Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
Online Users |
There are currently 441 online users. » 0 Member(s) | 438 Guest(s) Applebot, Bing, Google
|
Latest Threads |
Fr. Ruiz: Renewal of the ...
Forum: Rev. Father Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
Last Post: Stone
10 hours ago
» Replies: 15
» Views: 1,157
|
Interview with the Editor...
Forum: The Recusant
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:15 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 106
|
Purgatory Explained by th...
Forum: Resources Online
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 09:03 AM
» Replies: 37
» Views: 3,483
|
Last Sunday after Penteco...
Forum: Pentecost
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 08:57 AM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 11,639
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Twen...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
11-23-2024, 10:30 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 89
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Feas...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
11-23-2024, 10:27 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 113
|
The Catholic Trumpet: Whe...
Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
Last Post: Stone
11-23-2024, 07:06 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 93
|
Bishop appointed by Commu...
Forum: Socialism & Communism
Last Post: Stone
11-22-2024, 04:57 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 94
|
Dr. Marian Horvat: The Tw...
Forum: General Commentary
Last Post: Stone
11-22-2024, 04:52 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 111
|
German [District] Superio...
Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
Last Post: Stone
11-22-2024, 04:48 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 131
|
|
|
Pope Paul VI [1969]: Address to General Audience on Introduction to the New Mass |
Posted by: Stone - 03-04-2021, 12:18 PM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- No Replies
|
|
CHANGES IN MASS FOR GREATER APOSTOLATE
Address to a General Audience
November 26, 1969
Our Dear Sons and Daughters:
1. We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the New Rite of the Mass. This New Rite will be introduced into our celebration of the holy Sacrifice starting from Sunday next which is the first of Advent, November 30 [in Italy].
2. A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. It seemed to bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past, which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead.
3. It is at such a moment as this that we get a better understanding of the value of historical tradition and the communion of the saints. This change will affect the ceremonies of the Mass. We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance, that the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed—perhaps so much accustomed that we no longer took any notice of them. This change also touches the faithful. It is intended to interest each one of those present, to draw them out of their customary personal devotions or their usual torpor.
4. We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits. We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most, because they have their own respectable way of hearing Mass, and they will feel shaken out of their usual thoughts and obliged to follow those of others. Even priests may feel some annoyance in this respect.
5. So what is to be done on this special and historical occasion? First of all, we must prepare ourselves. This novelty is no small thing. We should not let ourselves be surprised by the nature, or even the nuisance, of its exterior forms. As intelligent persons and conscientious faithful we should find out as much as we can about this innovation. It will not be hard to do so, because of the many fine efforts being made by the Church and by publishers. As We said on another occasion, we shall do well to take into account the motives for this grave change. The first is obedience to the Council. That obedience now implies obedience to the Bishops, who interpret the Council's prescription and put them into practice.
6. This first reason is not simply canonical—relating to an external precept. It is connected with the charism of the liturgical act. In other words, it is linked with the power and efficacy of the Church's prayer, the most authoritative utterance of which comes from the Bishop. This is also true of priests, who help the Bishop in his ministry, and like him act in persona Christi (cf. St. Ign., ad Eph. I, V). It is Christ's will, it is the breath of the Holy Spirit which calls the Church to make this change. A prophetic moment is occurring in the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church. This moment is shaking the Church, arousing it, obliging it to renew the mysterious art of its prayer.
7. The other reason for the reform is this renewal of prayer. It is aimed at associating the assembly of the faithful more closely and more effectively with the official rite, that of the Word and that of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, that constitutes the Mass. For the faithful are also invested with the "royal priesthood"; that is, they are qualified to have supernatural conversation with God.
8. It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.
9. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church's values?
10. The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic.
11. Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.
12. If the divine Latin language kept us apart from the children, from youth, from the world of labor and of affairs, if it were a dark screen, not a clear window, would it be right for us fishers of souls to maintain it as the exclusive language of prayer and religious intercourse? What did St. Paul have to say about that? Read chapter 14 of the first letter to the Corinthians: "In Church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue" (I Corinthians 14:19).
13. St. Augustine seems to be commenting on this when he says, "Have no fear of teachers, so long as all are instructed" (P.L. 38, 228, Serm. 37; cf. also Serm. 229, p. 1371). But, in any case, the new rite of the Mass provides that the faithful "should be able to sing together, in Latin, at least the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass, especially the Creed and the Lord's Prayer, the Our Father" (Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 19).
14. But, let us bear this well in mind, for our counsel and our comfort: the Latin language will not thereby disappear. It will continue to be the noble language of the Holy See's official acts; it will remain as the means of teaching in ecclesiastical studies and as the key to the patrimony of our religious, historical and human culture. If possible, it will reflourish in splendor.
15. Finally, if we look at the matter properly we shall see that the fundamental outline of the Mass is still the traditional one, not only theologically but also spiritually. Indeed, if the Rite is carried out as it ought to be, the spiritual aspect will be found to have greater richness. The greater simplicity of the ceremonies, the variety and abundance of scriptural texts, the joint acts of the ministers, the silences which will mark various deeper moments in the rite, will all help to bring this out.
16. But two indispensable requirements above all will make that richness clear: a profound participation by every single one present, and an outpouring of spirit in community charity. These requirements will help to make the Mass more than ever a school of spiritual depth and a peaceful but demanding school of Christian sociology. The soul's relationship with Christ and with the brethren thus attains new and vital intensity. Christ, the victim and the priest, renews and offers up his redeeming sacrifice through the ministry of the Church in the symbolic Rite of his Last Supper. He leaves us His Body and Blood under the appearances of bread and wine, for our personal and spiritual nourishment, for our fusion in the unity of his redeeming love and his immortal life.
17. But there is still a practical difficulty, which the excellence of the sacred renders not a little important. How can we celebrate this New Rite when we have not yet got a complete Missal, and there are still so many uncertainties about what to do?
18. To conclude, it will be helpful to read to you some directions from the competent office, namely the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship. Here they are: "As regards the obligation of the rite:
1) For the Latin text: Priests who celebrate in Latin, in private or also in public, in cases provided for by the legislation, may use either the Roman Missal or the New Rite until November 28, 1971. If they use the Roman Missal, they may nevertheless make use of the three new anaphoras and the Roman Canon, having regard to the provisions respecting the last text (omission of some saints, conclusions, etc.). They may moreover recite the readings and the prayer of the faithful in the vernacular. If they use the new rite, they must follow the official text, with the concessions as regards the vernacular indicated above.
2) For the vernacular text. In Italy, all those who celebrate in the presence of the people from November 30 next, must use the Rito delta Messa published by the Italian Episcopal Conference or by another National Conference. On feast days readings shall be taken: either from the Lectionary published by the Italian Center for Liturgical Action, or from the Roman Missal for feast days, as in use heretofore. On ferial days the ferial Lectionary published three years ago shall continue to be used. No problem arises for those who celebrate in private, because they must celebrate in Latin. If a priest celebrates in the vernacular by special indult, as regards the texts, he shall follow what was said above for the Mass with the people; but for the Rite he shall follow the Ordo published by the Italian Episcopal Conference.
19. In every case, and at all times, let us remember that "the Mass is a Mystery to be lived in a death of Love. Its divine reality surpasses all words. . . It is the Action par excellence, the very act of our Redemption, in the Memorial which makes it present" (Zundel).
With Our Apostolic Benediction.
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
|
Petition to Jesus Crucified - Devotion to the Passion |
Posted by: Hildegard of Bingen - 03-04-2021, 12:17 PM - Forum: In Honor of Our Lord
- No Replies
|
|
DEVOTION TO THE PASSION
Petition to Jesus Crucified
(Taken from St. Alphonsus’ Prayer-Book – pages 452)
Ah, my crucified Jesus, Look on me with the same love with which Thou didst look on me when dying on the cross for me; look on me, and have pity on me; give me general pardon for all the displeasure I have given Thee; give me holy perseverance; give me Thy holy love; give me a perfect conformity to Thy will; give me paradise, that I may love Thee there forever. I deserve nothing; but Thy wounds encourage me to hope for every good from Thee. Ah, Jesus of my soul, by that love which made Thee die for me, give me Thy love. Take away from me all affection to creatures, give resignation in tribulation, and make Thyself the object of all my affections, that from this day forward I may love none other but Thee. Amen.
|
|
|
To Jesus Dead on the Cross - Devotion to the Passion |
Posted by: Hildegard of Bingen - 03-04-2021, 12:10 PM - Forum: In Honor of Our Lord
- No Replies
|
|
DEVOTION TO THE PASSION
To Jesus dead on the Cross.
Had He not loved me He would not have died for me!
(Taken from St. Alphonsus’ Prayer-Book – pages 451-452)
O Saviour of the world, O my Jesus, behold to what Thy love for men has at length reduced Thee! I thank Thee that Thou hast been willing, Thou, Our God, to lose Thy life that we might not lose our souls. I thank Thee for all men, but especially for myself. And who is there more than I that Has reaped the fruits of Thy death! I through Thy merits, without even so much as knowing it, was, by baptism, made a child of the Church; through Thy love my sins have been often forgiven, and I have received many special graces; through Thee I have the hope of dying in the grace of God, and of loving Thee eternally in paradise.
O my beloved Redeemer, what gratitude do I not owe Thee! Into Thy pierced hands I commend my poor soul. Make me well understand the excess of that love which made God die for me: would that I could die for Thee! But what would the death of a wicked slave weigh against the death of his Lord and God? Would that I could, at least, love Thee with my whole heart; but without Thy help, O my Jesus, I can do nothing. Oh, help me! And, through the merits of Thy death, make me die to all earthly affections, that so I may love Thee only, Who dost deserve all my love. I love Thee, O infinite Goodness. I love Thee, my chief Good. O Mary, my Mother, intercede for me. Amen.
|
|
|
Pope Pius IX: Quanto Conficiamur Moerore - On Promotion of False Doctrines |
Posted by: Stone - 03-04-2021, 10:24 AM - Forum: Encyclicals
- No Replies
|
|
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore
On Promotion of False Doctrines
To Our Beloved Sons, S. R. E. Cardinals and to Our Venerable Brothers, the Archbishops and Bishops of Italy.
Our Beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, Greetings and Apostolic Benediction.
How much cause we have to grieve over the most cruel and sacrilegious war brought upon the Catholic Church in almost all regions of the world during these turbulent times, and especially declared upon unhappy Italy before our very eyes many years ago by the Piedmontese Government and stirred up more violently day by day, each of you, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, easily understands. In the midst of our great distress, however, as long as you keep watch with us, we are deeply comforted and consoled. Although you are, indeed, most deplorably harassed by every grave injustice possible, torn away from your own flock, exiled and even cast into prison, nevertheless, with your profound virtue you have never neglected to speak and to write in ardent defense of the teachings of God, his Church, and this Apostolic See.
2. Consequently, we give thanks because you fervently rejoice to suffer insult in the name of Jesus. We extend to you merited praise in the words of our most saintly predecessor, Leo: “May you endure with all your heart the trials of your love, which you have undergone in reverence for the Catholic faith; may I accept the sufferings inflicted upon you as if I were bearing them myself. I know, however, that it is a cause of joy rather than of sorrow that with the strength of our Lord, Jesus Christ, you have persevered invincible in your evangelical and apostolic teaching . . . And when the enemies of the Christian faith were tearing you away from your respective churches, rather than being contaminated by their impiety, you preferred to endure the injustice of undergoing exile.”[1]
3. Would that we could announce the end of such terrible calamities besetting the Church! Never will there be grief enough over the corruption of morals so extensively increasing and promoted by irreligious and obscene writings, theatrical spectacles and meretricious houses established almost everywhere; by other depraved arts and monstrous portents of every error disseminated in all directions; by the abominable impurities of all vices and crimes growing constantly and the deadly virus of unbelief and indifferentism spread far and wide; by contempt for ecclesiastical authority, sacred things, and laws and by the outrageous plundering of Church possessions; by the bitter and constant abuse of consecrated Church officials, of the students of religious communities, of virgins dedicated to God; by the diabolical hatred of Christ, his Church, teaching, and of this Apostolic See. These and almost innumerable other evils perpetrated by the embittered enemies of the Catholic Church and faith, we are daily compelled to lament.
4. All these agonies seem to prolong and delay that most yearned for time when we shall see the full triumph of our most holy religion, of justice, and of truth. This triumph cannot fail us, however, even if it is not given us to know the time destined for it by almighty God. Even though our heavenly Father permits his holy Church to be afflicted and plagued by various tribulations and distresses while serving during this most miserable and earthly pilgrimage, nevertheless, because it has been founded by Christ, the Lord, upon an immovable and most firm rock, it cannot be shaken or overthrown by any force or violence. Rather, “it is strengthened, not weakened by persecutions. The Lord’s vineyard is always clothed with a richer harvest, for while each grain dies singly, it is born again manyfold.”[2]
5. That is what we see happening, beloved sons and venerable brothers, even in these most sorrowful times as a special blessing from God. For although the immaculate Spouse of Christ may be vehemently troubled at the present time by the work of the wicked, yet she is triumphing over her enemies. Yes, indeed, she is conquering her enemies and shines wonderfully bright with your unparalleled faithfulness, love, and respect towards us and this Chair of Peter, and with your outstanding constancy and that of the other venerable brothers, the bishops of the whole Catholic world. She shines with many pious works of Christian charity multiplying rapidly each day; with the light of blessed faith illuminating many regions evermore each day; with the exceptional love and devotion shown by Catholics towards the Church itself, towards us, and this Holy See; with the eminent and immortal glory of martyrdom. You know, in fact, how in Tonkin and especially in the regions of Cochin China, bishops, priests, laymen and even peaceful women themselves, and young boys and girls, emulating the martyrs with their unconquerable spirit and heroic virtue, disdained the most inhuman torture, and greatly rejoiced to pour out their lives for Christ. All these joys should be no slight consolation to us and to you in the midst of the overwhelming anguish that torments us.
6. Now, since our Apostolic Office demands we carefully and zealously defend the cause of the Church committed to us by Christ, we condemn those who attack and despise the Church itself, its sacred laws, ministers, and this Apostolic See. Hence, with this letter, once more we confirm, proclaim and condemn totally and singly that which in many consistorial allocutions and in our other Letters we have been forced to deplore, declare and condemn.[3]
7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom “the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.”[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: “If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;”[5] “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;”[6] “He who does not believe will be condemned;”[7] “He who does not believe is already condemned;”[8] “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.”[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are “perverted and self-condemned;”[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them “false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”[11]
9. God forbid that the children of the Catholic Church should even in any way be unfriendly to those who are not at all united to us by the same bonds of faith and love. On the contrary, let them be eager always to attend to their needs with all the kind services of Christian charity, whether they are poor or sick or suffering any other kind of visitation. First of all, let them rescue them from the darkness of the errors into which they have unhappily fallen and strive to guide them back to Catholic truth and to their most loving Mother who is ever holding out her maternal arms to receive them lovingly back into her fold. Thus, firmly founded in faith, hope, and charity and fruitful in every good work, they will gain eternal salvation.
10. Furthermore, beloved sons and venerable brothers, we cannot be silent about another most pernicious error, an evil that is pitifully tearing apart and deeply disturbing minds, hearts, and souls. We are referring to that unbridled and damnable self-love and self-interest that drive many to seek their own advantage and profit with clearly no regard for their neighbor. We mean that thoroughly insatiable passion for power and possessions that overrides all the rules of justice and honesty and never ceases by every means possible to amass and greedily heap up wealth. Completely absorbed in the things of earth, forgetful of God, religion and their souls, they wrongly place all their happiness in procuring riches and money. Let such people recollect and meditate seriously upon the very sobering words of Christ, the Lord: “What will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life?”[12] Let them also reflect upon the teaching of Paul: “Those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that drag men down to ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evil; it is through this craving that some have wandered away and pierced their hearts with many pangs.”[13]
11. Now, truly, we cannot conceal the fact that we are in great anguish since there are some clergy in Italy who, forgetful of their vocation, do not blush in the least to spread abroad false doctrine, even in subversive writings. They arouse the people against us and this Apostolic See; they oppose our civil rule and that of the Chair itself; they shamelessly and zealously support the wicked enemies of the Catholic Church and this same See. Deserting their bishops and us, emboldened by the approval of the Piedmontese government and its Parliament, these ecclesiastics in open contempt of ecclesiastical censure and penalty have become impudently fearless in organizing certain condemnable societies commonly known as Liberal Clerical, of Mutual Assistance, For the Emancipation of the Italian Clergy, and other associations animated by the same depraved spirit. Although deservedly forbidden to perform their holy ministry, nevertheless, like brazen intruders, they sinfully and illicitly exercise it in many churches. We, therefore, disapprove and condemn the behavior of the same ecclesiastics. At the same time, we admonish and exhort, again and again, these unfortunate men to return to their right mind and heart and take thought for their own salvation, seriously considering “that God tolerates no example of conduct more from others than from priests when He sees those, whom He ordains for the improvement of others, give example of their own depravity.”[14] Let them fervently reflect that their confused state must be repaired before the tribunal of Christ. May these pitiful churchmen heed our paternal advice and willingly render us the consolation of a repentant clergy. May they seek refuge in us day by day, begging pardon for their defection with suppliant prayer and humbly imploring absolution from ecclesiastical censure.
12. You are certainly aware, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, that every kind of impious and deceitful writing, lies, calumny, and blasphemy has been let loose from hell. No pain has been spared to transfer schools to non-Catholic teachers and to appropriate churches for non-Catholic worship. With a multiple of other, surely diabolical treacheries, arts, and undertakings, the enemies of God employ every effort to destroy completely-if that were possible — the Catholic Church, seduce and corruupt the people, especially guileless youth, and uproot our holy faith and religion from the souls of all.
13. We are fully confident that you, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, strengthened by the grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ, will continue steadfast in your outstanding episcopal zeal. With one mind and heart and with redoubled dedication, may you persist in defending the House of Israel, may you fight the good fight for the faith and defend from the snares of the enemy the faithful entrusted to your care.Admonish and exhort them to be strong in our sacred faith, without which it is impossible to please God. Urge them to persevere firmly established in our divine religion, which alone is true and eternal and prepares for salvation and even, to a very great extent, preserves and prospers civil society.
14. Through the parish priests chiefly and other ecclesiastics known for integrity of life, gravity of morals, and constant adherence to sound doctrine, may you teach unremittingly and accurately: at one time preaching the divine word, at another instructing the people in the mysteries of our august religion, its doctrine, precepts, and discipline. You, above all, know that many evils generally arise from ignorance of divine matters essential for salvation. Hence, you will understand that it behooves you to use every care and diligence that so detrimental a condition be prevented.
15. Before we bring our letter to its close, however, we cannot restrain from bestowing due praise upon the Italian clergy, who with the highest degree of devotion to us and this Chair of Peter and to their bishops, have certainly not strayed. Following the noble example of their bishops and bearing all hardships with utmost patience, they fulfill their duty most laudably. We put our trust in the hope, moreover, that this same clergy, with the help of divine grace and walking worthily in their vocation, will always strive to be shining examples of piety and virtue.
16. We continue, too, with fitting and public praise for the many consecrated virgins who violently driven from their monastaries, despoiled of their recompense, and reduced to beggary, have not broken faith with their Spouse. Enduring the most deplorable conditions, they pray day and night in the holy house of God where they patiently await His mercy and beseech Him for the salvation of all, even that of their enemies.
17. We rejoice, also, in praising the people of Italy who, with deep Catholic sensibilities, abhor the many impious and destructive efforts taken against the Church. With filial piety, respect and obedience, they take great pride in honoring us, this Holy See, and their bishops. Amid very serious difficulties and impeded by dangers, each day and in many ways they faithfully offer us tokens of their love and devotion, alleviating the wants of this Apostolic See, at times with money, at other times with other gifts.
18. In the midst of so many calamities and confronted with such fury against the Church, we are not despondent for “Christ is our counsel and our strength; without him we can do nothing, through him we can do all things. While confirming the preachers of the Gospel and the ministers of the sacraments, he said: ‘Lo, I am with you always, to the end of time.'”[15] We know for certain, moreover, that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church which stands and will stand immovable with Christ Jesus, our Lord, as guardian and protector, who has built the Church and who has been “yesterday and today and forever.”[16]
19. With ever more ardent zeal and humility of heart, let us, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, never stop offering our prayers and petitions to God through Jesus Christ that His Church, driven by this most turbulent tempest, may recover from such great disasters, enjoy the most blessed peace and freedom throughout the world, and gain new and more splendid triumphs over her enemies. Let us pray that the errant be flooded with the light of his divine grace, may turn back from the path of error into the way of truth and justice and, experiencing the worthy fruit of repentance, may possess perpetual love and fear of his holy name.
20. That the merciful God may more readily grant our most fervent prayers, let us invoke patronage of the immaculate and most holy Virgin Mary, Mother of God. Let us seek likewise the intercession of the most holy Apostles, Peter and Paul, and of all the blessed in heaven, that with their efficacious prayers before God, they may implore mercy and graces for all and powerfully avert all adversities and dangers afflicting the Church everywhere and especially in Italy.
21. Finally, as a most certain pledge of our singular benevolence toward you, we lovingly impart our heartfelt Apostolic Blessing upon you, beloved sons and venerable brothers, and upon the flock committed to your care.
Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, 10 August, 1863, in the eighteenth year of Our Pontificate.
1. St. Leo, epistle 154 to the bishops of Egypt, ed. Baller.
2. St. Leo, sermon 82 on the feast of the apostles Peter and Paul.
3. Addresses on 20 June 1859; 26 September 1859; 13 July 1860; 28 September 1860; 17 December 1860; 18 March 1861; 30 September 1861; and 9 June 1862. Encyclical letters on 18 June 1859 and 19 January 1860. Apostolic letter on 26 March 1860.
4. Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in its letter to Pope Leo.
5. Mt 15.17.
6. Lk 10.16.
7. Mk 16.16.
8. Jn 3.18.
9. Lk 11.23.
10. Ti 3.11.
11. 2 Pt 2.1.
12. Mt 16.26.
13. I Tm 6.9-10.
14. St. Gregory the Great, homily 17 in Evangel.
15. St. Leo, epistle 167 to Rusticus, bishop of Narbonne.
16. Heb 13.8.
|
|
|
Fr. Hesse: Ten Errors of Vatican II |
Posted by: Stone - 03-04-2021, 09:54 AM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition
- No Replies
|
|
Ten Errors of Vatican II
[Taken from The Recusant: based on notes from a talk given by the late Fr. Gregory Hesse, STD, JCD]
Vatican II contains error. In the old days there was a list of books that were prohibited for Catholics, called the Index. In order for a book to be put on the Index and become illicit reading for a Catholic, the book does not have to be full of heresy. All that is needed is for it to contain just one heresy, just one thing that is wrong. There were books on the Index that contained just one line that was wrong. For example, there was a very good translation of the Bible on the Index, the “van Ess” translation of the Bible into German, which contained two or three little errors. The whole rest of it was a very good translation, but because of the two or three little errors it got put on the Index. Vatican II ought to be on the Index. Here are some of it’s heresies. This is not an exhaustive list, but will give you an idea (emphasis throughout is ours).
Lumen Gentium 1
This says that the Church is “...like a sacrament ... both of very close union with God and of the unity of the whole human race.”
Fr. Hesse: No! The Council of Trent dogmatically defines that there are seven sacraments. A sacrament is a sign. The Church is defined as a perfect society and not a sign. It is the Mystical body of Christ. And it does not concern “the whole human race” - like it or not, plenty of people do not belong to the Church. The Church wants them to convert, but as long as they remain outside they are (by their own will) nothing to do with the Church. They do not come under Church law, the Church does not judge them, the Church does not deal with them... They are not a part of the Mystical Body of Christ.
Lumen Gentium 8
“This Church [the Church of Christ] constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.”
Fr. Hesse: The word subsists doesn’t tell us much in English, but in Latin “subsistere” means to exist, to be present, to lie underneath. You could say for example that the grass is subsistent to my way of walking. But it could also be subsistent to someone else’s way of walking and not just to mine. So when you say that the Catholic Church “subsists” in the Catholic Church, it is phrased that way deliberately so as not to exclude Protestants, Orthodox, etc. The architects of Vatican II were too clever to say that the Church of Christ “contains” the Protestants, the Orthodox and all those other non-Catholics. So they said that it can be found in the Catholic Church in a way that does not exclude the others. But it is defined dogma that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church, the two are identical. Nothing outside the Catholic Church is part of the Church of Christ and nothing of the Church of Christ is outside the Catholic Church. The two are identical.
Lumen Gentium 15
“Likewise we can say that in some real way they [non-Catholic/Protestant sects] are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power.”
Fr. Hesse: What way is this “real way”? They never say. In the Gospel of St. John one can read that the Holy Ghost was given only to the Catholic Church, not to Protestants, not to the Lutheran Church, not to the Anglicans. When a Lutheran pastor baptises a baby, if it is valid, it is a sacrament stolen from the Catholic Church. If that innocent child, after being baptised, dies and goes to heaven, it goes to heaven as a member of the Catholic Church because the Lutheran pastor illicitly administered the Catholic sacrament of baptism.
Lumen Gentium 16
“But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, together with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.”
Fr. Hesse: What about the Incarnation? What about the Holy Trinity? The Koran, the Muslims’ holy book calls the idea of the Trinity an “excremental idea.” And now Vatican II tells us that they, together with us, adore the one merciful God?!? What about the First Commandment? They have another God, they have the lonely one-person Allah. We have Father, Son and Holy Ghost. “Et Verbum caro factum est,” says the last Gospel at Mass, “And the Word became flesh” I’ve never heard that Allah became flesh. This is blasphemy. It is heresy and it is blasphemy.
The idea that Muslims, Jews and Catholics are basically all the same anyway is a Freemasonic idea. It was being promoted by the Freemasons long before Vatican II, and now we have a so-called Ecumenical Council telling us the same thing too. Give me a Catholic interpretation of that quote about the Muslims together with us adoring the same God. It’s not possible. It’s just a heresy.
Unitatis Redintigratio 3
“The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation."
Fr. Hesse: It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.”
The Protestant “churches,” and the Orthodox “churches,” cannot save anyone, they are not, never have been and never will be a means of salvation to anyone. They can only lead you to hell. Subjectively speaking, you might ask whether a Protestant who has lived a just life all his life, who has tried his best to find the truth, who has tried his best to avoid sin, whether perhaps for whatever reason he was not able to find out about the Catholic Church... or a Russian Orthodox living under communism all his life, who maybe never heard about the Catholic Church... whether because of that God would not send him to hell. Well, subjectively speaking perhaps, but even so objectively speaking they are living in mortal sin and outside Christ’s Church. Who knows if through an extraordinary act of grace from God, through an act of contrition, that man might die as a member of the Catholic Church. In reality, it must be highly improbable if ever possible, especially in this day and age for the likes of you and I. And, objectively speaking, for anyone to say that the Protestant sects or any religion other than the Catholic Church can be a means to salvation, that is a heresy. Here is a small sample of what the Popes and Councils have taught concerning this: “On the one hand, therefore, it is necessary that the mission of teaching whatever Christ had taught should remain perpetual and immutable, and on the other that the duty of accepting and professing all their doctrine should likewise be perpetual and immutable.
‘Our Lord Jesus Christ, when in His Gospel He testifies that those who not are with Him are His enemies, does not designate any special form of heresy, but declares that all heretics who are not with Him and do not gather with Him, scatter His flock and are His adversaries: He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth’ (St. Cyprian, Ep. lxix., ad Magnum, n. I).
- . . . The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.
. . . Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by everyone as true. ... But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”(Leo XIII, Satis Cogitum, 8 ff.)
- “And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching.” (Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 7)
- “This Council firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Council of Ferrara-Florence, Session XI)
We could, if we wished, quote many, many more Popes and they all say the same thing, indeed until Vatican II one could not find any Pope or Council saying differently. So, it is clear that this one part of this one document is heretical. Therefore the whole document is heretical. Therefore the whole Council is heretical. As noted before, just one heresy would be enough to condemn the whole thing, but it doesn’t end there...
Unitatis Redintigratio 6
This document is supposedly about ‘Ecumenism’, and in this paragraph it suggests the following as a means to achieving ‘Christian unity’: “Christ summons the Church to continual reformation as she sojourns here on earth. The Church is always in need of this, in so far as she is an institution of men here on earth. Thus if, in various times and circumstances, there have been deficiencies in moral conduct or in church discipline, or even in the way that church teaching has been formulated - to be carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith itself - these can and should be set right at the opportune moment.”
Fr. Hesse: The morals of the clergy have often needed reforming throughout the history of the Church. But the idea of “reforming” Church teaching (or its ‘formulation’) is something entirely different. And the distinction introduced here between “Church teaching” and “the deposit of the Faith itself” is completely false. Here is what a recent Pope taught regarding this bogus distinction:
Quote:“12. How so great a variety of opinions can clear the way for the unity of the Church, We know not. That unity can arise only from one teaching authority, one law of belief, and one faith of Christians. But We do know that from such a state of affairs it is but an easy step to the neglect of religion or “Indifferentism,” and to the error of the modernists, who hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is, that it changes according to the varying necessities of time and place and the varying tendencies of the mind; that it is not contained in an immutable tradition, but can be altered to suit the needs of human life.
13. Furthermore, it is never lawful to employ in connection with articles of faith the distinction invented by some between “fundamental” and “non-fundamental” articles, the former to be accepted by all, the latter being left to the free acceptance of the faithful. The supernatural virtue of faith has as its formal motive the authority of God revealing, and this allows of no such distinction.” (Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, 1928)
Dei Verbum 8
This tries to re-define Tradition as being something which: “...develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth.”
Fr. Hesse: So “Tradition” is now a “development” which “grows” through the “contemplation and study” of the laity and through their “spiritual realities which they experience”? Whatever this is, this is not the Catholic meaning of Tradition.
Interestingly enough, in ‘Ecclessia Dei Afflicta,’ 1988, John Paul II criticised Archbishop Lefebvre’s notion of Tradition. He accused him of having a wrong understanding of Tradition. Archbishop Lefebvre had no notion of Tradition other than the Catholic understanding of it, but the Pope criticised Lefebvre’s supposedly wrong understanding of it and quoted ‘Dei Verbum’ as to make his point.
Gaudium et Spes 12
This whole document was indirectly written by the founder of Opus Dei, “Saint” Jose Maria Escriva. He wanted the Church to conform to the modern world and he wanted a one world government. Section 12 of this document utters blasphemy when it says: “According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be directed towards man as their centre and crown.”
Fr. Hesse: That should sound familiar to anyone who has read about the plans of Freemasonry, about blasphemies uttered at the United Nations. All the efforts of the Church are directed towards God. All our efforts here on earth should be directed towards God. The old Mass made that clear; the new Mass on the other hand...
Gaudium et Spes also postulates a peaceful government of the whole world under one body of government. This is to say the least naive, in 1965, when most governments on the earth were anti-Catholic and anti-clerical. I actually think it is far worse than naive.
Ad Gentes Divinitus 29
“For all missions and for the whole of missionary activity there should be only one competent office, namely that of the ‘Propagation of the Faith,’ which should direct and coordinate, throughout the world, both missionary work itself and missionary cooperation. ... In collaboration with the Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity let it seek ways and means for attaining and organising fraternal co-operation and harmonious relations with the missionary undertakings of other Christian communities, so that as far as possible the scandal of division may be removed.”
Fr. Hesse: Given what has been discussed above regarding the infallible doctrine of there being no salvation outside the Catholic Church and the absolute necessity of belonging to that same Catholic Church, this should hardly require comment. Needless to say, to urge Catholic missionaries to cooperate with Protestant “missionaries” is bad enough, but to do so on the grounds of “unity” is doubly absurd. Protestant “missionaries” are in reality not missionaries at all: what they spread is a false religion, and thus they themselves are a cause of the spread of disunity, causing more souls to be outside the unity of Christ’s Church.
Dignitatis Humanae 2
This is perhaps the best known error of Vatican II, perhaps because its consequences are so visible, or because is an error which so many Popes fought against right up to the Council. Here’s what the document actually says: “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
Fr. Hesse: The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.” The supposed reason or grounds for this error, human dignity, is also itself wrong. As Pope St. Pius X said “The only dignity of man is in his being a Catholic.”
If I really thought that I had religious liberty, I would find an easier religion to belong to. Why not be an Anglican? They have nicer churches, they are more musical, their laws are not as strict... But I am not an Anglican, I am a Catholic because I do not have ‘religious liberty’, I have no choice: I am bound in conscience to be a Catholic if I want to save my soul. G.K. Chesterton said “If I were not a Catholic, I would have a harem.”
“Religious freedom” or “religious liberty” has been condemned by Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, St. Pius X, Pius XI and Pius X. You are not free to choose your religion. You are bound in conscience to become a Catholic and to join the Catholic Church in order to save your soul. If you choose not to, you go to hell. Nobody can coerce someone into thinking something they do not want to think or believing something they do not want to believe. But the laws of a Catholic state can prevent the followers of a false religion from practising in public, from trying to make converts, from trying to spread their false doctrine and false morals, etc. Look at the catastrophic numbers of millions of souls today leaving the Church to join ‘evangelical’ protestant sects in countries where before the council everyone was Catholic: South America, the Philippines, etc. These formerly Catholic countries were forced to change their constitutions so as to no longer give the Catholic religion pride of place. All this disaster as a result of just two paragraphs in one of the sixteen documents of this robber council. As noted above, just one error is enough. One heresy makes the whole document heretical, and one heretical document makes the whole council heretical.
|
|
|
Pope Pius XII: Humani Generis - Of the Human Race |
Posted by: Stone - 03-04-2021, 08:35 AM - Forum: Encyclicals
- No Replies
|
|
Humani Generis
Of the Human Race
TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN, PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHIOPS, AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES ENJOYING PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE HOLY SEE CONCERNING SOME FALSE OPINIONS THREATENING TO UNDERMINE THE FOUNDATIONS OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
Venerable Brethren,
Greetings and Apostolic Benediction
Disagreement and error among men on moral and religious matters have always been a cause of profound sorrow to all good men, but above all to the true and loyal sons of the Church, especially today, when we see the principles of Christian culture being attacked on all sides.
2. It is not surprising that such discord and error should always have existed outside the fold of Christ. For though, absolutely speaking, human reason by its own natural force and light can arrive at a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, Who by His providence watches over and governs the world, and also of the natural law, which the Creator has written in our hearts, still there are not a few obstacles to prevent reason from making efficient and fruitful use of its natural ability. The truths that have to do with God and the relations between God and men, completely surpass the sensible order and demand self-surrender and self-abnegation in order to be put into practice and to influence practical life. Now the human intellect, in gaining the knowledge of such truths is hampered both by the activity of he senses and the imagination, and by evil passions arising from original sin. Hence men easily persuade themselves in such matters that what they do not wish to believe is false or at least doubtful.
3. It is for this reason that divine revelation must be considered morally necessary so that those religious and moral truths which are not of their nature beyond the reach of reason in the present condition of the human race, may be known by all mean readily with a firm certainty and with freedom from all error.[1]
4. Furthermore the human intelligence sometimes experiences difficulties in forming a judgment about the credibility of the Catholic faith, notwithstanding the many wonderful external signs God has given, which are sufficient to prove with certitude by the natural light of reason alone the divine origin of the Christian religion. For man can, whether from prejudice or passion or bad faith, refuse and resist not only the evidence of the external proofs that are available, but also the impulses of actual grace.
5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.
6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.
7. There is also a certain historicism, which attributing value only to the events of man's life, overthrows the foundation of all truth and absolute law, both on the level of philosophical speculations and especially to Christian dogmas.
8. In all this confusion of opinion it is some consolation to Us to see former adherents of rationalism today frequently desiring to return to the fountain of divinely communicated truth, and to acknowledge and profess the word of God as contained in Sacred Scripture as the foundation of religious teaching. But at the same time it is a matter of regret that not a few of these, the more firmly they accept the word of God, so much the more do they diminish the value of human reason, and the more they exalt the authority of God the Revealer, the more severely do they spurn the teaching office of the Church, which has been instituted by Christ, Our Lord, to preserve and interpret divine revelation. This attitude is not only plainly at variance with Holy Scripture, but is shown to be false by experience also. For often those who disagree with the true Church complain openly of their disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.
9. Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these same theories well, both because diseases are not properly treated unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in these false theories a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally, because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths.
10. If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive such profit from the careful examination of these doctrines, there would be no reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of the Church. However, although We know that Catholic teachers generally avoid these errors, it is apparent, however, that some today, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error.
11. Another danger is perceived which is all the more serious because it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue. There are many who, deploring disagreement among men and intellectual confusion, through an imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great and ardent desire to do away with the barrier that divides good and honest men; these advocate an "eirenism" according to which, by setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma. And as in former times some questioned whether the traditional apologetics of the Church did not constitute an obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ, so today some are presumptive enough to question seriously whether theology and theological methods, such as with the approval of ecclesiastical authority are found in our schools, should not only be perfected, but also completely reformed, in order to promote the more efficacious propagation of the kingdom of Christ everywhere throughout the world among men of every culture and religious opinion.
12. Now if these only aimed at adapting ecclesiastical teaching and methods to modern conditions and requirements, through the introduction of some new explanations, there would be scarcely any reason for alarm. But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent "eirenism" seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction.
13. These new opinions, whether they originate from a reprehensible desire of novelty or from a laudable motive, are not always advanced in the same degree, with equal clarity nor in the same terms, nor always with unanimous agreement of their authors. Theories that today are put forward rather covertly by some, not without cautions and distinctions, tomorrow are openly and without moderation proclaimed by others more audacious, causing scandal to many, especially among the young clergy and to the detriment of ecclesiastical authority. Though they are usually more cautious in their published works, they express themselves more openly in their writings intended for private circulation and in conferences and lectures. Moreover, these opinions are disseminated not only among members of the clergy and in seminaries and religious institutions, but also among the laity, and especially among those who are engaged in teaching youth.
14. In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.
15. Moreover, they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that his can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.
16. It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it. Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them.
17. Hence to neglect, or to reject,or to devalue so many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning.
18. Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of science. Some non-Catholics consider it as an unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians from reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith - Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition - to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,"[2] is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist. What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients.
19. Although these things seem well said, still they are not free form error. It is true that Popes generally leave theologians free in those matters which are disputed in various ways by men of very high authority in this field; but history teaches that many matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit of discussion.
20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
21. It is also true that theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.[4] Besides, each source of divinely revealed doctrine contains so many rich treasures of truth, that they can really never be exhausted. Hence it is that theology through the study of its sacred sources remains ever fresh; on the other hand, speculation which neglects a deeper search into the deposit of faith, proves sterile, as we know from experience. But for this reason even positive theology cannot be on a par with merely historical science. For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church. But if the Church does exercise this function of teaching, as she often has through the centuries, either in the ordinary or in the extraordinary way, it is clear how false is a procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of what is obscure. Indeed, the very opposite procedure must be used. Hence Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, teaching that the most noble office of theology is to show how a doctrine defined by the Church is contained in the sources of revelation, added these words, and with very good reason: "in that sense in which it has been defined by the Church."
22. To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned above, a number of things are proposed or suggested by some even against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council's definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters. They even wrongly speak of a human sense of the Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the only infallible meaning, lies hidden. In interpreting Scripture, they will take no account of the analogy of faith and the Tradition of the Church. Thus they judge the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching Church by the norm of Holy Scripture, interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth.
23. Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church's vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis of the Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.
24. Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical "Providentissimus Deus," and Benedict XV in the Encyclical "Spiritus Paraclitus," as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu."
25. It is not surprising that novelties of this kind have already borne their deadly fruit in almost all branches of theology. It is now doubted that human reason, without divine revelation and the help of divine grace, can, by arguments drawn from the created universe, prove the existence of a personal God; it is denied that the world had a beginning; it is argued that the creation of the world is necessary, since it proceeds from the necessary liberality of divine love; it is denied that God has eternal and infallible foreknowledge of the free actions of men - all this in contradiction to the decrees of the Vatican Council.[5]
26. Some also question whether angels are personal beings, and whether matter and spirit differ essentially. Others destroy the gratuity of the supernatural order, since God, they say, cannot create intellectual beings without ordering and calling them to the beatific vision. Nor is this all. Disregarding the Council of Trent, some pervert the very concept of original sin, along with the concept of sin in general as an offense against God, as well as the idea of satisfaction performed for us by Christ. Some even say that the doctrine of transubstantiation, based on an antiquated philosophic notion of substance, should be so modified that the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist be reduced to a kind of symbolism, whereby the consecrated species would be merely efficacious signs of the spiritual presence of Christ and of His intimate union with the faithful members of His Mystical Body.
27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith.
28. These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science. To them We are compelled with grief to repeat once again truths already well known, and to point out with solicitude clear errors and dangers of error.
29. It is well known how highly the Church regards human reason, for it falls to reason to demonstrate with certainty the existence of God, personal and one; to prove beyond doubt from divine signs the very foundations of the Christian faith; to express properly the law which the Creator has imprinted in the hearts of men; and finally to attain to some notion, indeed a very fruitful notion, of mysteries.[7] But reason can perform these functions safely and well only when properly trained, that is, when imbued with that sound philosophy which has long been, as it were, a patrimony handed down by earlier Christian ages, and which moreover possesses an authority of an even higher order, since the Teaching Authority of the Church, in the light of divine revelation itself, has weighed its fundamental tenets, which have been elaborated and defined little by little by men of great genius. For this philosophy, acknowledged and accepted by the Church, safeguards the genuine validity of human knowledge, the unshakable metaphysical principles of sufficient reason, causality, and finality, and finally the mind's ability to attain certain and unchangeable truth.
30. Of course this philosophy deals with much that neither directly nor indirectly touches faith or morals, and which consequently the Church leaves to the free discussion of experts. But this does not hold for many other things, especially those principles and fundamental tenets to which We have just referred. However, even in these fundamental questions, we may clothe our philosophy in a more convenient and richer dress, make it more vigorous with a more effective terminology, divest it of certain scholastic aids found less useful, prudently enrich it with the fruits of progress of the human mind. But never may we overthrow it, or contaminate it with false principles, or regard it as a great, but obsolete, relic. For truth and its philosophic expression cannot change from day to day, least of all where there is question of self-evident principles of the human mind or of those propositions which are supported by the wisdom of the ages and by divine revelation. Whatever new truth the sincere human mind is able to find, certainly cannot be opposed to truth already acquired, since God, the highest Truth, has created and guides the human intellect, not that it may daily oppose new truths to rightly established ones, but rather that, having eliminated errors which may have crept in, it may build truth upon truth in the same order and structure that exist in reality, the source of truth. Let no Christian therefore, whether philosopher or theologian, embrace eagerly and lightly whatever novelty happens to be thought up from day to day, but rather let him weigh it with painstaking care and a balanced judgment, lest he lose or corrupt the truth he already has, with grave danger and damage to his faith.
31. If one considers all this well, he will easily see why the Church demands that future priests be instructed in philosophy "according to the method, doctrine, and principles of the Angelic Doctor,"[8] since, as we well know from the experience of centuries, the method of Aquinas is singularly preeminent both of teaching students and for bringing truth to light; his doctrine is in harmony with Divine Revelation, and is most effective both for safeguarding the foundation of the faith and for reaping, safely and usefully, the fruits of sound progress.[9]
32. How deplorable it is then that this philosophy, received and honored by the Church, is scorned by some, who shamelessly call it outmoded in form and rationalistic, as they say, in its method of thought. They say that this philosophy upholds the erroneous notion that there can be a metaphysic that is absolutely true; whereas in fact, they say, reality, especially transcendent reality, cannot better be expressed than by disparate teachings, which mutually complete each other, although they are in a way mutually opposed. Our traditional philosophy, then, with its clear exposition and solution of questions, its accurate definition of terms, its clear-cut distinctions, can be, they concede, useful as a preparation for scholastic theology, a preparation quite in accord with medieval mentality; but this philosophy hardly offers a method of philosophizing suited to the needs of our modern culture. They allege, finally, that our perennial philosophy is only a philosophy of immutable essences, while the contemporary mind must look to the existence of things and to life, which is ever in flux. While scorning our philosophy, they extol other philosophies of all kinds, ancient and modern, oriental and occidental, by which they seem to imply that any kind of philosophy or theory, with a few additions and corrections if need be, can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. No Catholic can doubt how false this is, especially where there is question of those fictitious theories they call immanentism, or idealism or materialism, whether historic or dialectic, or even existentialism, whether atheistic or simply the type that denies the validity of the reason in the field of metaphysics.
33. Finally, they reproach this philosophy taught in our schools for regarding only the intellect in the process of cognition, while neglecting the function of the will and the emotions. This is simply not true. Never has Christian philosophy denied the usefulness and efficacy of good dispositions of soul for perceiving and embracing moral and religious truths. In fact, it has always taught that the lack of these dispositions of good will can be the reason why the intellect, influenced by the passions and evil inclinations, can be so obscured that it cannot see clearly. Indeed St. Thomas holds that the intellect can in some way perceive higher goods of the moral order, whether natural or supernatural, inasmuch as it experiences a certain "connaturality" with these goods, whether this "connaturality" be purely natural, or the result of grace;[10] and it is clear how much even this somewhat obscure perception can help the reason in its investigations. However it is one thing to admit the power of the dispositions of the will in helping reason to gain a more certain and firm knowledge of moral truths; it is quite another thing to say, as these innovators do, indiscriminately mingling cognition and act of will, that the appetitive and affective faculties have a certain power of understanding, and that man, since he cannot by using his reason decide with certainty what is true and is to be accepted, turns to his will, by which he freely chooses among opposite opinions.
34. It is not surprising that these new opinions endanger the two philosophical sciences which by their very nature are closely connected with the doctrine of faith, that is, theodicy and ethics; they hold that the function of these two sciences is not to prove with certitude anything about God or any other transcendental being, but rather to show that the truths which faith teaches about a personal God and about His precepts, are perfectly consistent with the necessities of life and are therefore to be accepted by all, in order to avoid despair and to attain eternal salvation. All these opinions and affirmations are openly contrary to the documents of Our Predecessors Leo XIII and Pius X, and cannot be reconciled with the decrees of the Vatican Council. It would indeed be unnecessary to deplore these aberrations from the truth, if all, even in the field of philosophy, directed their attention with the proper reverence to the Teaching Authority of the Church, which by divine institution has the mission not only to guard and interpret the deposit of divinely revealed truth, but also to keep watch over the philosophical sciences themselves, in order that Catholic dogmas may suffer no harm because of erroneous opinions.
35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.
36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]
38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.
39. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.
40. Truly, we are aware that the majority of Catholic doctors, the fruit of whose studies is being gathered in universities, in seminaries and in the colleges of religious, are far removed from those errors which today, whether through a desire for novelty or through a certain immoderate zeal for the apostolate, are being spread either openly or covertly. But we know also that such new opinions can entice the incautious; and therefore we prefer to withstand the very beginnings rather than to administer the medicine after the disease has grown inveterate.
41. For this reason, after mature reflexion and consideration before God, that We may not be wanting in Our sacred duty, We charge the Bishops and the Superiors General of Religious Orders, binding them most seriously in conscience, to take most diligent care that such opinions be not advanced in schools, in conferences or in writings of any kind, and that they be not taught in any manner whatsoever to the clergy or the faithful.
42. Let the teachers in ecclesiastical institutions be aware that they cannot with tranquil conscience exercise the office of teaching entrusted to them, unless in the instruction of their students they religiously accept and exactly observe the norms which We have ordained. That due reverend and submission which in their unceasing labor they must profess toward the Teaching Authority of the Church, let them instill also into the minds and hearts of their students.
43. Let them strive with every force and effort to further the progress of the sciences which they teach; but let them also be careful not to transgress the limits which We have established for the protection of the truth of Catholic faith and doctrine. With regard to new questions, which modern culture and progress have brought to the foreground, let them engage in most careful research, but with the necessary prudence and caution; finally, let them not think, indulging in a false "irenism," that the dissident and the erring can happily be brought back to the bosom of the Church, if the whole truth found in the Church is not sincerely taught to all without corruption or diminution.
44. Relying on this hope, which will be increased by your pastoral care, as a pledge of celestial gifts and a sign of Our paternal benevolence, We impart with all Our heart to each and all of you, Venerable Brethren, and to your clergy and people the Apostolic Benediction.
Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, 12 August 1950, the twelfth year of Our Pontificate.
PIUS XII
1. Conc. Vatic. D.B., 1876, Cont. De Fide cath., cap. 2, De revelatione.
2. C.I.C., can 1324; cfr. Conc. Vat., D.B., 1820, Cont. De Fide cath., cap. 4, De Fide et ratione, post canones.
3. Luke, X, 16
4. Pius IX, Inter gravissimas, 28 oct., 1870, Acta, vol. I, p. 260.
5. Cfr. Conc. Vat., Const. De Fide cath., cap. 1, De Deo rerum omnium creatore.
6. Cfr. Litt. Enc. Mystici Corporis Christi, A.A.S., vol. XXXV, p. 193 sq.
7. Cfr. Conc. Vat., D.B., 1796.
8. C. I. C. can. 1366, 2.
9. A.A.S., vol. XXXVIII, 1946, p. 387.
10. Cfr. St. Thom., Summa Theol., II-II, quaest. 1, art. 4 ad 3 et quaest. 45, art. 2, in c.
11. Cfr. Allocut Pont. to the members of the Academy of Science, November 30, 1941: A.A.S., vol. XXXIII, p. 506.
12. Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19; Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4.
13. January 16, 1948: A.A.S., vol. XL, pp. 45-48.
|
|
|
The Oath Against Modernism |
Posted by: Stone - 03-04-2021, 08:21 AM - Forum: Papal Documents and Bulls
- No Replies
|
|
The Oath Against Modernism
To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.
I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.
Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili,especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .
|
|
|
The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita |
Posted by: Stone - 03-04-2021, 08:10 AM - Forum: General Commentary
- Replies (1)
|
|
The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita
A Masonic Blueprint for the Subversion of the Catholic Church
Few Catholics know of the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita, a secret document written in the early 19th Century that mapped out a blueprint for the subversion of the Catholic Church. The Alta Vendita ws the highest lodge of the Carbonari, an Italian secret society with links to Freemasonry and which, along with Freemasonry, was condemned by the Catholic Church. (1) Father E. Cahill, S.J. in his book Freemasonry and the Anti-Christian Movement states that the Alta Vendita was "commonly supposed to have been at the time the governing centre of European Freemasonry." (2) The Carbonari were most active in Italy and France.
In his book Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, Bishop Rudolph Graber quoted a Freemason who declared that "the goal (of Freemasonry) is no longer the destruction of the Church, but to make use of it by infiltrating it."(3)
In other words, since Freemasonry, cannot completely obliterate Christ's Church, it plans not only to eradicate the influence of Catholicism in society, but to use the Church's structure as an instrument of "renewal", "progress" and "enlightenment" to further many of its own principles and goals.
An Outline
The strategy advanced in the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita is astonishing in its audacity and cunning. From the start, the document tells of a process that will take decades to accomplish. Those who drew up the document knew that they would not see its fulfillment. They were inaugurating a work that would be carried on by succeeding generations of the initiated. "In our ranks the soldier dies and the struggle goes on."
The Instruction called for the dissemination of liberal ideas and axioms throughout society and within the institutions of the Catholic Church so that laity, clerics and prelates would, over the years, gradually are imbued with progressive principles.
In time, this mind-set would be so pervasive that priests would be ordained, bishops would be consecrated, and cardinals would be nominated whose thinking was in step with the modern thought rooted in the French Revolution's Declaration of the Rights of Man and other "Principles of 1789" (religious pluralism, equality of religions, separation of Church and State, etc.)
Eventually, a Pope would be elected from these ranks who would lead the Church on the path of enlightenment and renewal. It must be stressed that it was not their aim to place a Freemason on the Chair of Peter. Their goal was to effect an environment that would eventually produce a Pope and a hierarchy won over to the ideas of liberal Catholicism, all the while believing themselves to be faithful Catholics.
These Catholic leaders, then, would no longer oppose the modern ideas of the revolution (as had been the consistent practice of the Popes from 1789 until 1958 who condemned these liberal principles) but would amalgamate them into the Church. The end result would be a Catholic clergy and laity marching under the banner of the enlightenment all the while thinking they are marching under the banner of the Apostolic keys.
Is it Possible?
For those who may believe this scheme to be too far-fetched -- a goal too hopeless for the enemy to attain, it should be noted that both Pope Pus IX and Pope Leo XIII asked that The Permanent Instruction be published, no doubt, in order to prevent such a tragedy from taking place. These great Pontiffs knew that such a calamity was not impossible.
However, if such a dark state of affairs would come to pass, that there would be three unmistakable means of recognizing it;
- It would produce an upheaval of such magnitude that the entire world would realize that the Catholic Church had undergone a major revolution in line with modern ideas. It would be clear to all that an "updating" had taken place.
- A new theology would be introduced that would be in contradiction to previous teachings.
- The Freemasons themselves would voice their cockle-doodle of triumph believing that the Catholic Church had finally "seen the light" on such points as pluralism, the secular state, equality of religions, and whatever other compromises had been achieved.
The Authenticity of the Alta Vendita Documents
The secret papers of the Alta Vendita that fell into the hands of Pope Gregory XVI embrace a period that goes from 1820 to 1846. They were published at the request of Pope Pus IX by Cretineau-Joly in his work The Roman Church and Revolution.(4)
With the brief of approbation of February 25, 1861 which he addressed to the author, Pope Pus IX guaranteed the authenticity of these documents, but he did not allow anyone to divulge the true members of the Alta Vendita implicated in this correspondence.
The full text of the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita is also contained in Msgr. George E. Dillon's book, Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked. When Pope Leo was presented with a copy of Msgr. Dillon's book, he was so impressed that he ordered an Italian version to be completed and published at his own expense.(5)
In the encyclical Humanum Genus, Leo XIII called upon Catholic leaders to "tear off the mask from Freemasonry and make plain to all what it really is. (6)" The publication of these documents is a means of "tearing off the mask". And if the Popes asked that these letters be published, it is because they want all Catholics to know the secret societies' plans to subvert the Church from within -- so that Catholics would be on their guard and hopefully, prevent such a catastrophe from taking place.
The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita
What follows is not the entire Instruction, but the section that is most pertinent to our discussion. The document reads:
Quote:"Our ultimate end is that of Voltaire and the French Revolution - -the final destruction of Catholicism, and even of the Christian idea...
The Pope, whoever he is, will never come to the secret societies; it is up to the secret societies to take the first step toward the Church, with the aim of conquering both of them.
The task that we are going to undertake is not the work of a day, or of a month, or of a year; it may last several years, perhaps a century, but in our ranks the soldier dies and the struggle goes on.
We do not intend to win the Popes to our cause, to make them neophytes of our principles, propagators of our ideas. That would be a ridiculous dream; and if events turn out in some way, if Cardinals or prelates, for example, of their own free will or by surprise, should enter into a part of our secrets, this is not at all an incentive for desiring their elevation to the See of Peter. That elevation would ruin us. Ambition alone would have led them to apostasy, the requirements of power would force them to sacrifice us. What we must ask for, what we should look for and wait for, as the Jews wait for the Messiah, is a Pope according to our needs...
With that we will march more securely towards the assault on the Church than with pamphlets of our brethren in France and even the gold of England. Do you want to know the reason for this? It is that with this, in order to shatter the high rock on which God has built His Church, we no longer need Hannibalian vinegar, or need gunpowder, or even need our arms. We have the little finger of the successor of Peter engaged in the ploy, and this little finger is as good, for this crusade, as all the Urban IIs and all the Saint Bernards in Christendom.
We have no doubt that we will arrive at this supreme end of our efforts. But when? But how? The unknown is not yet revealed. Nevertheless, as nothing should turn us aside from the plan drawn up, and on the contrary everything should tend to this, as if as early as tomorrow success were going to crown the work that is barely sketched, we wish, in this instruction, which will remain secret for the mere initiates, to give the officials in the charge of the supreme Vente (Lodge) some advice that they should instill in all the brethren, in the form of instruction or of a memorandum.
Now then, to assure ourselves a Pope of the required dimensions, it is a question first of shaping him... for this Pope, a generation worthy of the reign we are dreaming of. Leave old people and those of a mature age aside; go to the youth, and if it is possible, even to the children. You will contrive for yourselves, at little cost, a reputation as good Catholics and pure patriots.
This reputation will put access to our doctrines into the midst of the young clergy, as well as deeply into the monasteries. In a few years, by the force of things, this young clergy will have overrun - all the functions; they will form the sovereign's council, they will be called to choose a Pontiff who should reign. And this Pontiff, like most of his contemporaries, will be necessarily more or less imbued with the Italian and, humanitarian principles that we are going to begin to put into circulation. It is a small grain of black mustard that we are entrusting to the ground; but the sunshine of justice will develop it up to the highest power, and you will see one day what a rich harvest this small seed will produce.
In the path that we are laying out for our brethren, there are found great obstacles to conquer, difficulties of more than one kind to master. They will triumph over them by experience and by nearsightedness; but the goal is so splendid that it is important to put all the sail to the wind in order to reach it. You want to revolutionize Italy, look for the Pope whose portrait we have just drawn. You wish to establish the reign of the chosen ones on the throne of the prostitute of Babylon; let the Clergy march under your standard, always believing that they are marching under the banner of the apostolic keys. You intend to make the last vestige of tyrants and the oppressors disappear; lay your snares (nets) like Simon Bar-Jona; lay them in the sacristies, the seminaries, and the monasteries rather than at the bottom of the sea: and if you do not hurry, we promise you a catch more miraculous than his. The fisher of fish became the fisher of men; you will bring friends around the apostolic Chair. You will have preached a resolution in tiara and in cope, marching with the cross and the banner, a revolution that will need to be only a little bit urged on to set fire to the four corners of the world."(7)
It now remains for us to examine how successful this design has been.
The Enlightenment, My Friend, Is "Blowin' in the Wind"
Throughout the 19th Century, society had become increasingly permeated with the liberal principles of the French Revolution to the great detriment of the Catholic Faith and the Catholic State. The supposedly "kinder and gentler" notions of religious pluralism, religious indifferentism, a democracy which believes all authority comes from the people, false notions of liberty, interfaith gatherings, separation of Church and State and other novelties were gripping the minds of post-enlightenment Europe infecting Statesmen and Churchmen alike.
The Popes of the 19th Century and early 20th Century waged war against these dangerous trends in the battle-dress. With clear-sighted presence of mind rooted in an uncompromised certitude of Faith, these Popes were not taken in. They knew that evil principles, no matter how honorable they may appear, could not bear good fruit, and these were evil principles at their worst, since they were rooted not only in heresy, but apostasy.
Like commanding generals who recognize the duty to hold their ground at all cost, these Popes aimed powerful cannons at the errors of the modem world and fired incessantly. The encyclicals were their cannonballs, and they never missed their target. (8)
The most devastating blast came in the form of Pope Pius IX's monumental 1864 Syllabus of Errors, and when the smoke cleared, all involved in the battle were in no doubt as to who was on what side. The lines of demarcation had clearly been drawn. In this great Syllabus, Pius IX condemned the principle errors of the modern world, not because they were modern, bur because these new ideas were rooted in pantheistic naturalism and therefore incompatible with Catholic doctrine, as well as being destructive to society.
The teachings in the Syllabus were counter-Liberalism, and the principles of liberalism were counter-Syllabus. This was unquestionably recognized by all parties. Father Denis Fahey referred to this showdown as Pius IX versus the Pantheistic Deification of Man.(9) Speaking for the other side, the French Freemason Ferdinand Buisson likewise declared "A school cannot remain neutral between the Syllabus and the 'Declaration of the Rights of Man'." (10)
"Liberal Catholics"
Yet the 19th Century saw a new breed of Catholic who utopianly sought a compromise between the two. These men looked for what they believed to be "good" in the principles of 1789 and tried to introduce them into the Church. Many clergymen, infected by the spirit of the age, were caught into this net that had been "cast into the sacristies and into the seminaries". They came to be known as liberal Catholics. Pope Pius IX remarked that they were the worst enemies of the Church. Despite this. their numbers increased.
Pope Pius X and Modernism
This crisis reached a peak around the turn of the century when the liberalism of 1789 that had been "blowin' in the wind" swirled into the tornado of modernism. Fr. Vincent Miceli identified this heresy as such by describing modernism's "trinity of parents". He wrote:
1. Its religious ancestor is the Protestant Reformation;
2. Its philosophical parent is the Enlightenment;
3. Its political pedigree comes from the French Revolution.(11)
Pope St. Pius X, who ascended to the Papal chair in 1903, recognized modernism as a most deadly plague that must be arrested. He wrote that the most important obligation of the Pope is to insure the purity and integrity of Catholic doctrine, and further mentioned that if he did nothing, then he would have failed, in his essential duty.(12)
St. Pius X waged war on modernism issued an Encyclical (Pascendi) and a Syllabus (Lamentabili) against it, instituted the Anti-Modernist Oath to be sworn by all priests and teachers, purged the seminaries and universities of modernists and excommunicated the stubborn and unrepentant.
Pius X effectively halted the spread of modernism in his day. It is reported, however, that when he was congratulated for eradicating this grave error, Pius X immediately responded, that despite all his efforts, he had not succeeded in killing this beast, but had only driven it underground. He warned that if Church leaders were not vigilant, it would return in the future more virulent than ever.(13)
Curia on the Alert
A little known drama that unfolded during the reign of Pope Pius XI demonstrates that the underground current of Modernist thought was alive and well in the immediate post-Pius period.
Father Raymond Dulac relates that at the secret consistory of May 23, 1923, Pope Pius XI questioned the thirty Cardinals of the Curia on the timeliness of summoning an ecumenical council. In attendance were such illustrious prelates as Cardinals Merry del Val, De Lai, Gasparri, Boggiani and Billot. The Cardinals advised against it.
Billot warned, "The existence of profound differences in the midst of the episcopacy itself cannot be concealed ... [They] run the risk of giving place to discussions that will be prolonged indefinitely."
Boggiani recalled the Modernist theories from which, he said, a part of the clergy and of the bishops are not exempt. "This mentality can incline certain Fathers to present motions, to introduce methods incompatible with Catholic traditions."
Billot was even more precise. He expresses his fear of seeing the council "maneuvered" by "the worst enemies of the Church, the Modernists, who are already getting ready, as certain indications show, to bring forth the revolution in the Church, a new 1789."(14)
In discouraging the idea of a Council for such reasons, these Cardinals showed themselves more apt at recognizing the "signs of the times" then all the post-Vatican II theologians combined. Yet their caution may have been rooted in something deeper. They may also have been haunted by the writings of the infamous, illumine, the excommunicated Canon Roca (1830-1893) who preached revolution and Church "reform", and who predicted the subversion of the Church that would be brought about by a council.
Canon Roca's Revolutionary Ravings
In his book Athanasius and the Church of Our Times, Bishop Graber quotes Roca's prediction of a new, enlightened Church which would be influenced by "the socialism of Jesus and the Apostles".(15)
In the mid-19th Century, Roca had predicted: "The new church, which might not be able to retain anything of Scholastic doctrine and the original form of the former Church, will nevertheless receive consecration and canonical jurisdiction from Rome." Bishop Graber, commenting on this prediction, remarked, "A few years ago this was still inconceivable to us, but today?"(16)
Canon Roca also predicted a liturgical "reform". With reference to the future liturgy, he believed "that the divine cult in the form directed by the liturgy, ceremonial, ritual and regulations of the Roman Church will shortly undergo a transformation at an ecumenical council, which will restore to it the venerable simplicity of the golden age of the Apostles in accordance with the dictates of conscience and modern civilization."(17)
He foretold that through this council will come "a perfect accord between the ideals of modern civilization and the ideal of Christ and His Gospel. This will be the consecration of the New Social Order and the solemn baptism of modern civilization."
Roca also spoke of the future of the Papacy. He wrote "there is a sacrifice in the offing which represents a solemn act of expiation ... The Papacy will fall; it will die under the hallowed knife which the fathers of the last council will forge. The papal caesar is a host (victim) crowned for the sacrifice."(18)
Roca enthusiastically predicted a "new religion", "new dogma", "new ritual", "new priesthood." He called the new priests "progressists"[sic] and speaks of the "suppression" of the soutane (cassock) and the "marriage of priests."(19)
Chilling echos of Roca and the Alta Vendita are to be found in the words of the Rosicrucian, Dr. Rudolph Steiner, who declared in 1910 "We need a council and a Pope to proclaim it."(20)
The Great Council that Never Was
Around 1948, Pope Pius XII, at the request of the staunchly orthodox Cardinal Ruffini, considered calling a general Council and even spent a few years making the necessary preparations. There is evidence that progressive elements in Rome eventually dissuaded Pius XII from bringing it to realization since this Council showed definite signs of being in sync with Humans Generis. Like this great 1950 encyclical, the new Council would combat "false opinions which threaten to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine." (21)
Tragically, Pope Pius XII became convinced that he was too advanced in years to shoulder such a momentous task, and resigned that "this will be for my successor." 922)
Roncalli Will Canonize Ecumenism
Throughout the Pontificate of Pope Pius XII, the Holy Office under the able leadership of Cardinal Ottaviani maintained a safe Catholic landscape by keeping the wild horses of modernism firmly caged. Many of today's modernist theologians disdainfully recount how they and thew friends had been "muzzled" during this period.
Yet even Ottaviani could not prevent what was to happen in 1958. A new type of Pope "whom the Progressives believed to favor their cause" (23) would ascend to the Pontifical Chair and would force a reluctant Ottaviani to remove the latch, open the corral and brace himself for the stampede.
However, such a state of affairs was not unforeseen. At the news of the death of Pius XII, the old Dom Lambert Beauduin, a friend of Cardinal Roncalli (the future John XXIII), confided to Father Louis Bouyer: "If they elect Roncalli everything would be saved; he would be capable of calling a council and of consecrating ecumenism."(24)
And so it happened just as Dom Lambert foretold. Roncalli was elected, called a Council and consecrated ecumenism. The "Revolution in tiara and cope" was underway.
Pope John's Revolution
It is well known and superbly documented(25) that a clique of liberal theologians (periti) and bishops hijacked Vatican II (1962-1965) with an agenda to remake the Church into their own image through the implementation of a "new theology". Critics and defenders of Vatican II are in agreement on this point.
In his book Vatican II Revisited, Bishop Aloysius J. Wycislo (a rhapsodic advocate of the Vatican II revolution) declares with giddy enthusiasm that "theologians and biblical scholars who had been 'under a cloud' for years surfaced as periti (theological experts advising the bishops at the Council), and their post-Vatican II books and commentaries became popular reading."(26)
He notes that "Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis (1950) had ... a devastating effect on the work of a number of pre-conciliar theologians" (27) and explains that "During the early preparation of the Council those theologians (mainly French, with some Germans) whose activities had been restricted by Pope Pius XII were still under a cloud. Pope John quietly lifted the ban affecting some of the most influential ones. Yet a number remained suspect to the officials of the Holy Office." (28)
Bishop Wycislo sings the praises of triumphant progressives such as Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, John Courtney Murray, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Edward Schillebeeckx and Gregory Baum, who had been considered suspect before the Council, that are now the leading lights of post-Vatican II theology." (29)
In effect, those whom Pope Pius XII considered unfit to be walking the streets of Catholicism were now in control of the town. And as if to crown their achievements, the Oath Against Modernism was quietly suppressed shortly after the close of the Council. St. Pius X had predicted correctly. Lack of vigilance in authority had provoked modernism to return with a vengeance.
Marching Under a New Banner
There were countless battles at Vatican II between the International Group of Fathers who fought to maintain Tradition, and the progressive Rhine group. Tragically, in the end, it was the Liberal and Modernist element that prevailed. (30)
It was obvious, to anyone who had eyes to see was that the Second Vatican Council opened to door to many ideas that had formerly been anathema to Church teaching, but that were in-step with modernist thought. This did not happen by accident, but by design.
The progressives at Vatican II avoided condemnations of Modernist errors. They also deliberately planted ambiguities in the Council's texts which they intended to exploit after the Council. (33) These ambiguities have been utilized to promote an ecumenism that had been condemned by Pope Pius XI, a religious liberty (32) that had been condemned by the 19th and early 20th-century Popes (especially Pope Pius IX), a new liturgy along the lines of ecumenism that Archbishop Bugnini called "a major conquest of the Catholic Church", a collegiality that strikes at the heart of the Papal primacy, and a "new attitude toward the world" primarily promulgated in one of the most radical of all the Council documents, Gaudium et Spes.
As the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita had hoped, the notions of liberal culture had finally won adherence among the major players in the Catholic hierarchy and was thus spread throughout the entire Church. The result has been an unprecedented crisis of Faith which continues to worsen. While at the same time, countless highly placed Churchmen, obviously inebriated by the "spirit of Vatican II", continuously praise those Council reform's that have brought such a calamity to pass.
Cheers on the Masonic Bleachers
Yet, not only many of our Church leaders, but Freemasons also celebrate the turn of events wrought by the Council. They rejoice that Catholics have fianlly "seen the light,' and that many of their Masonic principles have been sanctioned by the Church.
Yves Marsaudon of the Scottish Rite, in his book Ecumenism Viewed by a Traditional Freemason praised the ecumenism nurtured at Vatican II. He said "Catholics ... must not forget that all roads lead to God. And they will have to accept that this courageous idea of free-thinking, which we can really call a revolution pouring forth from our Masonic lodges, has spread magnificently over the dome of St. Peters." (33)
The post-Vatican II spirit of doubt and revolution obviously warmed the heart of French Freemason Jacques Mitterand who wrote approvingly, "Something has changed within the Church, and replies given by the Pope to the most urgent questions such as priestly celibacy and birth control, are hotly debated within the Church itself; the word of the Sovereign Pontiff is questioned by bishops, by priests, by the faithful. For a Freemason, a man who questions dogma is already a Freemason without an apron." (34)
Marcel Prelot, a senator for the Doubs region in France, is probably the most accurate in describing what has really taken place. He writes:
"We had struggled for a century and a half to bring our opinions to prevail with the Church and had not succeeded. Finally, there came Vatican II and we triumphed. From then on the propositions and principles of liberal Catholicism have been definitively and officially accepted by Holy Church." (35)
Prelot's statement deserves comment, since we must make the distinction between the Church and Churchmen. Despite any claims by Freemasons, it is impossible for doctrinal errors to be "definitively and officially accepted by Holy Church" as such. The Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, cannot fall into error. Our Lord promised that "the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt. 16:18) But this does not mean that Churchmen, even at the highest levels, cannot be infected with the liberal spirit of the age and promote ideas and practives that are opposed to the Church's perennial Magisterium. (36)
A Break with the Past
Those "conservatives" who deny that Vatican II constitutes a break with tradition, and that it contradicts previous magisterium have failed to listen to the very movers and shakers of the Council who shamelessly acknowledge it.
Yves Congar, one of the artisans of the reform remarked with quiet satisfaction that "The Church has had, peacefully, its October [Communist] Revolution." (37)
The same Father Yves Congar admitted that Vatican IIs Declaration on Religious Liberty is contrary to the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX. He said:
"It cannot be denied that a text like this does materially say something different from the Syllabus of 1864, and even almost the opposite of propositions 15 and 77-79 of that document." (38)
Lastly, some years ago, Cardinal Ratzinger, apparently unruffled by the admission, wrote that he sees the Vatican II text Gaudium et Spes as a "counter-Syllabus." He wrote:
If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [ Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus .... Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a countersyllabus and as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789. (39)
The new era inaugurated in 1789 consists, in effect, in the elevation of the "Rights of Man" above the rights of God.
In truth, this comment by Cardinal Ratzinger is disturbing, especially since it came from the man who, as head of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is now in charge of guarding the purity of Catholic doctrine.l But we can also cite a similar statement by the progressive Cardinal Suenens, himself a Council Father, who spoke in terms of "old regimes" that have come to an end. The words he used in praise of the Council are the most telling, the most chilling and the most damning. Suenens declared "Vatican II is the French Revolution of the Church." (40)
The Status of the Vatican II Documents
For years, Catholics have labored under the mistaken notion that they must accept the pastoral Council, Vatican II, with the same assent of faith that they owe to dogmatic Councils. This, however, is not the case.
The Council Fathers repeatedly referred to Vatican II as a pastoral Council, a Council which dealt not with defining the Faith, but with implementing it.
The fact that Vatican II is inferior to a dogmatic Council is confirmed by the testimony of Council Father, Bishop Thomas Morris, which at his request was not unsealed until after his death:
I was relieved when we were told that this Council was not aiming at defining or giving final statements on doctrine, because a statement on doctrine has to be very carefully formulated and I would have regarded the Council documents as tentative and liable to be reformed. (41)
At the close of Vatican II, the bishops asked the Council's Secretary General, Archbishop Pericle Felici, for that which theologians call the "theological note" of the Council, that is, the doctrinal "weight" of Vatican II's teachings. Felici replied:
We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions
in the past; as for the declarations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations. (42)
After the close of Vatican II, Paul VI gave this explanation:
Quote:There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: Given the Council's pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility. . . (43)
In other words, unlike a dogmatic Council, Vatican II does not demand an unqualified assent of faith. Vatican II's verbose and ambiguous statements are not on a par with dogmatic pronouncements. Hence, Vatican II's novelties are not unconditionally binding on the faithful.
Catholics may "make reservations" and even resist any teachings from the Council that would conflict with the perennial Magisterium of the centuries.
"A Revolution in Tiara and Cope"
The post-Vatican II revolution bears all the hallmarks of the fulfilling of the designs of the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita as well as the prophecies of Canon Roca.
1.The entire world has witnessed a profound change in the Catholic Church on an international scale that is in step with the modern world.
2. Vatican IIs defenders and detractors both demonstrate that certain teachings of the Council constitute a break with the past.
3. The Freemasons themselves rejoice that thanks to the Council, their ideas "have spread magnificently over the dome of Saint Peter's".
The Passion of the Church
Thus, the passion that our Holy Church is presently suffering is really no great mystery. By recklessly ignoring the Popes of the past, our present Church leaders have erected a compromised structure that is collapsing upon itself. Though Pope Paul VI lamented that "the Church is in a state of auto-demolition", he, as does the present Pontificate, insisted that the disastrous aggiornamento responsible for this auto-demoiltion be continued full-steam.
In the face of such "diabolic disorientation (the term that Fatima's Sister Lucy employed to describe the present mind-set of many in today's hierarchy) the only response for all Catholics concerned are:
1. to pray much, especially the Rosary.
2. to learn and live the Traditional Doctrine and morals of the Catholic Church as it is found in pre-Vatican II Catholic writings,
3. to adhere to the Latin Tridentine Mass where the Catholic faith and devotion are found in their fullness uninfected by today's ecumenism,
4. to resist with all one's soul the liberal post-Vatican II trends wreaking such havoc on the Mystical Body of Christ,
5. to charitably instruct others in the traditions of the Faith and warn them of the errors of the times,
6. to pray that a contagious return to sanity may sweep through a sufficient number of the hierarchy,
7. to put great confidence in Our Lady and her power to reorient our Church leaders back to Catholic Tradtion,
8. and to never compromise.
Only She Can Help You
Since this present struggle is essentially a supernatural battle, we must not, ignore the supernatural helps given to us at Fatima in 1917. All concerned Catholics should faithfully fulfill the requests of Our Lady of Fatima, and especially work toward the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. For in the promised Triumph of the Immaculate Heart, the unrepentant agents of liberalism, modernism and naturalism will all be gathered in a great ecumenical cluster with the prince of this world to receive the communal head-crushing from the heel of the Queen of Heaven.
Footnotes
- The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol, 3 (New York: Encyclopedia Press, 1913), pp. 330-331.
- Rev. E. Cahill, S.J. Freemasonry and the Anti-Christian Movement (Dublin: Gill, 1959), p. 101.
- Yves Marsaudon, quoted in Dr. Rudolph Graber, Athanasius and the Church of our Time (Palmdale, CA: Christian Book Club, 1974), p. 39.
- Cretineau-Joly, The Roman Church and Revolution,Vol. 2, orig. ed., 1859, reprinted by Circle of the French Renaissance, Paris, 1976. Msgr. Delassus reproduced these documents again in his work The Anti-Christian Conspiracy, Desclee de Brouwer, 1910, Tome III, pp. 1035-1092.
- Michael Davies, Pope John's Council (Kansas City: Angelus Press, 1992), p. 166.
- Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus-On Freemasonry(Rockford, IL: TAN, 1978), par. 31.
- Msgr. Delassus, The Anti-Christian Conspiracy (Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1910), Tome III, pp. 1035-1092. The full text of "The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita" is also published in: Msgr. Dillon, Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked (Dublin: Gill, 1885; Palmdale, Calif.: Christian Book Club, n.d.), pp. 51-56.
- For a true understanding of Catholic doctrine vs. modern errors, it is imperative to study the Papal Encyclicals and other documents against Liberalism, Modernism and
- Freemasonry from the 19th and early 20th-century Popes. The most important of these are collected in The Popes against Modern Errors: 16 Papal Documents (Rockford: TAN, 1999).
- Fr. Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, C.S.Sp. (Dublin: Regina Publications, 1939), chap. VII.
- Quoted in ibid., p. 116 (143).
- Fr. Vincent Miceli, The Antichrist (Harrison, NY: Roman Catholic Books), p. 133.
- Pope Pius X, Pascendi ("On Modernism"), par. 1.
- Fr. Vincent Miceli, The Antichrist (cassette lecture) (Keep the Faith, Inc.).
- Raymond Dulac, Episcopal Collegiality at the Second Council of the Vatican (Paris: Cedre, 1979), pp. 9-10.
- Graber, op. cit., p. 34.
- Ibid., pp. 34, 35.
- Ibid., p. 35.
- Ibid.
- Ibid., p. 36.
- Ibid.
- A full account of this fascinating history can be found in: Frere Michel of the Holy Trinity, The Whole Truth About Fatima, Volume 3: The Third Secret (Ft. Erie, Ontario: Immaculate Heart Publications, 1990), pp. 257-304.
- Ibid., p. 298.
- Vicomte Leon de Poncins, Freemasonry and the Vatican (Palmdale, CA: Christian Book Club, 1968), p. 14.
- Bouyer, Dom Lambert Beauduin A Man of the Church (Casterman, 1964) pp. 180-181. Quoted by Fr. Dilder Bonneterre in The Liturgical Movement (Ed. Fideliter, 1980), P. 119.
- Cf. Fr. Ralph Wiltgen S.V.D., The Rhine Flows into the Tiber (New York: Hawthorne, 1967; TAN, 1985); Michael Davies, Pope John's Council (New York: Arlington House, 1977;
- Kansas City: Angelus Press, 1992); and Bishop Wycislo (see next note), which sings praises of the reform.
- Most Rev. Aloysius Wycislo, Vatican II Revisited: Reflections by One Who Was There (Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1987), p. x.
- Ibid., p. 33.
- Ibid., p. 27.
- Ibid., pp. 27-34.
- The entire story of the hijacking of the Council by liberal prelates and theologians, and the tragic consequences of this modernist coup, are superbly explained in Fr. Ralph Wiltgen,
- S.V.D.'s The Rhine Flows into the Tiber (New York: Hawthorne, 1967; TAN, 1985) and in Michael Davies' Pope John's Council (New York: Arlington House, 1977; Kansas City:
- Angelus Press, 1992).
- This tactic was admitted by liberal Council peritus Father Edward Schillebeeckx. He said, "We will express it in a diplomatic way, but after the Council, we will draw the implicit conclusions." (Cited from the Dutch magazine De Bazuin, No. 16, 1965, in Iota Unum, by Romano Amerio, Kansas City, MO: Sarto House, 1996.) Another quote (or translation of the same quote) from Fr. Schillebeeckx reads, "We have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards' " (Archbishop Marcel
- Lefebvre, An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Kansas City: Angelus Press, 1992, p. 106.)
- Cf. Michael Davies' The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty (Long Prairie, MN: Neumann Press, 1992) for evidence that Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae (particularly Art. 2) reflects a contradiction with previous Papal teaching. The same is admitted without compunction by the progressive Council theologian Fr. Yves Cougar. See p. 26 of this booklet.
- Quoted in Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, An Open Letter to Confused Catholics (Kansas City: Angelus Press, 1992), p. 89.
- Ibid., pp. 88-89.
- Le Catholicisme Liberal, 1969; also Lefebvre, op. cit., P. 100.
- The great theologian, Cardinal Juan de Torquemada (1388-1468), citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, teaches that it is possible for even a Pope to go against the universal customs of the Church. Torquemada writes, "Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states (De Consuetudine) that it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things so long as he himself does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed . . ." Cited from Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.D., M. Div., A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, 2nd edition (St. Francis Press, India), p. 29.
- Lefebvre, op. cit., p. 100.
- Yves Cougar, O.P., Challenge to the Church (London, 1977), p. 147, in Michael Davies, The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty (Long Prairie, MN: Neumann Press, 1992), p. 203.
- Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), pp. 381-382.
- Lefebvre, op. cit., p. 100.
- Interview of Bishop Morris by Kieron Wood, Catholic World News, September 27, 1997.
- Lefebvre, op. cit., p. 107.
- Paul VI, General Audience of January 12, 1966, in Insegnamenti di Paolo VI, vol. 4, p. 700, in Atila Sinke Guimaraes, In the Murky Waters of Vatican II (Metairie: MAETA, 1997; TAN, 1999), pp. 111-112.
|
|
|
Sedevacantism Is Modern Luciferianism |
Posted by: Stone - 03-04-2021, 07:54 AM - Forum: Sedevacantism
- No Replies
|
|
Sedevacantism Is Modern Luciferianism
'There is a remarkable similarity between today's sedevacantism and a group of schismatics who were spawned during the Arian crisis: the Luciferians.'
OnePeterFive | December 2, 2019
At some time, we have all encountered a sedevacantist — if not in person, at least online. I won’t bore you with the theology of the sedevacantism except to say they hold that a heretic cannot be pope, with the most common strain affirming that Pius XII was the last legitimate pope (although I did once come across one who believed that Pius V was the last legitimate pope).
Oftentimes, sedevacantists lived through the turbulent times after Vatican II or are the children of those who did. They know either first- or second-hand of the terrible persecution of orthodoxy and suppression of the Tridentine Mass. They often fought valiantly against the heresies constantly flowing from the Vatican and were maltreated by many local bishops and priests. Many know their faith very well and can easily explain the errors of liberalism, modernism, and countless other heresies. In all respects but one, they are orthodox Catholics.
The one error of sedevacantism is essentially pride. They raise their opinion over that of the Church when judging that the pope is a formal and manifest heretic, while we know that the Church teaches that the First See is judged by no man.
But what about Luciferianism?
With the crisis in the Church since Vatican II, many comparisons have been drawn with the Arian crisis of the 4th century, when the majority of the Church’s bishops fell into the heresy of Arianism. There are four parallels that can be drawn between the Arian crisis and the crisis in the Church today. There are, as Michael Davies noted, the heroic Athanasius, Hilary, and Eusebius of Vercelli (not to be confused with the ecclesiastical historian Eusebius of Caesarea or the leading Arian heretic Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius seemingly being a popular name among 4th-century mothers) who are types of the heroic clerics such as Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, and other orthodox priests who suffered persecution for their defense of the Faith.
There are also the diabolical prelates such as Arius, Saturninus, and Eusebius of Nicomedia, who resemble those infiltrators who infected the Church prior to the Second Vatican Council and sowed the seeds of doctrinal and liturgical destruction (think de Lubac, Congar, Rahner etc.). Then there are the orthodox princes of the Church who, knowing the truth, succumb to outside pressures and outwardly join the ranks of the victorious heretics, much like Pope Liberius. Finally, there are those who can see the errors of heretics for what they are and take a heroic stand against them; however, they succumb to their own pride and employ schism to fight heresy.
It is this final parallel in which we can see the Luciferianism within the sedevacantist movement. There is the remarkable similarity between today’s sedevacantists and a group of schismatics who were spawned during the Arian crisis: the Luciferians.
The Luciferians were less nefarious than their name implies. Rather than being devil-worshipers, they were simply followers of the schismatic Bishop Lucifer of Cagliari. (The interesting naming trends of 4th-century mothers continues — what mother looks at her newborn son and thinks, “He looks like a Lucifer”?) Nothing much is known about Lucifer’s origin, save that he was born at some time in the early 4th century. Those familiar with Church history will know that during the Arian crisis, the greater number of bishops had fallen into the Arian and semi-Arian heresies.
Most Catholics know of St. Athanasius’s heroic defence of orthodoxy during the crisis, but few will know of his good friend and stalwart defender of the faith, Lucifer of Cagliari. At the egregious Council of Tyre, Athanasius was condemned and exiled, and Pope Liberius wished to defend him by calling a new Council at Milan to resolve the Arian Crisis. Liberius chose Lucifer as his representative at this council, which was convened in 355 A.D. At the council, Lucifer spoke strongly in favor of St. Athanasius and the Homoousion doctrine (which holds Christ is consubstantial with the Father) and convinced many bishops, including Dionysius of Milan, to support the orthodox cause. Sadly, however, the Arian bishops retained their majority, and with the support of the Arian Emperor Constantius, they confirmed their heretical Homoiousion positions (which holds that Christ is only of a similar substance to the Father); flogged the orthodox prelates; and exiled many, including Lucifer.
Another great blow to orthodoxy was dealt in 357 A.D., when Pope Liberius succumbed to the great pressure of Emperor Constantius; signed the formula of Hosius, which denied the Homoousion doctrine; and excommunicated Athanasius.
In his wonderful work History of the Catholic Church, Fr. Mourett described Lucifer as “an impetuous orthodox bishop.” In 360, Lucifer advocated shunning dealings with Arian heretics in De non consentiendo cum haereticis and compared Emperor Constantius with the idolatrous kings of Israel in De regibus apostaticis. At no stage throughout the crisis did Lucifer succumb to heresy; however, he certainly gave in to imprudence. Finally, after many more trials and tribulations too long to expound upon, Athanasius, Lucifer, and the orthodox prelates were restored, and a council was convened in Alexandria to finally resolve the Arian crisis.
At the Council of Alexandria, which did largely resolve the Arian crisis, the holy fathers deemed that all of those priests and bishops who had worked with the Arians and sided with them in various councils, but who had not publicly professed the heresy of Arianism, could retain their offices and sees within the Church. It further declared that those who publicly renounced their heresy could return to communion with the Holy Catholic Church. This was too much for the “impetuous” Lucifer. He had fought the good fight since the very beginning, was ridiculed, and suffered terrible persecution for the Faith. He had been a loyal servant to his pontiff, Liberius, but even his friend Liberius had abandoned the orthodox Homoousion proposition under pressure. Along with Saints Hillary, Athanasius, and Eusebius, and a handful of others, he was at one time one of the last orthodox prelates in the entire Church.
Seeing the Arians and semi-Arians he had fought against at Milan and elsewhere rehabilitated was too much for his pride to swallow. How could they, who had been at enmity with Christ and His Church, be returned to their sees and positions of power above him, when he, a valiant defender of orthodoxy and veteran of the underground Church, still fought the good fight?
Lucifer turned against his former friend Athanasius and decried the measures taken to restore the repentant Arians. Pope Liberius ratified the decisions of the council, but he was a heretic. He had signed the heretical formula of Hosius, which had rejected the Homoousion doctrine. He had not been condemned as a heretic, but he was a heretic nonetheless, and heretics are to be shunned. Lucifer declared that heretics — even repentant heretics — could not hold ecclesiastical offices, and he proceeded to condemn Liberius, Athanasius, and all the bishops of the Church who would not support him. He abandoned the Church and retired to Sardinia with his followers, who took up the name “Luciferians.” There Lucifer would live out the remainder of his life separated from communion with the pope, Athanasius, and the Church. The once great defender of orthodoxy died in schism.
When one is tempted to reject the pope and all the bishops of the Church due to the heresy and scandal they constantly promote, remember the example of St. Athanasius, who always fought to remain in communion even with the heretic Pope Liberius. When you recognize and resist the pope, you are in communion with St. Athanasius, but when you reject and resist him, you are in communion with Lucifer.
[Emphasis mine.]
✠ ✠ ✠
See also the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia: Lucifer of Cagliari
See also: St. Jerome's The Dialogue Against the Luciferians
|
|
|
April 15th - St. Peter Gonzales and St. Paternus |
Posted by: Elizabeth - 03-03-2021, 11:43 PM - Forum: April
- Replies (1)
|
|
Saint Peter Gonzales
Dominican Priest
(1190-1240)
Saint Peter Gonzales was born in Spain in 1190, of parents both rich and noble. He was brought up by his maternal uncle, a bishop in the region of Astorga, and while still young was named a canon of his cathedral. Soon he was chosen to be head of the cathedral chapter; but when he came to take possession of that office, mounted on a finely arrayed horse, the animal by a false step threw him into the mud. And then he was surrounded not by honors, but by laughter and mocking words. This for the young man was a special grace which enlightened him on the value of the world's dignities, and he decided to enter the Dominican Order at Palencia.
Saint Peter worked toward his perfection with fervor, and while still a novice manifested great generosity, ready to offer his services whenever an occasion presented itself. He later studied theology to serve his neighbor in the spirit of his Order, and became so competent that he was sent to preach and hear confessions. In so doing he won many souls for Christ. Everywhere he exhorted to penance, exalting the state of grace and painting in fearful terms that of mortal sin, with such efficacy that he overcame the most hardened hearts.
King Ferdinand III, desiring to put the Moors out of his kingdom, called the famous preacher to his court to benefit from his counsels and prayers. Saint Peter, fortified by the confidence of the prince, was able to revitalize the faith of the court and the army. But jealous ones set a trap for him; a courtesan was sent to him, apparently to make her confession, but in reality to try to seduce him. When he recognized her design, he went to an adjoining room and wrapping himself in his cloak, stood unharmed amid a great fire which he had lit there; then he called her to come. She and his false friends were converted at the sight of this prodigy, and thereafter all showed themselves filled with veneration for the priest.
When the King won many military victories and took Cordova from the Moors in 1236, Saint Peter moderated the ill-directed energies of the conquerors and saw to the transformation of its great mosque into a cathedral. He left the court when it seemed his presence was less necessary, and continued his preaching elsewhere. God honored him with the gift of healing and miracles, and above all gave him the grace to make the truths of salvation understood by the poor and simple folk. He fell ill during Holy Week and died on the day of our Lord's Resurrection in 1248.
Saint Peter saw to the building of a bridge over a river, at a place where many had perished. He is often depicted walking on the waters with a torch in hand. He has appeared to mariners in danger, and is invoked in particular by those in peril on the seas, always with happy results.
Saint Paternus
Bishop of Avranches
(482-565)
Saint Paternus was born at Poitiers, of illustrious Christian parents, about the year 482. His father, Patranus, with the consent of his wife went to Ireland to end his days as a hermit in holy solitude. Paternus, fired by his father's example, embraced monastic life in the Abbey of Marnes, France. After some time, desiring to attain the perfection of Christian virtue by a life of penance in solitude, he retired with a companion monk of the Abbey, Saint Scubilion, and in the forests of the diocese of Coutances near the sea, embraced an austere anchorite's life resembling that of Angels more than of men. An abbot of that region who knew of him recommended Paternus to the bishop of Coutances, who ordained him a deacon and then a priest in 512. He and Saint Scubilion then evangelized the western coasts and established several monasteries, of which he was the abbot general. Many miracles honored his apostolate among the pagan populations.
In his old age he was consecrated bishop of Avranches while his former companion, Saint Scubilion, had become abbot of a monastery founded by the two missionaries. When Saint Paternus fell ill he felt his end was near, and he sent to his dear friend to come and assist him in his last illness. But the same fate had befallen Scubilion, who for his part had sent a messenger to Paternus. The two hermit-missionaries, each of whom had become the spiritual father of many, departed this life on the same day, April 16, 565, the thirteenth year of the pontificate of Saint Paternus. They were afterwards buried on the same day in the church of the monastery of Scicy, a region they had evangelized together.
|
|
|
Bp. Tissier de Mallerais [2002]: The Dogmas of the New Conciliar Religion |
Posted by: Stone - 03-03-2021, 08:03 PM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition
- Replies (1)
|
|
The Dogmas of the New [Conciliar] Religion
In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Your Grace, the Superior General, My dear Lords, Dear Rector, My dear colleagues in the priesthood, Dear ordinands, Our dear faithful,
In a few moments during this ordination ceremony of deacons and priests, the bishop will pronounce these words: To the deacons he will say, "You are from now on the cooperators of the Body and Blood of the Lord," and to each priest after ordination he will say, "Receive the power to offer the Sacrifice to God and to celebrate Mass for the living and the dead."
These words of our very simple Catholic faith, which seem almost commonplace, which express the object of the priesthood which is the consecration of the Body and Blood of Our Lord to renew in a non-bloody manner His Divine Passion, these words are now suppressed in the new pontifical of ordination for deacons and priests. This disappearance is very significant. It means that the New Religion no longer wishes to express the transmission of the power to consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ and of the power of renewing the Passion of Calvary. Therefore, my most dear ordinands, I am obviously quite certain that during your six years of seminary training you have deeply penetrated the Catholic doctrine, ignored now by the majority of priests in the New Religion. Because this change of the rite of ordination expresses precisely a New Religion. In this suppression of the power to offer and to consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ is expressed precisely the New Religion, in which are found the large majority of Catholics, albeit unwillingly, but they are in this new religion which consists not only of a new religion, but of a new doctrine. Thus, if you would, dear faithful, in a few words I shall describe first of all the new doctrine of this New Religion, and then its new worship.
First of all, the new dogmas: Firstly, sin, which practically no longer exists since it no longer offends God. We are told that sin does not offend God, but harms only the sinner; sin, in fact, cannot harm the divine nature, which is incorruptible. Sin means nothing to God; sin only harms the sinner, causing him to lose the divine life–they concede that–and it equally offends human solidarity. In these conditions sin no longer has the characteristic of offense, of destroying God's honor, His glory, His praise. It no longer has the characteristic of disobeying the law of God. Consequently, they deny that God has a right to demand of His creatures not only praise, but also submission to His divine law, as St. Ignatius says in his exercises: "Man is created to praise, reverence and serve God to save his own soul." Well, praising, reverencing and serving God no longer exist in the New Religion. Since sin no longer destroys the external glory of God, sin only harms man. You can now see how this new religion destroys the notion of sin itself, how it destroys God's glory, how it destroys the notion of sin as the supreme injustice, since it considers only human injustices: but the notion of injustice toward God, of sin against the Justice of God, they do not want anymore.
Next, we are told that by sin human dignity is not lost, man keeps his dignity after sin. Man remains dignified, friendly, and sympathetic. No matter what man does in the religious order, whether he honors a false god, or by a false worship, the true God matters not, he keeps his dignity. He is thus worthy of regard and respect, and we must respect his religion. We must consequently collaborate with other religions, since human dignity is not damaged by sin. This is a second very serious error, which thus justifies ecumenism and religious liberty. Man is dignified, since he remains sympathetic. Well! God continues to love the sinner, keeping him in his love and favor. Nothing has changed between God and the sinner. God is presented to us as an unmoved, easy-going Lord who accepts all his children's fancies. His charity is thus ridiculed. God continues to love the sinner without distinction or precision.
Next we are told, consequently, that God does not punish sin with a temporal or eternal punishment. Since sin does not offend God, God does not punish. God remains goodness itself. How could God inflict punishments on the sinner? No, it is man who punishes himself by subjection to the consequences of his faults. And hell, if ever one goes there, is merely exclusion–auto-exclusion–of divine love. Therefore hell is no longer a punishment inflicted by God. God no longer has the right to punish. Consequently man is absolved of the duty of reparation towards God. What we call in our catechism satisfaction for sin, the need of the sinner to expiate his sins to repair the honor of God, no longer exists. Man must only repair his spiritual health. However, repairing God's glory, cooperating to relieve the fallen creature from sin, to raise it again, they want none of it.
You know, on the other hand, that the beautiful Catholic doctrine of satisfaction is all for the greater glory of God, since the sinful man can recover and give back glory and praise to God and rebuild his fallen nature, by satisfaction, by the punishment he undergoes voluntarily. However this new doctrine, which wants neither sin, nor expiation and satisfaction, goes much further since it will distort the meaning of suffering and the Redemptive Passion of our Savior. Thus it will distort the dogma of the Redemption.
It is this central dogma which the modernists have attacked. They will say to us: the sufferings of our Lord on the Cross were intended only to reveal God's persevering love, but not to satisfy the divine justice in the place of sinful men. Our Lord on the Cross did not offer to his Father any satisfaction, rather He only revealed to man the love of God His Father. Thus they go altogether contrary to the dogma of the Precious Blood, this law which God put down in the Old Testament, that without the shedding of blood there is no remission. They refuse the Blood shed by Our Lord with all its expiatory value for the forgiveness of sins, considering it but a free gift by which the Father sent without any reason His Son to die, simply to reveal the love of the Father. This is the most abominable cruelty! The Father sent His Son to a most abominable death, simply to show His Love. They have distorted, emptied the dogma of the Redemption, and they blaspheme even the holy Passion of our Savior.
To the contrary, our catechism teaches that by His Passion our Lord offered to His Father a superabundant satisfaction for our innumerable sins, partly because of the dignity of the divine Person suffering on the Cross, and also because of the extreme charity and obedience by which our Lord suffered, and finally because of the extreme pain suffered on the Cross. He was then able to offer to His Father for us, in our place, a superabundant satisfaction... It is beautiful to contemplate the Cross: to see our Salvation, our Redemption, our relief, and not only the love of the Father, but firstly the love of our Lord Jesus Christ.
In every fashion, we are told in this new religion: what good is the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ? At most it was to reveal the love of the Father, but it was not for our salvation, since all are saved anyway. It is certain that, as stated in the Vatican Council II's Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, by His Incarnation the Son of God united Himself in a special way with every man. All men have become Christ-like (Christianized) by the Incarnation, therefore all are saved. That is what Pope John Paul II alludes to in one of his books, that hell is probably empty; all are saved. Thus you see the annihilation of the dogma of the Redemption, its complete falsification. Sin being suppressed, even God's justice being suppressed, they suppress the Redemption, the atonement of the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.
These are the dogmas of the New Religion.
Let us move on, if you would, to the new worship which corresponds to the new dogmas. Well! First of all, in the new worship we are told that the principal act of the Redemption of our Lord, the first Mass that He celebrated on the Cross after the Mass of the Last Supper, thus the principal act of the Redemption, does not consist in the Cross of our Savior, but rather in the glorious Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord. It is by His Resurrection and Ascension that our Savior would save us. In effect God crowns the work of the Redemption and plainly manifests His love, the love of the Father for us, in resurrecting His Son, since God is not the God of the dead but of the living. That is all. This is what Pope John Paul II declares. Thus the Cross of Christ is a rather secondary event in the Redemption, the essential work being the Resurrection and Ascension of our Savior.
Then we are told that the principal act of the priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ as priest does not consist in the bloody offering of His sacrifice on the Cross, but essentially in His heavenly priesthood by which, crossing the tent of the heavenly sanctuary, He presents Himself to His Father with His Blood. Thus they will deny that the principal act of the priesthood is to offer the sacrifice of our Lord on His Cross. In speaking, they will put the accent on the heavenly priesthood. This is not new. Since 1958, this teaching was professed by Fr. Joseph Lecuyer, the successor of His Grace Marcel Lefebvre to the head of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost Fathers. These heresies date before the Council. They were propagated by the Council and after the Council.
Then we are told that the Mass is not a non-bloody renewal of the Passion, that we can no longer say this. Rather, the Mass is a memorial of the great feats of Christ throughout His life, thus not only of His Passion, but also His Resurrection, His Ascension and, why not, His Incarnation, His Presentation in the Temple–in brief, all the great feats of Christ. The Mass would consist in making a memorial of them. Except that our catechism teaches us that it is the Consecration which makes the Mass, and theology explains to us what is signified by the separate Consecration of the bread and the wine, the Body and Blood of Christ. What is signified is produced mysteriously: the sacramental immolation is realized, that is, the separation of the Body and Blood by the power of the priest's words. Under the appearance of bread is directly the Body, while under the appearance of wine is directly the Precious Blood of Christ. Certainly they are not separated in reality, since by real concomitance they are both under each of the two species. Nevertheless, by the force of words, what is realized is truly a separation of the Body and Blood of Christ, a sacramental separation. Consequently, they nullify absolutely the role of the Consecration in the Mass. It is simply a memorial.
A few months ago we were told by Cardinal Ratzinger, "The Mass is valid without the words of Consecration." You have all read this, we have explained it. [See "Rome, the Society of Saint Pius X, Campos, Assisi,...etc." The Angelus, May 2002.–Ed.] It is a recent declaration by Cardinal Ratzinger and the International Theological Commission: the Mass is valid even without the words of consecration! So, what good is a priest? Indeed, the laity could celebrate the Mass; the priest serves for hardly anything since he does not even have to pronounce the words of Christ for the Mass to be valid.
Next we are told that in the course of the Mass Christ is made present, yes, but made present with all His salvific mysteries and not by the "magical" work of the Consecration, but by the reality of the liturgical action of the community which "objectivizes" the mysteries of Christ. Thus in this way, the mystery of Christ, in particular the Paschal mystery, becomes the mystery of worship. That is what they tell us, in particular His Eminence Monsignor Annibale Bugnini, principal agent of the liturgical reform: It does not consist in consecrating the Body and Blood of Christ, but in evoking together, actively, as a community, liturgically the entire mystery of Christ, in particular His Paschal mystery, thus by highlighting the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ.
Finally, the last heresy, my dear faithful–I am absolutely filled with grief by this flood of heresies which is hardly worthy of a sermon evidently–the common priesthood of the faithful operates throughout the course of the Eucharistic memorial. It is thus advisable to give more place to the active participation of the faithful so they can exercise their common priesthood, the priest need simply preside over the words of the memorial.
I conclude that, as much in its dogmas as in its worship, the new religion has emptied our Catholic religion of its substance. The Passion of our Lord is used only to reveal in a very intellectual and abstract way the love of God the Father for us. As for the love of Christ for His Father or for us, one knows nothing of it. And then, in addition, Catholic worship is only a memorial, a becoming aware in sum of the great work of the great feats of Christ by taking so much care that this work becomes present in the assembly in prayer, like a common auto-consciousness.
This New Religion is nothing else, my dear faithful, than a gnostic sect. I think that this is the word that characterizes it perfectly, since it is a religion without sin, without justice, without mercy, without penance, without conversion, without virtue, without sacrifice, without effort, but simply a self-consciousness. It is a purely "intellectualist" religion, it is a pure gnostic sect.
Then my dear future deacons and priests, be sure that I ordain you neither deacons nor priests to be deacons and priests of this gnostic religion. And I am persuaded that your intention also was to receive the Catholic priesthood today, from the hands of the Catholic Church, and not to receive the gnostic priesthood from the hands of I know not what gnostic system.
Reject with horror, my dear faithful, my dear ordinands, this natural religion, this intellectualist religion, which has nothing to do with the Catholic religion, and, on the contrary, be always more firmly persuaded of the reason for our combat and for our priesthood.
Dear ordinands, you are proud to receive your priesthood in the Catholic Church from the hands of a Catholic bishop, of all these bishops who have succeeded in transmitting the Catholic priesthood in its doctrinal purity, from which follows its genuine pastoral charity. Be glad today to receive, in the Catholic Church, the Catholic priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ, the priesthood of a St. Padre Pio, of all saintly priests, of the saintly Curé of Ars, of the Apostles, which the Blessed Virgin Mary, whose beautiful feast we celebrate today, lived and supported.
Let us make supplications to the very blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Priesthood, Mother of the High Priest, and Mother of priests, to keep us faithful to the Catholic priesthood, so that we communicate the Catholic religion. Amen.
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
|
The Six Marks of the Novus Ordo Mass |
Posted by: Stone - 03-03-2021, 07:38 PM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- Replies (1)
|
|
The Six Marks of the Novus Ordo Mass
At the Good Friday trial of Jesus, Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?" To this day, people are still wondering about truth, and where to find it. When St. John the Apostle wrote the introduction to this Gospel, he said to us, "In the beginning was the Word, the Word of God ... and (this) Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we (Apostles) saw his glory ... full of grace and truth. Jesus, the Word of God, is full of truth. We must constantly refer to Jesus to know the Truth.
In the very first prayer of the traditional Roman Canon of the Mass, we pray God the Father to bless our sacrifice which is offered for the whole Church, including all right-thinking believers and teachers of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.
Thus in every Mass, we recall that Jesus is full of truth, and has given us a faith that makes us right-thinking believers. Let me remind you of one article of our Catholic Faith. This article or truth is spelled out in the Secret Prayer of a Sunday Mass after Pentecost. This truth is that God has enacted one perfect sacrifice, that of Jesus His Son, in place of all the victims that were sacrificed under the Old Testament before Christ. We pray God to receive this one perfect sacrifice and to sanctify it in order to help us all to attain salvation.
So, briefly: Jesus, full of truth, has given us a right-thinking Faith that says the Mass is a perfect sacrifice of Jesus' very Body and Blood, that replaces all the Old Testament sacrifices.
It is sad that the Protestants do not accept this notion that the Mass is a true, though bloodless, sacrifice of the real Body and Blood of Christ. For Protestants, the Eucharist is merely a religious meal that is a symbol and memorial of the Last Supper of Jesus. It is not a true victim-sacrifice offered by an actual priest. This contradiction of our Catholic faith means that we cannot expect Protestants to be right-thinking believers, even though we may pray for their conversion. What is more, you know that there are other notions or articles of the Catholic Faith that Protestants do not accept. Examples are the Seven Sacraments, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Holy Mary, and the Infallibility of the Pope.
But let us return to the Mass. In 1969, Max Thurian, an important protestant theologian, who helped found the ecumenical Taizé community in France, made this statement:
Quote:"It is now theologically possible for Protestants to use the same Mass as Catholics." (1)
Protestants offering the same Mass as Catholics? How is this possible? How can we all be right-thinking believers?
To answer these questions, remember that the Liturgy Commission set up by the Paul VI in early 1964 was mandated to prepare a reform of the Mass and all the other liturgy services of the Catholic Church. This commission, called Consilium, did in fact reform the Mass, quite promptly, and the Pope did approve and promulgate this New Order or Novus Ordo of Mass on April 3, 1969. We have the English version of this new Mass that is used in Catholic churches thence forth around the world. It is quite different in many respects from the Tridentine Latin Mass. How should right-thinking Catholic believers evaluate this new Mass of Vatican II? What should we, as Catholics, think of the Novus Ordo Mass?
To answer this serious question, let us briefly describe the new Mass in the language of expert theologians and liturgists.
First, they describe it as ecumenical. This means designed to foster unity and agreement with non-Catholic beliefs. Thus it becomes important to "accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative." One must emphasize what we believe in common, and tone down the beliefs we do not share. The New Mass has changed many prayers, especially the Collects, to speak less of Hell, less of eternal punishment, less of the world as the enemy of God, less of the need to fast, and so on.
The Novus Ordo Mass is next [second] described as antiquarian. This means emphasizing the alleged early, original features of the Mass in the time of the Fathers, that is, the first four to six centuries of the History of the Church. It means recovering supposed early simplicity of worship, and other primitive qualities. It means diminishing or removing the enrichments of the Catholic Mass that were developed in medieval, baroque, and post-reformation times. It means a more austere, more bare-bones and elemental kind of worship.
Some of these simplifications include less bows or genuflections by the priest, shorter prayers, less use of bells and incense, less feasts of saints, less statues and holy water, and so forth. This then is the antiquarian aspect of the new liturgy.
The third quality is to be community-based. Now the community is the horizontal dimension, that is, around us. The alternative is the vertical dimension, that is, above us. It means pointing to God, to heaven, to the angels. The Novus Ordo tends to emphasize the community more than God, here more than hereafter, goodness in human society rather than in the mystical body of Christ. Notice that new churches, that is, mass buildings, are wider and lower, with little or no tower that points up. Notice the big entrance lobby for people to meet and chat, horizontally, rather than to pray to Heaven, vertically. Notice the new sign of peace, when the congregation has a surge of hand-shaking. The New Mass, then, is community-based.
The next [fourth] quality is that of a democratic church. This means literally government by the people, rather than by priests and Bishops and Pope, which is hierarchic, not democratic. It means that the Mass should be led not just by the priest, but by many lectors or readers taking turns, by many communion ministers, including women and even teenagers, by many ushers or so-called ministers of hospitality, and above all by a parish liturgy committee that decides the style and structure of the various Masses. The cantor or song leader is another player on the team of the democratic liturgy.
A fifth trait of Novus Ordo is to be desacralized. This means rendered less sacred. It means signs of reverence or mystery, of transcendence or heaven should be reduced to a minimum or removed. Some of these eliminations in the Mass were mentioned earlier, under the antiquarian quality of keeping the gestures of only the early age of the Church.
Other trimmings of the sacred: we see in no more communion railing, no more Latin language, simpler less ornate vestments, and in priests who do not even wear some of the proper vestments, but remain more casual. Many priests no longer wear clerical attire even outside the Mass. They celebrate Mass facing the people, not God. They act more as a chairman or president of a meeting, rather than as a sacred minister before God. This is the desacralized liturgy.
The sixth and last adjective to describe the Vatican II Mass is Protestantized, that is, harmonized more with Protestant views and practices. This is a theological area, that is, it touches on what we are taught and do believe about God, the Sacraments, the Church and so forth. Because of the ecumenical urge, and also the urge of the Modernist heresy, the designers of the new liturgy have certainly made Catholic worship more Protestant in tone and content. We could call this quality deviance, because liturgists are deviating from traditional Catholic belief. Here are some specific examples:
A doctrine that is toned down is that of the real presence, the reality of Our Lord’s Body and Blood under the appearance of bread and wine. Thus the Tabernacle is off in a corner or even in a separate room out of sight. One receives Communion not kneeling and on the tongue, but standing and in the hand. One must fast not three hours or from midnight, but only one hour. The word transubstantiation is omitted from documents on the Mass.
The practice and doctrine of Confession, almost unknown among Protestants, is surviving less and less among Catholics, and the risk of sacrilegious communions is now chronic, that is, Holy Communions received in the state of mortal sin or without prior absolution by the priest.
The ministerial role of the priest is much diminished as mentioned in the democratic emphasis in the new Mass. The priest is actually a man chosen apart and made sacred for a holy task of offering worship and sacrifice, even if only few faithful are present.
But the new concept of priest is more that of a functionary, an elected or appointed official, a president or master of ceremonies, even sometimes an entertainer. No wonder there are few young men today answering the call to such an uninspiring, humanist kind of priest.
We already noted that the sacrificial character of the Mass has been largely lost. The Mass is merely a "sacrifice of praise" now, an offering of holy words to God. One quality of true sacrifice is to be propitiatory, that is, appeasing God's anger over our sins. If we believe that God is too kind and loving to demand atonement for sin, or if we believe that God is too magnificent to be offended by our puny sins, then we have lost the Catholic Faith, and, in this case, a propitiatory sacrifice would make no sense.
These are the six qualities of the New Order of the Mass: ecumenical, antiquarian, community-based, democratic, desacralized, and Protestantized. By contrast with Catholic tradition up to Vatican II, it features numerous changes, reversals, and opposites, and it is hardly a Mass for right-thinking believers. It makes us understand why a strong and holy movement to preserve and restore the traditional Latin Catholic Mass sprang up after Vatican Council II.
I hope the reader will follow up this short meditation by prayer and study, so that we all become or remain right-thinking believers, and faithful disciples of traditional, Catholic Truth.
1. D. Bonneterre, The Liturgical Movement, p.100. To this writer the present article also owes the schema of six marks of the new Mass.
|
|
|
Pius XI condemned Ecumenism, the Assisi meetings, and the Pachamama |
Posted by: Stone - 03-03-2021, 07:26 PM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition
- Replies (1)
|
|
Pius XI condemned Ecumenism, the Assisi meetings, and the Pachamama
Never, perhaps, in the past, have the minds of men been seized as hard as we see them today, of the desire to strengthen and extend for the common good of human society the fraternal relations which bind us together. because of our community of origin and nature.
The people, in fact, do not yet fully enjoy the benefits of peace; and even, here and there, old and new discords provoke the eruption of seditions and civil wars. Moreover, most, certainly, controversies that affect the tranquility and prosperity of peoples can not in any way receive a solution without the concerted action and efforts of Heads of States and those who manage and pursue them. the interests. It is therefore easy to understand, and all the more so because no one refuses to admit the unity of the human race, why most men wish to see, in the name of this universal fraternity, the various peoples uniting with each other by links each day closer.
It is a similar result that some strive to obtain in things that look at the new order of the Law, brought by Christ our Lord. Convinced that it is very rare to meet men devoid of any religious meaning, we see them harboring the hope that it would be possible to bring without difficulty the peoples, despite their religious differences, to a fraternal understanding of the profession. certain doctrines considered as a common foundation of spiritual life.
Therefore, they begin to hold congresses, meetings, conferences attended by a significant number of listeners, and, in their discussions, they invite all men indiscriminately, the infidels of all kinds as the faithful of the Christ, and even those who, unfortunately, have separated from Christ or who, with bitterness and obstinacy, deny the divinity of his nature and his mission.
Such enterprises can not, in any way, be approved by Catholics , since they are based on the erroneous theory that religions are all more or less good and praiseworthy, in the sense that all too, although in different ways manifest and signify the natural and innate feeling that leads us to God and urges us to respectfully acknowledge His power. In truth, the partisans of this theory go astray in error, but moreover, by perverting the notion of the true religion they repudiate it, and they pour in stages in naturalism and atheism.
The conclusion is clear: to join the partisans and propagators of such doctrines is to move away completely from divinely revealed religion.
|
|
|
62 Reasons to Reject the Novus Ordo Mass |
Posted by: Stone - 03-03-2021, 07:11 PM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition
- Replies (1)
|
|
62 Reasons to Reject the Novus Ordo Mass
Adapted from here.
The following summary is attributed to the Priests of Campos. If this information is true, it must have been made before 2002 when the ensemble of those Priests, under the leadership of Bishop Fernando Rifan, accepted the New Mass and Vatican II. The asterisk at the end of a number indicates that the same reason was given in a letter written by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci to Paul VI dated Rome, September 25, 1969.
62 Reasons to Reject the N.O.
1. Because the New Mass is not an unequivocal Profession of the Catholic Faith (which the traditional Mass is), it is ambiguous and with a Protestant flavor. Therefore since we pray as we believe, it follows that we cannot pray with the New Mass in Protestant fashion and still believe as Catholics!
2. Because the changes were not just slight ones but actually "deal with a fundamental renovation ... a total change ... a new creation." (Msgr. A. Bugnini, co-author of the New Mass)
3. Because the New Mass leads us to think "that truths ... can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic Faith is bound forever." *
4. Because the New Mass represents "a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent" which, in fixing the "canons," provided an "insurmountable barrier to any heresy against the integrity of the Mystery." *
5. Because the difference between the two is not simply one of mere detail or just modification of ceremony, but "all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place (in the New Mass), if it subsists at all." *
6. Because "Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment in the faithful who already show signs of uneasiness and lessening of Faith." *
7. Because in times of confusion such as now, we are guided by the words of our Lord: "By their fruits you shall know them." Fruits of the New Mass are: 30% decrease in Sunday Mass attendance in U.S. (NY Times, 5/24/75), 43% decrease in France (Cardinal Marty), 50% decrease in Holland (NY Times, 1/5/76).
8. Because "amongst the best of the clergy the practical result (of the New Mass) is an agonizing crisis of conscience..." *
9. Because in less than seven years after the introduction of the New Mass, priests in the world decreased from 413,438 to 243,307 - almost 50%! (Holy See Statistics)
10. Because "The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition ... do not seem to us sufficient." *
11. Because the New Mass does not manifest Faith in the Real Presence of our Lord - the Traditional Mass manifests it unmistakably.
12. Because the New Mass confuses the REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist with His MYSTICAL Presence among us (proximating Protestant doctrine).
13. Because the New Mass blurs what ought to be a sharp difference between the HIERARCHIC Priesthood and the common priesthood of the people (as does Protestantism).
14. Because the New Mass favors the heretical theory that it is THE FAITH of the people and not THE WORDS OF THE PRIEST which makes Christ present in the Eucharist.
15. Because the insertion of the Lutheran :"Prayer of the Faithful" in the New Mass follows and puts forth the Protestant error that all the people are priests.
16. Because the New Mass does away with the Confiteor of the priest, makes it collective with the people, thus promoting Luther's refusal to accept the Catholic teaching that the priest is judge, witness and intercessor with God.
17. Because the New Mass gives us to understand that the people concelebrate with the priest - which is against Catholic theology!
18. Because six Protestant ministers collaborated in making up the New Mass: George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian.
19. Because just as Luther did away with the Offertory - since it very clearly expressed the sacrificial, propitiatory character of the Mass - so also the inventors of the New Mass did away with it, reducing it to a simple Preparation of the Gifts.
20. Because enough Catholic theology has been removed that Protestants can, while keeping their antipathy for the True Roman Catholic Church, use the text of the New Mass without difficulty. Protestant Minister Thurian (co-consultor for the 'New Mass' project) said that a fruit of the New mass "will perhaps be that the non-Catholic communities will be ale to celebrate the Lord's Supper using the same prayers as the Catholic Church." (La Croix, 4/30/69)
21. Because the narrative manner of the Consecration in the New Mass infers that it is only a memorial and not a true sacrifice (Protestant thesis)
22. Because by grave omissions, the New Mass leads us to believe that it is only a meal (Protestant doctrine) and not a sacrifice for the remission of sins (Catholic Doctrine).
23. Because the changes such as: table instead of altar; facing people instead of tabernacle; Communion in the hand, etc., emphasize Protestant doctrines (e.g., Mass is only a meal; priest only a president of the assembly; Eucharist is NOT the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, but merely a piece of bread, etc.)
24. Because Protestants themselves have said "the new Catholic Eucharistic prayers have abandoned the false (sic) perspective of sacrifice offered to God." (La Croix, 12/10/69)
25. Because we are faced with the dilemma: either we become Protestantized by worshipping with the New Mass, or else we preserve our Catholic Faith by adhering faithfully to the traditional Mass, the "Mass of All Time."
26. Because the New Mass was made in accordance with the Protestant definition of the Mass: "The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred synaxis or assembly of the people of God which gathers together under the presidency of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord." (Par. 7, Intro. to the New Missal, defining the New Mass, 4/6/69)
27. Because by means of ambiguity, the New Mass pretends to please Catholics while pleasing Protestants; thus it is "double-tongued" and offensive to God who abhors any kind of hypocrisy: "Cursed be ... the double-tongued for they destroy the peace of many." (Ecclesiasticus 28:13)
28. Because beautiful, familiar Catholic hymns which have inspired people for centuries, have been thrown out and replaced with new hymns strongly Protestant in sentiment, further deepening the already distinct impression that one is no longer attending a Catholic function.
29. Because the New Mass contains ambiguities subtly favoring heresy, which is more dangerous than if it were clearly heretical since a half-heresy half resembles the Truth!
30. Because Christ has only one Spouse, the Catholic Church, and her worship service cannot also serve religions that are at enmity with her.
31. Because the New Mass follows the format of Cranmer's heretical Anglican Mass, and the methods used to promote it follow precisely the methods of the English heretics.
32. Because Holy Mother Church canonized numerous English Martyrs who were killed because they refused to participate in a Mass such as the New Mass!
33. Because Protestants who once converted to Catholicism are scandalized to see that the New Mass is the same as the one they attended as Protestants. One of them, Julien Green, asks: "Why did we convert?"
34. Because statistics show a great decrease in conversions to Catholicism following the use of the New Mass. Conversions, which were up to 100,000 a year in the U.S., have decreased to less than 10,000! And the number of people leaving the Church far exceeds those coming in.
35. Because the Traditional Mass has forged many saints. "Innumerable saints have been fed abundantly with the proper piety towards God by it ..." (Pope Paul VI, Const. Apost. Missale Romanum)
36. Because the nature of the New Mass is such as to facilitate profanations of the Holy Eucharist, which occur with a frequency unheard of with the Traditional Mass.
37. Because the New Mass, despite appearances, conveys a New Faith, not the Catholic Faith. It conveys Modernism and follows exactly the tactics of Modernism, using vague terminology in order to insinuate and advance error.
38. Because by introducing optional variations, the New Mass undermines the unity of the liturgy, with each priest liable to deviate as he fancies under the guise of creativity. Disorder inevitably results, accompanied by lack of respect and irreverence.
39. Because many good Catholic theologians, canonists and priests do not accept the New Mass, and affirm that they are unable to celebrate it in good conscience.
40. Because the New Mass has eliminated such things as: genuflections (only three remain), purification of the priests fingers in the chalice, preservation from all profane contact of priest's fingers after Consecration, sacred altar stone and relics, three altar clothes (reduced to one), all of which "only serve to emphasize how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated." *
41. Because the traditional Mass, enriched and matured by centuries of Sacred Tradition, was codified (not invented) by a Pope who was a saint, Pius V; whereas the New Mass was artificially fabricated by six Protestant ministers and Msgr. Annibale Bugnini suspect of being a Freemason.
42. Because the errors of the New Mass which are accentuated in the vernacular version are even present in the Latin text of the New Mass.
43. Because the New Mass, with its ambiguity and permissiveness, exposes us to the wrath of God by facilitating the risk of invalid consecrations: "Will priests of the near future who have not received the traditional formation, and who rely on the Novus Ordo Missae with the intention of 'doing what the Church does,' consecrate validly? One may be allowed to doubt it!" *
44. Because the abolition of the Traditional Mass recalls the prophecy of Daniel 8:12: "And he was given power against the perpetual sacrifice because of the sins of the people" and the observation of St. Alphonsus de Liguori that because the Mass is the best and most beautiful thing which exists in the Church here below, the devil has always tried by means of heretics to deprive us of it.
45. Because in places where the Traditional Mass is preserved, the Faith and fervor of the people are greater. Whereas the opposite is true where the New Mass reigns (Report on the Mass, Diocese of Campos, Roma, Buenos Aires #69, 8/81)
46. Because along with the New Mass goes also a new catechism, a new morality, new prayers, new Code of Canon law, new calendar, -- in a word, a NEW CHURCH, a complete revolution from the old. "The liturgical reform ... do not be deceived, this is where the revolution begins." (Msgr. Dwyer, Archbishop of Birmingham, spokesman of Episcopal Synod)
47. Because the intrinsic beauty of the Traditional Mass attracts souls by itself; whereas the New Mass, lacking any attractiveness of its own, has to invent novelties and entertainment in order to appeal to the people.
48. Because the New mass embodies numerous errors condemned by Pope St. Pius V at the Council of Trent (Mass totally in vernacular, words of Consecration spoken aloud, etc. See Condemnation of Jansenist Synod of Pistoia), and errors condemned by Pope Pius XII (e.g., altar in form of table. See Mediator Dei).
49. Because the New Mass attempts to transform the Catholic Church into a new, ecumenical church embracing all ideologies and all religions - right and wrong, truth and error - a goal long dreamt of by the enemies of the Catholic Church.
50. Because the New Mass, in removing the salutations and final blessing when the priest celebrates alone, shows a denial of, and disbelief in the dogma of the Communion of Saints.
51. Because the altar and tabernacle are now separated, thus marking a division between Christ in His priest-and-Sacrifice-on-the-altar, from Christ in His Real Presence in the tabernacle, "two things which of their very nature, must remain together." (Pius XII)
52. Because the New Mass no longer constitutes a vertical worship between God and man, but rather a horizontal worship between man and man.
53. Because the New Mass, although appearing to conform to the dispositions of Vatican Council II, in reality opposes its instructions, since the Council itself declared its desire to conserve and promote the Traditional Rite.
54. Because the Traditional Latin Mass of Pope St. Pius V has never been legally abrogated and therefore remains a true rite of the Roman Catholic Church by which the faithful may fulfill their Sunday obligation.
55. Because Pope St. Pius V granted a perpetual indult, valid "for always," to celebrate the Traditional Mass freely, licitly, without scruple of conscience, punishment, sentence or censure (Papal Bull Quo Primum)
56. Because Pope Paul VI, when promulgating the New Mass, himself declared. "The rite ... by itself is NOT a dogmatic definition ..." (11/19/69)
57. Because Pope Paul VI, when asked by Cardinal Heenan of England, if he was abrogating or prohibiting the Tridentine Mass, answered: "It is not our intention to prohibit absolutely the Tridentine Mass."
58. Because "In the Libera nos of the New Mass, the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and all the Saints are no longer mentioned; her and their intercession thus no longer asked, even in time of peril." *
59. Because in none of the three new Eucharistic Prayers (of the New Mass) is there any reference ... to the state of suffering of those who have died, in none the possibility of a particular Memento, thus undermining faith in the redemptive nature of the Sacrifice.*
60. Because we recognize the Holy Father's supreme authority in his universal government of Holy Mother Church, but we know that even this authority cannot impose upon us a practice which is so CLEARLY against the Faith: a Mass that is equivocal and favoring heresy and therefore disagreeable to God.
61. Because, as stated in Vatican Council I, the "Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of Faith delivered through the Apostles." (Dnz 3070)
62. Because heresy, or whatever clearly favors heresy, cannot be a matter for obedience. Obedience is at the service of Faith and not Faith at the service of obedience! In this foregoing case then, "One must obey God before men." (Acts 5:29)
|
|
|
62 Reasons to Reject the Novus Ordo Mass |
Posted by: Stone - 03-03-2021, 07:11 PM - Forum: New Rite Sacraments
- Replies (1)
|
|
62 Reasons to Reject the Novus Ordo Mass
Adapted from here.
The following summary is attributed to the Priests of Campos. If this information is true, it must have been made before 2002 when the ensemble of those Priests, under the leadership of Bishop Fernando Rifan, accepted the New Mass and Vatican II. The asterisk at the end of a number indicates that the same reason was given in a letter written by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci to Paul VI dated Rome, September 25, 1969.
62 Reasons to Reject the N.O.
1. Because the New Mass is not an unequivocal Profession of the Catholic Faith (which the traditional Mass is), it is ambiguous and with a Protestant flavor. Therefore since we pray as we believe, it follows that we cannot pray with the New Mass in Protestant fashion and still believe as Catholics!
2. Because the changes were not just slight ones but actually "deal with a fundamental renovation ... a total change ... a new creation." (Msgr. A. Bugnini, co-author of the New Mass)
3. Because the New Mass leads us to think "that truths ... can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic Faith is bound forever." *
4. Because the New Mass represents "a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent" which, in fixing the "canons," provided an "insurmountable barrier to any heresy against the integrity of the Mystery." *
5. Because the difference between the two is not simply one of mere detail or just modification of ceremony, but "all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place (in the New Mass), if it subsists at all." *
6. Because "Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment in the faithful who already show signs of uneasiness and lessening of Faith." *
7. Because in times of confusion such as now, we are guided by the words of our Lord: "By their fruits you shall know them." Fruits of the New Mass are: 30% decrease in Sunday Mass attendance in U.S. (NY Times, 5/24/75), 43% decrease in France (Cardinal Marty), 50% decrease in Holland (NY Times, 1/5/76).
8. Because "amongst the best of the clergy the practical result (of the New Mass) is an agonizing crisis of conscience..." *
9. Because in less than seven years after the introduction of the New Mass, priests in the world decreased from 413,438 to 243,307 - almost 50%! (Holy See Statistics)
10. Because "The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition ... do not seem to us sufficient." *
11. Because the New Mass does not manifest Faith in the Real Presence of our Lord - the Traditional Mass manifests it unmistakably.
12. Because the New Mass confuses the REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist with His MYSTICAL Presence among us (proximating Protestant doctrine).
13. Because the New Mass blurs what ought to be a sharp difference between the HIERARCHIC Priesthood and the common priesthood of the people (as does Protestantism).
14. Because the New Mass favors the heretical theory that it is THE FAITH of the people and not THE WORDS OF THE PRIEST which makes Christ present in the Eucharist.
15. Because the insertion of the Lutheran :"Prayer of the Faithful" in the New Mass follows and puts forth the Protestant error that all the people are priests.
16. Because the New Mass does away with the Confiteor of the priest, makes it collective with the people, thus promoting Luther's refusal to accept the Catholic teaching that the priest is judge, witness and intercessor with God.
17. Because the New Mass gives us to understand that the people concelebrate with the priest - which is against Catholic theology!
18. Because six Protestant ministers collaborated in making up the New Mass: George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian.
19. Because just as Luther did away with the Offertory - since it very clearly expressed the sacrificial, propitiatory character of the Mass - so also the inventors of the New Mass did away with it, reducing it to a simple Preparation of the Gifts.
20. Because enough Catholic theology has been removed that Protestants can, while keeping their antipathy for the True Roman Catholic Church, use the text of the New Mass without difficulty. Protestant Minister Thurian (co-consultor for the 'New Mass' project) said that a fruit of the New mass "will perhaps be that the non-Catholic communities will be ale to celebrate the Lord's Supper using the same prayers as the Catholic Church." (La Croix, 4/30/69)
21. Because the narrative manner of the Consecration in the New Mass infers that it is only a memorial and not a true sacrifice (Protestant thesis)
22. Because by grave omissions, the New Mass leads us to believe that it is only a meal (Protestant doctrine) and not a sacrifice for the remission of sins (Catholic Doctrine).
23. Because the changes such as: table instead of altar; facing people instead of tabernacle; Communion in the hand, etc., emphasize Protestant doctrines (e.g., Mass is only a meal; priest only a president of the assembly; Eucharist is NOT the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, but merely a piece of bread, etc.)
24. Because Protestants themselves have said "the new Catholic Eucharistic prayers have abandoned the false (sic) perspective of sacrifice offered to God." (La Croix, 12/10/69)
25. Because we are faced with the dilemma: either we become Protestantized by worshipping with the New Mass, or else we preserve our Catholic Faith by adhering faithfully to the traditional Mass, the "Mass of All Time."
26. Because the New Mass was made in accordance with the Protestant definition of the Mass: "The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred synaxis or assembly of the people of God which gathers together under the presidency of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord." (Par. 7, Intro. to the New Missal, defining the New Mass, 4/6/69)
27. Because by means of ambiguity, the New Mass pretends to please Catholics while pleasing Protestants; thus it is "double-tongued" and offensive to God who abhors any kind of hypocrisy: "Cursed be ... the double-tongued for they destroy the peace of many." (Ecclesiasticus 28:13)
28. Because beautiful, familiar Catholic hymns which have inspired people for centuries, have been thrown out and replaced with new hymns strongly Protestant in sentiment, further deepening the already distinct impression that one is no longer attending a Catholic function.
29. Because the New Mass contains ambiguities subtly favoring heresy, which is more dangerous than if it were clearly heretical since a half-heresy half resembles the Truth!
30. Because Christ has only one Spouse, the Catholic Church, and her worship service cannot also serve religions that are at enmity with her.
31. Because the New Mass follows the format of Cranmer's heretical Anglican Mass, and the methods used to promote it follow precisely the methods of the English heretics.
32. Because Holy Mother Church canonized numerous English Martyrs who were killed because they refused to participate in a Mass such as the New Mass!
33. Because Protestants who once converted to Catholicism are scandalized to see that the New Mass is the same as the one they attended as Protestants. One of them, Julien Green, asks: "Why did we convert?"
34. Because statistics show a great decrease in conversions to Catholicism following the use of the New Mass. Conversions, which were up to 100,000 a year in the U.S., have decreased to less than 10,000! And the number of people leaving the Church far exceeds those coming in.
35. Because the Traditional Mass has forged many saints. "Innumerable saints have been fed abundantly with the proper piety towards God by it ..." (Pope Paul VI, Const. Apost. Missale Romanum)
36. Because the nature of the New Mass is such as to facilitate profanations of the Holy Eucharist, which occur with a frequency unheard of with the Traditional Mass.
37. Because the New Mass, despite appearances, conveys a New Faith, not the Catholic Faith. It conveys Modernism and follows exactly the tactics of Modernism, using vague terminology in order to insinuate and advance error.
38. Because by introducing optional variations, the New Mass undermines the unity of the liturgy, with each priest liable to deviate as he fancies under the guise of creativity. Disorder inevitably results, accompanied by lack of respect and irreverence.
39. Because many good Catholic theologians, canonists and priests do not accept the New Mass, and affirm that they are unable to celebrate it in good conscience.
40. Because the New Mass has eliminated such things as: genuflections (only three remain), purification of the priests fingers in the chalice, preservation from all profane contact of priest's fingers after Consecration, sacred altar stone and relics, three altar clothes (reduced to one), all of which "only serve to emphasize how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated." *
41. Because the traditional Mass, enriched and matured by centuries of Sacred Tradition, was codified (not invented) by a Pope who was a saint, Pius V; whereas the New Mass was artificially fabricated by six Protestant ministers and Msgr. Annibale Bugnini suspect of being a Freemason.
42. Because the errors of the New Mass which are accentuated in the vernacular version are even present in the Latin text of the New Mass.
43. Because the New Mass, with its ambiguity and permissiveness, exposes us to the wrath of God by facilitating the risk of invalid consecrations: "Will priests of the near future who have not received the traditional formation, and who rely on the Novus Ordo Missae with the intention of 'doing what the Church does,' consecrate validly? One may be allowed to doubt it!" *
44. Because the abolition of the Traditional Mass recalls the prophecy of Daniel 8:12: "And he was given power against the perpetual sacrifice because of the sins of the people" and the observation of St. Alphonsus de Liguori that because the Mass is the best and most beautiful thing which exists in the Church here below, the devil has always tried by means of heretics to deprive us of it.
45. Because in places where the Traditional Mass is preserved, the Faith and fervor of the people are greater. Whereas the opposite is true where the New Mass reigns (Report on the Mass, Diocese of Campos, Roma, Buenos Aires #69, 8/81)
46. Because along with the New Mass goes also a new catechism, a new morality, new prayers, new Code of Canon law, new calendar, -- in a word, a NEW CHURCH, a complete revolution from the old. "The liturgical reform ... do not be deceived, this is where the revolution begins." (Msgr. Dwyer, Archbishop of Birmingham, spokesman of Episcopal Synod)
47. Because the intrinsic beauty of the Traditional Mass attracts souls by itself; whereas the New Mass, lacking any attractiveness of its own, has to invent novelties and entertainment in order to appeal to the people.
48. Because the New mass embodies numerous errors condemned by Pope St. Pius V at the Council of Trent (Mass totally in vernacular, words of Consecration spoken aloud, etc. See Condemnation of Jansenist Synod of Pistoia), and errors condemned by Pope Pius XII (e.g., altar in form of table. See Mediator Dei).
49. Because the New Mass attempts to transform the Catholic Church into a new, ecumenical church embracing all ideologies and all religions - right and wrong, truth and error - a goal long dreamt of by the enemies of the Catholic Church.
50. Because the New Mass, in removing the salutations and final blessing when the priest celebrates alone, shows a denial of, and disbelief in the dogma of the Communion of Saints.
51. Because the altar and tabernacle are now separated, thus marking a division between Christ in His priest-and-Sacrifice-on-the-altar, from Christ in His Real Presence in the tabernacle, "two things which of their very nature, must remain together." (Pius XII)
52. Because the New Mass no longer constitutes a vertical worship between God and man, but rather a horizontal worship between man and man.
53. Because the New Mass, although appearing to conform to the dispositions of Vatican Council II, in reality opposes its instructions, since the Council itself declared its desire to conserve and promote the Traditional Rite.
54. Because the Traditional Latin Mass of Pope St. Pius V has never been legally abrogated and therefore remains a true rite of the Roman Catholic Church by which the faithful may fulfill their Sunday obligation.
55. Because Pope St. Pius V granted a perpetual indult, valid "for always," to celebrate the Traditional Mass freely, licitly, without scruple of conscience, punishment, sentence or censure (Papal Bull Quo Primum)
56. Because Pope Paul VI, when promulgating the New Mass, himself declared. "The rite ... by itself is NOT a dogmatic definition ..." (11/19/69)
57. Because Pope Paul VI, when asked by Cardinal Heenan of England, if he was abrogating or prohibiting the Tridentine Mass, answered: "It is not our intention to prohibit absolutely the Tridentine Mass."
58. Because "In the Libera nos of the New Mass, the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and all the Saints are no longer mentioned; her and their intercession thus no longer asked, even in time of peril." *
59. Because in none of the three new Eucharistic Prayers (of the New Mass) is there any reference ... to the state of suffering of those who have died, in none the possibility of a particular Memento, thus undermining faith in the redemptive nature of the Sacrifice.*
60. Because we recognize the Holy Father's supreme authority in his universal government of Holy Mother Church, but we know that even this authority cannot impose upon us a practice which is so CLEARLY against the Faith: a Mass that is equivocal and favoring heresy and therefore disagreeable to God.
61. Because, as stated in Vatican Council I, the "Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of Faith delivered through the Apostles." (Dnz 3070)
62. Because heresy, or whatever clearly favors heresy, cannot be a matter for obedience. Obedience is at the service of Faith and not Faith at the service of obedience! In this foregoing case then, "One must obey God before men." (Acts 5:29)
|
|
|
|