service: offer to do it. You will have twice the merit.
8 — Avoid with horror posing as a victim in your own eyes or those of others. Far be it from you to exaggerate your burdens; strive to find them light; they are so, in reality, much more often than it seems; they would be so always if you were more virtuous.
Conclusion
In general, know how to refuse to nature what she asks of you unnecessarily.
Know how to make her give what she refuses you for no reason. Your progress in virtue, says the author of The Imitation of Christ, will be in proportion to the violence that you succeed in doing to yourself.
“It is necessary to die,” said the saintly Bishop of Geneva, “it is necessary to die in order that God may live in us, for it is impossible to achieve the union of the soul with God by any means other than by mortification. These words ‘it is necessary to die’ are hard, but they will be followed by a great sweetness, because one dies to oneself for no other reason than to be united to God by that death.”
Would to God we had the right to apply to ourselves these beautiful words of Saint Paul to the Corinthians: “In all things we suffer tribulation… Always bearing about in our body the death of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be made manifest in our bodies.” (II Cor 4:8-10)
|
|
|
|
| Open Letter of the SSPX Superiors to Cardinal Gantin [1988] in response to Ecclesia Dei |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-09-2021, 11:36 AM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition
- No Replies
|
|
Taken from The Recusant - Issue 30 (October 2015)
[At the end of June 1988, immediately following the consecration of four bishops at Écône by Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, Pope John Paul II issued a motu
proprio ‘Ecclesia Dei Adflicta’ supposedly “excommunicating” all six bishops. In response to this, the following letter was sent to Rome by all the then superiors of the SSPX…]
An Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin
Ecône, July 6, 1988
Eminence,
Gathered around our Superior General, the Superiors of the Districts, Seminaries and autonomous houses of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X think it good to respectfully express to you the following reflections.
You thought it good, by your letter of July 1st, to inform Their Excellencies Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, and the four Bishops whom they consecrated on June 30, at Ecône, of the excommunication latæ sententiæ. We let you judge for yourself the value of such a declaration, coming from an authority who, in its exercise, breaks with all its predecessors down to Pope Pius XII, in worship, teaching and government of the Church.
As for us, we are in full communion with all the Popes and Bishops before the Second Vatican Council, celebrating precisely the Mass which they codified and celebrated, teaching the Catechism which they drew up, standing up against the errors which they have many times condemned in their encyclicals and pastoral letters. We let you judge on which side the rupture is to be found. We are extremely saddened by the blindness of spirit and the hardening of heart of the Roman authorities.
On the other hand, we have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecumenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this. We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly. We believe in the One God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and we will always remain faithful to His unique Spouse, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.
To be publicly associated with this sanction which is inflicted upon the six Catholic Bishops, Defenders of the Faith in its integrity and wholeness, would be for us a mark of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful. They have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church, promoting evolution, pentecostalism and syncretism. In union with these faithful, we make ours the words of the Prophet: “Præparate corda vestra Domino et servite Illi soli: et liberabit vos de manibus inimicorum vestrorum. convertimini ad Eum in toto corde vestro, et auferte deos alienos de medio vestri - Open your hearts to the Lord and serve Him only: and He will free you from the hands of your enemies. With all your heart return to Him, and take away from your midst any strange gods” (I Kings 7:3).
Confident in the protection of Her who has crushed all the heresies in the world, we assure Your Eminence of our dedication to Him Who is the only Way of salvation.
Fr. Franz Schmidberger, Superior General
Fr. Paul Aulagnier, District Superior, France
Fr. Franz-Josef Maessen, District Superior, Germany
Fr. Edward Black, District Superior, Great Britain
Fr. Anthony Esposito, District Superior of Italy
Fr. François Laisney, District Superior, United States
Fr. Jacques Emily, District Superior of Canada
Fr. Jean Michel Faure, District Superior of Mexico
Fr. Gerard Hogan, District Superior of Australasia
Fr. Alain Lorans, Superior, Seminary of Ecône
Fr. Jean Paul André, Superior, Seminary of France
Fr. Paul Natterer, Superior, Seminary of Germany
Fr. Andrès Morello, Superior, Seminary of Argentina
Fr. William Welsh, Superior, Seminary of Australia
Fr. Michel Simoulin, Rector, St. Pius X University
Fr. Patrice Laroche, Vice-Rector, Seminary of Ecône
Fr. Philippe François, Superior, Belgium
Fr. Roland de Mérode, Superior, Netherlands
Fr. Georg Pflüger, Superior, Austria
Fr. Guillaume Devillers, Superior, Spain
Fr. Philippe Pazat, Superior, Portugal
Fr. Daniel Couture, Superior, Ireland
Fr. Patrick Groche, Superior, Gabon
Fr. Frank Peek, Superior, Southern Africa
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Altamira: Defending the Indefensible |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-09-2021, 11:17 AM - Forum: True vs. False Resistance
- No Replies
|
|
Defending the Indefensible
By Fr. Fernando Altamira
Recently, Bishop Williamson said that one could attend the new Mass. He was replying to a lady in a “Questions and Answers” session, after a public conference. When we gave news of this, it provoked a defence of Bishop Williamson’s words by the priest who runs the website Non Possumus.
To do this is to defend the indefensible. Once such a thing happens, and the more so when what has been said is very serious, one has a duty to warn people, regardless of who might have said it. The priest in question is doing with Bishop Williamson what he would not accept doing with Bishop Fellay (and this is a risk which concerns us all).
With Bishop Fellay, warn about all the bad things he says. With Bishop Williamson, make excuses for him and give a false interpretation of what he really meant to say, despite the literal meaning of his words. Thus one falls into the trap of the supporters of Bishop Fellay: he is always the object of misinterpretation.
Let us return to Bishop Williamson. The news of this which we gave did not include everything which he affirmed publicly. We strongly urge all those who understand English to watch this video, in which one finds all the incriminating words. But let us look briefly at the short text which we put out:
Bishop Williamson and the New Mass
This piece of film represents the words of Bishop Williamson saying that one can assist at the New Mass. This seems to us to be something very serious on his part.
One can watch this video at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzI4WKwDlPk.
We do not approve the somewhat mocking tone of the video (from about half-way through, more or less), but the content is quite correct. Bishop Williamson’s words last for 12 minutes and the video is in total 30 minutes long.
–At Minute 0.55: “There’s the principles and then there’s the practice”
–At Minute 6.46: “There have been Eucharistic miracles with the Novus Ordo Mass.”
–At Minute 8.56: “There are cases when even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one’s faith instead of losing it.”
–At Minute 9.53: “Be very careful, be very careful with the Novus, stay away from the Novus Ordo, but exceptionally, if you’re watching and praying, even there you may find the grace of God. If you do, make use of it in order to sanctify your soul.”
-At Minute 10.37: “Therefore I would not say every single person must stay away from every single Novus Ordo Mass”.
It is sad to say, and I do not say it maliciously (I know I am not lying), this shows the sad state of the spirit of this priest, the things which he is ready to do: defending Bishop Williamson
blow for blow. I insist: before, he would not have tolerated this kind of attitude from Bishop Fellay, whereas now…
In the defence which he makes, this priest forgets the heart of the problem and seems to use (we suppose that he does so unconsciously) a sophism to defend the indefensible. If my memory serves, this sophism is called “ignorantio elenchi” (which means answering a question with something which is beside the point).
Let us say things clearly:
The New Mass is bad(I hope that this priest will not change his view of that). That being the case, there is a universally valid moral principle of capital importance: nobody (not even a priest or a bishop) can positively advise someone to do something bad. But that is exactly what Bishop Williamson did several times over with this lady: he advised her to assist at the New Mass.
This principle is absolutely certain. And if this priest wrote that knowingly and not in ignorance (which should have been the case, since he is a priest and it relates to his duty of state), he must assume responsibility for his words. And if he is writing out of ignorance, well that’s not very glorious either.
If it is really necessary, when a priest speaks with one of the faithful who is of good will (a simple soul) who goes to the New Mass, he could keep quiet, out of prudence, if that faithful is still not ready to hear the whole truth. But keeping quiet is one thing, positively advising him to go to the New Mass, as Bishop Williamson did, is something else.
The priest who tries to defend Bishop Williamson even goes so far as to use as an argument the fact that Bishop Williamson was replying to a woman who was sobbing. Well, firstly one does not hear any sobbing in the video. Secondly, even if there were, what kind of an argument is that? Otherwise, we would be reduced to the absurdity of having to declare the following moral principle: “To someone asking if they are allowed to do an evil act (e.g. assisting at the New Mass, abortion, etc.) one may answer in the affirmative, on condition that the person is sobbing.” Comment would be superfluous.
What is more, Bishop Williamson returns insistently to the question of the validity of the New Mass (they “can” be valid). But hold on: first of all we don’t know and we are justified in saying with as much likelihood (if not more so!), that Novus Ordo Masses can be invalid.
Secondly, to even suppose that Novus Ordo Masses are valid, all or some of them, that’s not where the problem is at. It is well known: even in such a case it is still not permissible to assist at a Novus Ordo Mass since, whether or not it is valid, this rite is bad in se and is displeasing to God.
Thirdly, the Masses of the heretical Russian Orthodox are certainly valid and yet it is obvious that we’re not allowed to assist at them. So: what should we say concerning the New Mass?
At the end you can read the quotes from Bishop Williamson.
I think that we priests who reacted against what Bishop Fellay is doing are wrong to hide the problems which also exist on our side. [Editor’s note – the same surely goes for “we laymen who reacted”..!] And there are so many that the only positive attitude one can have is neither to hide them nor to seek to excuse them but to confront them calmly, proving our realism, and trying to remedy them. That is the only constructive thing we can do. Otherwise God will not bless us, nor will He bless what we are doing, and it will all end badly.
And so I cordially greet this priest at Non Possumus, without any hypocrisy, in the hope that this writing will help contribute to improving the current situation. May the Most Holy Virgin Mary come to our aid.
Fr. Fernando Altamira
28th July, 2015
-Minutes 10:45 and 22:05: “If they can trust their own judgment that this…attending this mass [la nouvelle messe] will do more good than harm spiritually… but it does harm in itself, there´s no doubt about that. It´s a rite designed to undermine Catholics´ faith… […]”.
And at that point, the authors of the video add: “Remember: The new mass is poison! But if poison is good for you, then go ahead”.
-Minute 11:27: “But exceptionally… The wise thing would be probably to say in private this to that person, but here I am saying it in public, that may be foolish.”
Note – no one has the right to advise someone to do something wrong (such as assisting at the New Mass) either in public or in private. That’s an absurdity, it’s evil and it’s an error (cf. main text)
-Minute 6:36: “I don´t know if any of you know, again, I´m going to get hanged! But that´s in the contract…”
-Minute 8:56: “There are cases when even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one´s faith instead of losing it. That´s heresy, almost heresy within Tradition.”
-Minute 1:10: “Therefore, the Archbishop (Lefebvre) would say, in public he would say stay away, keep away from the New Mass.”
Note – these words about Archbishop Lefebvre (“in public he would say…”) seem to be insinuating that in private he would say something different: such an insinuation is disgraceful!
|
|
|
|
| Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer: The Religion of Man |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-09-2021, 10:39 AM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition
- No Replies
|
|
The Religion of Man: Since the Council there has been a New Church
Because of the difficulty of the undertaking, or be it by a compromise with the spirit of the times, the fact is:
Quote:In the implementation of the plan outlined by Vatican II, in most of the Catholic world, the attempt to adapt has gone beyond simply a means of expression more in conformity with the mentality of the day.
It has even touched the essence of Revelation itself. They do not preoccupy themselves with explaining revealed Truth in such a way as to enable man to understand it more easily; rather their goal, by using ambiguous and flowery language, is to put forward a new Church to man’s tastes formed according to the maxims of the modern world.
With that, they now spread, more or less everywhere, the idea that the Church must undergo a radical change in its morality, in its liturgy, and even in its doctrine. In what has been written and done in Catholic milieu since the [Vatican II] Council, the thesis has been spread that the Traditional Church, such as it existed until Vatican II, is no longer adequate for the needs of modern times, so that it must be completely transformed.
A profound observation on what has taken place in Catholic circles leads to the conviction that, truly, since the Council there is a new Church that is essentially distinct from the one we knew prior to the Council, as the unique Church of Christ. Indeed, human dignity is now exalted as an absolute and untouchable principle to whose rights truth and good must submit.
A similar idea launches the Religion of man. It makes us forget Christian austerity and the beatitude of Heaven.
As for morality, the same principle causes us to forget about Christian asceticism, and it is full of an indulgence for pleasure, even sensual pleasure, because it is on earth that man must find his fulfillment.
As for family and married life, the Religion of man celebrates love and puts pleasure over duty, thus justifying contraception, weakening opposition to divorce, and favoring homosexuality and co-education, without a fear of the ensuing moral disorders, inherent in this attitude as the consequences of original sin.
In public life, the Religion of man does not understand hierarchy, and defends the egalitarianism proper to Marxist ideology (and which is contrary to both natural and revealed teaching) which assures the existence of a social order which nature itself demands.
In the field of religion, the same principle encourages, for the benefit of man, an ecumenism which reconciles all religions and wishes to establish a church that resembles a society of social assistance, and renders the sacred unintelligible, because it can only be understood in a society based on hierarchy.
Whence this excessive preoccupation with the promotion of clergy, whose celibacy is now considered to be absurd, along with the restraint of a priestly life which is intimately tied to the character of a consecrated person wholly devoted to the service of the altar.
In the liturgy, the priest is reduced to a simple representative of the people. The changes are such and so numerous that the liturgy ceases to represent, suitably, in the eyes of the faithful, the image of the Spouse of the Lamb, one, holy and immaculate.
It is evident that the relaxation of morals as well as the liturgical breakdown cannot co-exist with the immutability of dogma. In reality, these changes indicate already alterations in the concept of revealed truths. A reading of the new theologians, understood spokesmen of the Council, demonstrates how, in fact, in certain Catholic milieu, the words used to state the mysteries of the Faith imply concepts completely different from those of traditional theology.
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
|
|
| Fr Charles Hyacinth McKenna [1835]: The Crucifixion and Death of Our Lord |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-09-2021, 10:27 AM - Forum: Lenten Devotions
- Replies (1)
|
|
The Crucifixion and Death of Our Lord
We now come to consider the last of the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary, and one of the greatest events in the history of our sad and sinful old world.
“This mystery, said Bishop Martin of Paderborn, contains, accentuates and consummates the other four Sorrowful Mysteries. It renews the Agony in the garden, reopens the wounds of the flagellation; the crown of thorns is replaced on the head of our Redeemer; the Cross now bears Him who was forced to drag it to Calvary”1
As soon as the doleful procession of that first Good Friday attained the summit of the mountain, Our Lord, faint and weary, was given to drink wine mingled with myrrh and gall. “But when He had tasted it, He would not drink.”
Then, laying violent hands upon Jesus, His tormentors roughly tore off His garments, to which the flesh of His lacerated body had adhered, thereby reopening all His wounds and causing the blood to flow afresh. What must have been the confusion of our modest Lord, He who is incarnate purity, to be shamelessly exposed for the second time to the derision of that vast multitude! Ah, to what profound depths of humiliation did He not descend for our sakes!
Despoiled of His raiment, He was then rudely thrown upon the cross, and four of His inhuman executioners began the work of nailing Him to it. First, His right hand was fastened to the wood with a rude spike — not a sharp nail, but one blunt and rough, which would mangle and tear the sensitive nerves of the palm of the hand and cause indescribable agony. The left hand was next seized. His sacred feet were then nailed to the cross in the same inhuman fashion — and the bloody work of the crucifixion was completed!
The soldiers then gathered around our Blessed Lord to place the cross in position. Carrying it to the spot which they dug for it in the rock, instead of lowering it gently, they roughly dropped it into the hole, thereby jarring most painfully the whole sacred body, enlarging the wounds in the blessed hands and feet, and causing the precious blood to flow in streams. His malicious enemies now behold their helpless Victim uplifted in His agony.
Is there no heart among them to regret or condemn this terrible immolation of the sinless Lamb of God? Ah, no! Far from being moved to pity for the Just One in His extremity of anguish, the hearts of the spectators seem to grow fiercer and more obdurate, if that be possible. No word of compassion falls from their lips, but priests and soldiers, alike, vie with one another in mocking and blaspheming Him.
Draw near now, faithful souls, to the foot of the cross, and gazing upon this hideous spectacle of your dying Redeemer, learn the malice of sin, as well as the inexorable justice of God, which exacts for it so tremendous an expiation. It was our sins rather than the nails which fastened Him to the rough wood of the cross; it was for the secret sins of the world, especially, that He was thus exposed, naked, to the profane gaze of a rude, reviling rabble.
Let us approach still nearer, and catch the faint words which fall from the livid lips of our Blessed Lord in His last agony. Does He, like other victims of injustice, proclaim His innocence, and call down the maledictions of Heaven upon His persecutors? Ah, no, very different are the sentiments of the meek and forgiving Son of God! He becomes, instead, the advocate of His cruel crucifiers before His heavenly Father. He utters that sublime sentence which should ever find an echo in our hearts and influence our conduct toward those who have done evil to us: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!”
Of the two robbers who were crucified with Him, one was touched by this evidence of divine patience and gentleness, by this tender prayer for mercy for His enemies; and, already believing in Christ’s innocence, by a special grace Dismas, the thief, received faith to believe also in His divinity. Upbraiding his guilty companion for blaspheming Jesus, he turned to the Master and begged Him to be mindful of him in His kingdom. In return for this dying act of faith he had the ineffable happiness of hearing from Our Lord’s lips these consoling words: “This day shalt thou be with Me in paradise.”
In this merciful promise there are grounds of hope for the greatest sinners of the world. The penitent thief, after a life of sin, finds mercy in his dying moments; yet even here we behold a contrast, a presentation of eternal issues calculated to strike the sinner with fear and trembling. Of two criminals in like danger of death and damnation, only one was saved! Reflect well upon this consideration. Both men had the same Redeemer, dying for the world’s salvation, in their midst. The precious Blood of Jesus was flowing close to them, ready to ransom their souls. Both had before them the same example of divine patience; both were offered the grace of the Mediator to do penance — yet one is forever lost; the other saved for all eternity. Have you not, then, O sinner of to-day! less reason to hope than to fear? I exhort you, if you desire to secure yourself in so important an affair, hasten your conversion. Do immediately what the good thief did in his extremity, lest his salvation, which was a miracle of grace, should prove the rock of your destruction, the ordinary chastisement of sinners who forget God during their lives2.
Up to this point, we have said little of the part our Blessed Mother took in Calvary’s tragedy. Present, as she was, during the fearful fastening of her Son to the tree of shame3, she heard the sound of the hammer driving the rude nails into His sacred hands and feet. Alas! those violent strokes were as so many cruel blows upon her immaculate heart. She saw the soldiers raise the cross and drop it roughly into position; she heard the exultant shouts of the multitude as her Son was thus elevated above them the blasphemies that were then uttered by the High Priest and the rabble. As soon as she saw the soldiers withdraw from the cross, she hastened with her companions to take her position at its foot.
With eyes streaming with tears, she gazes upon the agonized face of her dying Son, upon His brow drenched with blood from the thorny crown, upon His eyes dim with the excess of His pain, upon His pale lips, parched with the consuming thirst attendant on His great loss of blood. She would give a thousand lives, did she possess them, for the privilege of putting to His lips a draught of cold water to relieve His fevered mouth and throat; but even this poor consolation is denied her. Jesus knows full well the agonizing desires of her devoted heart; and from His cross He casts upon her a look of tender pity. It is then that, commending her to the care of St. John, He leaves her as a precious legacy to all His followers until the end of time. In that supreme moment she becomes, in truth, our Mother, our mediator, our intercessor with her Divine Son.
Soon after this, Our Lord gives expression to the bitterest anguish of His heart in that piteous cry: ” My God! My God! why hast Thou forsaken me?” These appealing words reveal to us the secret of His intense agony in the Garden of Gethsemani, of His torments on the cross. His keenest suffering is caused by His apparent abandonment by His beloved Father. Unconsoled and unsupported, He is left alone to battle with the powers of earth and hell, at the mercy of the spirits of darkness, only such aid being rendered as is necessary to prolong His life until His sacrifice shall reach its supreme consummation in death. This is that poignant anguish which draws forth the bitter cry: “My God! My God! why hast Thou forsaken Me?”
Now nature, less insensible than man, commences to manifest her horror at the spectacle of a God crucified by His creatures. The sun begins to withdraw its light from the heavens; an awe-inspiring pall of darkness settles down upon that blood-stained city. Violent convulsions of the earth are felt; Calvary’s rocks are rent; the veil of the Temple, which hides the Holy of Holies from the gaze of the people, is torn asunder, and the dead arise from their graves and appear to many.
The vast multitude on Calvary, who have gathered there to gloat over the death agony of their innocent Victim, hasten to leave that dreadful scene. Hushed now are the blasphemies, the imprecations, the mockeries of the rabble! In terror and confusion, they flee over the quaking ground through a darkness which has now grown intense and awful. A horrible fear assails them. May we not believe that they then began to realize the enormity of their crime, and feeling that they were indeed guilty of deicide, were moved to exclaim with Longinus: ” Indeed, this was the Son of God!” (Mark xv. 39.)
Only a few remained to witness the end of the great tragedy. And now the afflicted Mother and her faithful attendants draw nearer to the cross whereon hangs the world’s Redeemer. Again is heard the voice of the dying Saviour: “All is consummated.” Having commended His soul to His heavenly Father, He yielded up His spirit.
A little later, the centurion pierced Our Lord’s dead body with a lance, and from the wound there issued forth water and blood, thus testifying that the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the ever-flowing fountain of divine love and mercy, was opened to all mankind.
Still later, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus took down His sacred body and placed it for a few moments in the arms of His afflicted Mother. Poor Mother! with what looks of silent agony you gazed on the mangled body of your adorable Son! Removing the cruel crown of thorns from His blessed brow, Mary placed it, with the sacred nails, in her heaving bosom, close to her immaculate heart.
Not long after, the dead Christ was removed by Joseph of Arimathea and laid “in his own new monument, which he had hewed out in a rock.” (Matt, xxvii. 60.) A great stone was rolled to the door of the sepulcher, and Joseph went his way, leaving Mary Magdalen and the other Mary sitting beside the tomb.
Thus ends the Fifth Sorrowful Mystery. Here, at the door of Christ’s sepulcher, let us kneel with these holy women and ask of our crucified Lord the grace to bear our crosses unto death in meek resignation to His adorable will. Let us resolve to be ever faithful to His teachings and commandments — to follow closely in His footsteps up the bloodstained mountain of self-sacrifice, and, having died with Him upon Golgotha, merit one day to rise with Him to a happy and glorious eternity.
1. See Mgr. Martin, Beauties of the Rosary: Fifth Sorrowful Mystery.
2. Nouet’s Meditations, Wednesday in Passion Week.
3. Hautrive, Vol. XVI. p. 361.
|
|
|
|
| Dominicans of Avrillé: Saint Thomas Aquinas in Today’s Combat for the Faith |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-09-2021, 10:19 AM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition
- No Replies
|
|
Saint Thomas Aquinas in Today’s Combat for the Faith
“Thomas Aquinas was a light placed by Me over the Mystical Body of the Church in order to disperse the darkness of error.” 1
1. Saint Thomas, celestial patron of Catholic studies
On the feast of Saint Dominic, on August 4, 1880, and after having consulted the Sacred Congregation of Rites, Pope Leo III published the Brief, Cum hoc sit, designating St. Thomas the patron of universities, academies, Catholic colleges and schools. The feast was fixed on the 13th of November.2
The motives justifying the patronage of Saint Thomas for Catholic studies
This decision of the Pope, designating Saint Thomas patron of Catholic studies came immediately after his encyclical Aeterni Patris, dealing with the restoration of Catholic philosophy according to the principles of Saint Thomas Aquinas, written one year before, on August 4, 1879. This patronage should have been its crowning point, and Leo XIII assigned three reasons for it. Let us quote the Pope:
Quote:“The doctrine of Saint Thomas is so vast that it embraces, like an ocean, the entire wisdom of Antiquity. Everything said in the past that was true, everything that was wisely discussed by the pagan philosophers and by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church as well as those superior individuals who existed before him; not only did he completely understand it, but he developed, completed and classified it with such an insight, with such methodical precision and with such a precise terminology, that he seems to have only left to his followers the ability to imitate him, while at the same time taking away their possibility of equaling him!”
“There is yet a more important matter to consider: it is that his doctrine being formed and armed with principles containing a vast breadth of application corresponds to the necessities not only of one historical period but rather of all times and periods of history and is therefore very well suited to conquer the continually re-emerging errors. Sustaining itself by its own strength, it remains invincible and causes a profound fear to its adversaries. The perfect agreement between faith and reason [in the works of St. Thomas] must not be neglected, especially in regards to the judgment of Catholics.”
“Finally, the Angelic Doctor, though great because of his doctrine, is no less great because of his virtue and holiness. Consequently virtue is the best preparation for the work of the mind and the acquisition of knowledge; those who neglect virtue falsely imagine having acquired a solid and fruitful knowledge because ‘Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins’ (Wisdom 1:4).”
Furthermore, Pope Pius XI dedicated a very beautiful encyclical; Studiorum Ducem3, in order to demonstrate the link between ecclesiastical studies and holiness as exemplified by Saint Thomas.
Saint Thomas enjoyed a wisdom proportioned to his sanctity; furthermore he enjoyed a superior degree of sanctity which was especially true from the moment when the Angels bound his loins with the cincture of chastity. The enlightenment of the intellect is, indeed, the special fruit of chastity while the result of impurity is to darken the mind. Saint Thomas was so free from the fires of concupiscence that he was able to enjoy an understanding of divine things similar to that of the Angels who do not have a body. That is why he is called the Angelic Doctor.
Saint Thomas is the fruit of the Dominican Order
At the same time, St. Thomas must not be separated from the religious order to which he belonged. It was the soil of the Order of Preachers where he was allowed to show his true worth. The necessary balance between the practice of the vows of religion, monastic observances, the choral singing of the divine office, and the contemplative study ordered to preaching for the salvation of souls: it is this entire wonderful ensemble that permitted him to develop his Angelic doctrine. But, since a religious acts only out of obedience, Saint Thomas’ superiors must also be mentioned:
Quote:“Must we not acknowledge that they directed him as perfectly as possible in his scientific vocation? For he was a superior intellect, a genius who during his period of development was not inhibited by his own brethren. This is a phenomenon rare enough throughout history even in Religious Orders to deserve to be mentioned and held up as an example.” 4
The Masters General under whose direction he lived his religious life5, and the great saint, Albert-the-Great (1206-1280) who directed him at Cologne are a few superiors of Saint Thomas who must be honored.
We can certainly claim that Saint Thomas is the most beautiful flower, the most beautiful fruit of the Order of Saint Dominic: the Order whose mission in the Church is to spread the light of truth and combat error in order to save souls.
2. Saint Thomas Aquinas in today’s combat for the faith
Therefore, it is clear from all that has been said how important Saint Thomas is in the contemporary battle for the Faith. Let us quote Archbishop Lefebvre:
Quote:“We do not have the right to contradict the spirit of the Church which has always relied on Saint Thomas throughout its history. God, Himself, raised up this admirable Doctor and the Church and the Popes have confirmed it, always proclaiming the power of Saint Thomas in rejecting error and heresy. Since our contemporary age is one replete with heresy, error and paganism, we do not have the right to neglect papal directives. […] It is very unfortunate that in today’s Roman Universities every possible and imaginable theory is floated without any correction from the authorities. This is unfortunately due to the infiltration of ecumenism into philosophy as well as the idea of the equality of every theory. Thomism is considered like everything else – relative – it was a system that was good during a certain period of time but, now we need something else more suited to the needs of the time. (Archbishop Lefebvre)”6
Saint Thomas is the remedy for the malicious illness of our time – which is Modernism
None other than Saint Pius X, in his encyclical Pascendi, written on the 8th of September, 1907, declares that the primary remediation for Modernism is the study of the philosophy and theology of Saint Thomas:
Quote:“Concerning the question of studies, We wish and order that Scholastic philosophy form the basis for the Sacred Studies. […] And when we prescribe Scholastic philosophy, We want to make it clear the We especially mean the philosophy left us by the Angelic Doctor. This is of paramount importance.”
Saint Pius X will again clarify his thought in his Motu Proprio Doctoris Angelici of June 29, 1914, concerning the study of the doctrine of Saint Thomas Aquinas:
Quote:“It happened that since We said that the philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas especially had to be followed without indicating that it had to be exclusively followed, a number of teachers convinced themselves that they were obeying Our desire, or at the very least, that it was not contradictory if they were to adopt indiscriminately what other scholastics taught about philosophy, even though it was directly in opposition to the principles of Saint Thomas. But in doing this they were greatly deceived. When we gave Our seminarians Saint Thomas as the sole leader of Scholastic Philosophy, it goes without saying, that we were talking especially about his principles upon which, as on its foundation, this philosophy rests. […] It is certainly not difficult to understand that if the doctrine of some author or some saint was ever recommended by Us or by Our predecessors with particular enthusiasm, […] it is not difficult to understand that they were recommended in so far as they were in agreement with the principles of Thomas Aquinas or at least they did not oppose his principles in the very least.”
Again, it is Saint Pius X who gives the reason for this:
Quote:“We wanted to state to all those dedicated to teaching philosophy and sacred theology to be alerted that if they alienated themselves from Thomas Aquinas, in the slightest degree, especially in matters of metaphysics they would experience a tragic loss.”
Furthermore, the Church had taken precise measures concerning this matter. The 1917 Code of Canon Law obliges seminary professors, as well as their students, to “adhere both in philosophy and theology to the method, doctrine and principles of Saint Thomas.” (C. 1366 # 2). The Dominican Constitution even required professors, the Master of novices and the brothers during their course of study to take an oath to maintain that doctrine. The doctrine of Saint Thomas is the Church’s doctrine, and the Church is suspicious of anyone straying from it.
The shipwreck of the Conciliar Church
Alienated from the Tradition of the Church, the intellect has no point of reference; it just wanders around (or it loses its way). This is precisely the spectacle given by the Conciliar Church.
The new Code of Canon Law issued in 1983, does not even explicitly mention Saint Thomas when it comes to philosophical studies in the seminaries! It only says:
Quote:“The philosophical formation ought to always relate to Tradition while at the same time keeping aware of on going philosophical research” (C. 251).
One cannot be more vague.
Let us also quote the incredible declaration of Cardinal Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:
Quote:“I had difficulty in understanding Saint Thomas Aquinas whose crystalline logic appeared much too enclosed on itself, too impersonal and too stereotyped.”7
At any other time in history, he would not have been ordained a priest. And in our times, he became the Pope!
One must read the text of Saint Thomas
Following the thought of Saint Pius X we readily see that he insists on reading the text of Saint Thomas itself:
Quote:“It is absolutely necessary to return to the ancient custom which, should have never been abandoned, that there be courses taught on the Summa Theologica itself, for the obvious reason that this highly reasoned book renders the Solemn Decrees of the teaching Church and its Acts that naturally follow more easily intelligible. Because in the wake of the most blessed saintly Doctor, the Church has never held a Council in which he himself were not present with all the richness of his doctrine. It daily becomes clearer and the experience of so many centuries has made it known, how true the affirmation of Our predecessor John XXII8is right on: [Thomas] enlightened the Church more clearly than all the Doctors, and, in his books, man profits more in one year than if he spent his entire life span studying all the others.”
In addition to the necessity of reading the text of St. Thomas itself, two cogent things should be retained:
- The Second Vatican Council is the only council which did not rely on the doctrine of the Angelic Doctor; hence the disaster that flows from this omission.
- Saint Pius X links the study of St. Thomas, in our times, to none other than the Acts of the Holy See. This is something that was sadly lacking to the Thomists in our times. Leaning on the principles of the Angelic Doctor, the Popes – up to Pius XII included – assiduously studied modern errors and condemned them. These lessons were too often ignored and the lack of knowledge of the pontifical texts is an important cause for the lack of reaction against these errors in the Church: hence their triumph on the occasion of Vatican II.
That is why Archbishop Lefebvre, in order “to transmit in its entire doctrinal purity, as well as in all his missionary charity, just as Our Lord transmitted it to His Apostles as also the Roman Church transmitted it up until the middle of the XXth century,”9 inserted in the first year course on spirituality for the seminarians, courses on the Acts of the Magisterium concerning modern errors which he himself gave in the beginning10.
Preaching
The study of the doctrine of St. Thomas, in itself, ought to be the principal inspiration for preaching for priests. It is very important to nourish the souls with this doctrine in order to sustain their contemplation and love of God.
Saint Thomas himself, as a true son of Saint Dominic, had consecrated himself to the salvation of souls. Furthermore, it is Thomas himself who developed the logo for the Order of Preachers: “Contemplari, et contemplate aliis tradere,”: to contemplate and transmit to others that which you have contemplated.
It would be a grave error and detriment for the faithful to think that Saint Thomas is only reserved for priests. It would also be wrong to think that, for the faithful, it is only necessary to give moral exhortations or, what is worse, considerations that appeal only to feelings.
Let us quote again the Archbishop:
Quote:“Let us not think that Saint Thomas is too much for the faithful and that he is distant from their faith, for this is not true and damaging to the faithful. The philosophy and theology of Saint Thomas are truth. Therefore let us not say that the truth explained in all its simplicity, and clarity, in addition to its profound logic, cannot be understood by the faithful. That would be condescension on our part. This would amount to abandoning and despairing of communicating to the faithful – a profound tragedy. It goes without saying that one must know how to express and expose these admirable principles.”11
Father Garrigou-Lagrange O.P. tells of having known a little lay sister, who was a contemplative, and who did not possess any human culture to speak of but who had been interiorly enlightened by interior trials:
Quote:“She had discovered among the saints two great friends: Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Albert the Great. In spite of the fact that she lacked any philosophical or theological culture, she, nevertheless, loved to read how these saints prayed and furthermore, addressed them saying: “They are great Doctors of the Church and they enlighten the souls of those who entreat them for help.” As a matter of fact, Father Garrigou-Lagrange continues to explain that it was St. Thomas who showed her where the obscure tunnel she was crossing would lead her! And Saint Thomas enlightened many souls, as he had done to the little lay sister, if these poor souls appealed to him.”12
It was well known at Econe, that Msgr. Lefebvre came for a spiritual conference with a single volume of Saint Thomas, and he gave a commentary on an article of the Summa. These formed the most pleasing lectures experienced by the Seminarians, and especially by the brothers!
It was not something rare, at the Monastery of Avrillé, to be surprised to find our (now deceased) brother Marie-Joseph O.P. plunged into one of these same volumes. He was particularly in love with the treatise on charity.
Conclusion
Let us ask of Our Lord what the Church makes us specially ask for in the Collect and the Postcommunion for the feast of Saint Thomas:
— Da nobis et quae docuit, intellectu conspicere: give us the grace to contemplate what he taught – that is, to nourish ourselves with his doctrine,
— et quae egit imitatione complere; ut actus exterius piae operationis excrescent: give us the grace to resemble him, in order that there may be an increase in our good works, knowing that the first work of spiritual mercy consists in teaching souls the truth:
Docere ignorantes.
1. God is speaking to St. Catherine of Sienna in The Dialogue, Treatise on Prayer, ch. 26.
2. It was suppressed by Pope John the XXIII.
3. Encyclical Letter Studiorum Ducem, June 29, 1923, on the occasion of the 6th century canonization of Saint Thomas Aquinas.
4. L. H. Petitot O.P. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Editions Revue des Jeunes, 1923, p. 52.
5. This concerns the Blesseds John-the Teuton (1241-1252), Humbert-de-Romans (1254-1263) and Jean de Verceil (1264-1283).
6. Archbishop Lefebvre, The spirit of our statutes, Retreat preached to the seminarians in Écône, September 1988, fourth conference.
7. Joseph Ratzinger, My Life, Paris, Fayard, 1998, p.51.
8. Pope Jean XXII, Allocution to the Consistory for the occasion of the canonization of Saint Thomas, 1328.
9. Msgr. Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey following Thomas Aquinas in the Summa, Angelus Press, Preface.
10. These courses were edited into a book, under the title: Against heresies (Angelus Press).
11. Archbishop Lefebvre, The spirit of our statutes, Retreat preached to the seminarians in Écône, September 1988, fourth conference.
12. Fr Garrigou-Lagrange O.P., The Three Ages of interior life, Volume II, Fourth Part, chapter IV.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: marieincarnation-for-main-page.jpg]](https://carmelitesisters.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/marieincarnation-for-main-page.jpg)
![[Image: 1499.jpg]](https://www.catholic.org/files/images/saints/1499.jpg)
![[Image: frances-of-rome-1-270x400.jpg]](https://catholicsaintmedals.com/wp-content/uploads/frances-of-rome-1-270x400.jpg)
![[Image: 64JRFQZQPRB55DD4REJ5QFNOQU.jpg]](https://www.wmcactionnews5.com/resizer/3kIROT5gxSDBf8k4ZnQZ1MSZ7E8=/1200x600/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/raycom/64JRFQZQPRB55DD4REJ5QFNOQU.jpg)
![[Image: 5bb7e4eb240000500098a9b8.jpeg?ops=scalef..._noupscale]](https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5bb7e4eb240000500098a9b8.jpeg?ops=scalefit_630_noupscale)
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginal...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F1e%2F49%2Fcf%2F1e49cf88408802fee2c5c47076616c67.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2F...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F3%2F3e%2FMarco_palmezzano%252C_crocifissione_degli_Uffizi.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
