|For answers to many questions, consult the Official Traditional Catholic Directory, Listing All Traditional Latin Masses and Traditional Resources for the United States and Canada, 12th Annual Edition (2007) - December 2006 Monthly Revised Edition. For further information, click on the Official Traditional Catholic Directory department, provided to the TRADITIO Network by the National Registry of Traditional Latin Masses.|
ADVENT: A TIME TO HELP
If you wish to support the TRADITIO Network's Apostolate, click on the box to the left to made a donation easily, securely, and confidentially by bank account or credit card through PayPal. Regular contributors become Benefactors of the TRADITIO Network, and their intentions are specially commemorated at Traditional Latin Masses offered. Indicate "TRADITIO" in the Payment For field. Using PayPal reduces our administrative burden considerably, but if need to use a paper check, see FAQ01: How Can I Help the TRADITIO Network's Apostolate?
Benedict-Ratzinger has now been challenged to pay tit for tat. He was the first pope in the entire history of the Catholic Church to pray in a mosque of the Mohammedans, on November 30, 2006. Now the Mohammedans, in turn, have appealed to Newpope to allow them to prostrate themselves Islamic style in the Newchurch cathedral at Cordova, Spain, to turn the cathedral into an "oecumenical space" with other faiths. [Source: Reuters]
In taking a wide-angle perspective of the entire mess that Newchurch has become, I am starting to wonder whether even a complete return to the traditional teachings and liturgy by Newvatican could be trusted. In essence, wouldn't any return by the "mainstream" Church to the traditional Church's ways have to be viewed with a tremendous amount of cynicism (at least by those paying attention), since any such action would not be done sincerely, but rather because the decline in attendance, vocations, etc. has forced them to conclude there isn't any money in continuing down the Novus Ordo road?
The Fathers Reply.
We don't expect that Newchurch will return to the Catholic Faith. Why should it? It is composed of those who are committed to the false New Religion of the New Order with its invalid Novus Ordo service, its New Sacraments, its New Doctrine, and its New Morality. They would rather strip the Church down to nothingness rather than become Catholic again. No, eventually, the New Order will have to be jettisoned, just as the followers of Luther, who at first called themselves "Catholics," were jettisoned so that the Roman Catholic Church could enter the great Counter-reformation.
It is pathetic to see so many "conservative" and indultarian Newchurchers drooling over some fabled "New Indult," by which, if it ever happens, they will simply be relegated to a corner of the New Order and be forced to recognize the invalid New Order service, sacraments, religion, and morality. In effect, they would sell outs their Roman Catholic Faith to the New Order for a grain of sand, which will simply be engulfed in the New Order ocean.
"Conservative" and indultarian Newchurchers are abysmally ignorant of Catholic history. 12,000,000 Catholics were martyred because they refused to use even a single pinch of incense to worship the pagan gods of Rome. Now we have those who will defile the Catholic Faith of those martyrs by embracing the pagan gods of Newrome: the New "Mass," the New Sacraments, the New Doctrine, and the New Morality.
As it stands in today's world, the Fatima request for the consecration of Russia could be leading us into the hands of the "One World Religion" by implying that if the Newpope would only implement the Fatima request with the Newchurch bishops, then the world would somehow repent and be converted back to the truly Catholic Mass, doctrine, and morality. Are we supposed to believe that the very source of the problem in Newchurch, its Modernistic hierarchy, is going to solve the problem that it created at Vatican II and perpetuates even more now than ever before?
Ask yourself how the consecration of Russia is going to help anyone learn the true Catholic faith when Newchurch doesn't have the means to teach it any more than the Protestants or schismatic Eastern Orthodox. Newchurch is now just a branch of Protestantism with a thin pseudo-Catholic veneer. Even if Newpope were to issue the fabled "New Indult," the Newchurch indultarians would only be blended in with the New Order service and its associated New Religion taking priority of place.
"It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to the house of feasting: for in that we are put in the mind of the end of all, and the living thinketh what is to come. Anger is better than laughter: because by sadness of the countenance the mind of the offender is corrected. The heart of the wise is where there is mourning: and the heart of fools where there is mirth (Ecclesiastes 7:3-5/DRV)
Declining Novus Ordo service attendance, virtually zero Novus Ordo "vocations," and a continuing number of lawsuits because of Novus Ordo episcopal and presbyteral sex and embezzlement crimes are forcing another wave of Novus Ordo temple closings in 2007.
And the bishops of Newchurch take a "no-holds-barred" position when it comes to selling historic and traditional church buildings. For example, a scandal brewed in 1996 when the former St. John the Baptist Church was sold by the Newchurch diocese of Pittsburgh to become The Church Brew Works, a restaurant that brews beer near where an altar once stood. Newchurch lied to its people when telling them that all sacred items had been removed before the sale. In Boston, Newchurch just recently put sixty churches up for sale, many of which were converted into condominiums. In central Indiana, one Newchurch temple was sold to a commercial interest that now sells Buddhist "collectibles." [Source: Associated Press]
Who knows? Maybe the Novus Ordo temple in your area will be sold off by the local Newchurch diocese to become a brothel. Certainly Newchurch has acquired a lot of experience with that industry!
Wouldn't it be nice to have a "Get out of Jail Free" card? That is exactly what the United States Congress gave in the final hours of its 109th session, on December 9, 2006, to Newvatican. The bill, H.R. 6060: Department of State Authorities Act of 2006, authorizes the U.S. President to give Newvatican's Permanent Observer Mission and its members "the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the diplomatic missions of member states to the United Nations, and their members." President Bush was expected to sign the bill, but had not yet done so as of December 22, 2006.
Newvatican is not a member of the United Nations, but its permanent observer status, held since 1964, entitles it to participate in General Assembly debates, have its communications issued and circulated as official documents of the Assembly, and co-sponsor draft resolutions and decisions that refer to the Newvatican. [Source: CNS]
The bill pointed to Newvatican as a secular organization, which works "to advance human rights, religious freedom, justice, equality and the rule of law around the globe." And there's the rub. Such a statement can hardly be made seriously in view of Newvatican's suborning, and even participating in, sex crimes and embezzlement against U.S. citizens. The bill would apparently give any presbyter or bishop who is a sex criminal, embezzler, or any other kind of a criminal from Newvatican to claim "diplomatic immunity" from prosecution for his crimes if "attached" to the Mission.
There is nothing about human rights, justice, equality, or the rule of law in Benedict-Ratzinger's personal involvement in the Great Cover-up of Newchurch. He has been personally subpoenaed in several U.S. District Courts to explain that involvement, but he has so far escaped accountability by the same legalistic mechanism that is now being extended to Newvatican's U.N. Mission.
Newchurch, which at first denied that Benedict-Ratzinger's Great Sex & Embezzlement Scandal was having any impact upon it, is now admitting that it has been crippled by the scandal.
In Boston, an $800,000 advertising campaign is being waged to get anyone to warm the piew of New Order temples. Campaign leader presbyter John Ardis admitted: "Fewer and fewer Catholics [sic] are connecting with the [New]church." The campaign is targeted to "attract Catholics [sic] who feel disenchanted with Church teachings on gay marriage and other social issues, stressing that 'everyone is truly welcome' ... and that "questioning is encouraged." Sounds a lot like Benedict-Ratzinger's "All Gods Are Equal" theology, doesn't it?
So Newchurch is to be marketed not a Catholicism (it isn't, and they can't make it so), but as a "political campaign or a retail outlet." To this end, Newchurch has hired a veteran political strategist, Douglas Hattaway, who was defeated liberalist U.S. Presidential candidate Al Gore's spokesman in 2000. Apparently, he was hired because of his personal experience with "gay affairs." In 2004 Hattaway made the national news by "marrying" his "gay" lover with his two "children" as ring-bearers! So, this is Newchurch's spokesman. 'Nuf said.
Newchurch has its own internal critics, however. They say that the campaign is "sending the wrong message." C.J. Doyle, Executive Director of the Catholic [sic] Action League of Massacnusetts, stated: "'Gays' who enter the Church have to act in accordance with Catholic teachings. It's important to bring people into the Church, but to simply conform to the culture or surrender to the prevailing fashion is doing nothing to save these people's souls." [Source: Boston Globe]
Saints preserve us! We thought that Newchurch had given up saving people's souls since Vatican II in its effort to be the leader of the political One-world, Oecumenical New Order.
Today I was discarding old papers because I am going to move soon to a new and smaller home. One of my old theology notebooks was dated 1951 when I was a junior at a (formerly) Catholic college, although the school claims still to be Catholic. I remember my professor well -- he was Russell J. Sullivan, S.J. The lecture had to with the pope and the papacy. Fr. Sullivan was a canon lawyer with exceptional credentials, much loved by his class. A question was asked about the authority of the pope in ruling the Church. My notes on Fr. Sullivan's discourse on the subject indicate that the pope as the crowned ruler of the Church (it is interesting that since John Paul I in 1978, the popes are no longer crowned) is free to rule the Church as he sees fit.
However, the pope does not have license to do whatever He wants. Christ made Peter the pope only indirectly. He created the papacy directly. Popes are temporary; the papacy is permanent. It is the papacy that defines the pope; the pope does not define the papacy. The essence, the sine qua non of the papacy is to receive, to defend, to teach, and to transmit the unchanged Apostolic Faith as given to the Apostles by Christ, which is not subject to change by any pope. If the pope did try to change the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, one would have cause to question the faith of the pope who attempted such a thing. Under such grave circumstances, the pope could be removed from office.
The person elected as pope is the material, or fundamental, pope. When he acts in accordance with the dictates of the papal office, he becomes the formal pope. The pope has many titles and powers that are not for ceremony, but for action to do his job. The chief of police in any city is only the material chief when elected or appointed, but when he performs his duties as prescribed in the definition of his office, he becomes the formal chief.
I am an old man now. I know the Catholic Faith as taught by Fr. Sullivan and many others in his time. What is taught and practiced today at the two Catholic (then) universities bears no resemblance to the Faith of Christ. Today, one can only look at Rome and wonder and hope. One cannot despair -- but it isn't easy.
The Fathers Reply.
You were taught well. That is precisely the historical Catholic approach to the papacy and the pope. Today there are those, called "papolators," who would make the pope into some kind of demigod, worship him like a rock star, and give him dictatorial powers outside the authority given to him by Our Lord and outside the Doctrine and the Tradition of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. The distinction that your professor made between the papacy and the pope is right on the mark, and we have often made that distinction here. Did your professor perhaps foresee in 1951 the situation that would soon overwhelm the Church and, therefore, had his traditional Catholic theology ready to meet it?
Individual popes may fail in the Faith -- and several did, historically -- but the Catholic and Apostolic Church remains in spite of that fact. Therefore, when popes fail in their office, we should not give up hope. The Apostles didn't give up hope when Peter was wrong, and Paul was right and "withstood him to his face because he was to be blamed" (Galatians 2:11/DRV). It has happened before; it will happen again. Christ is still with us and His true Church, wherever it is to be found, to the end of time.
For further information, see POPELIM.TXT: Limitations of Papal Authority to Change Sacred Tradition, From the Writings of Roman Catholic Popes, Councils, Saints, and Theologians in the TRADITIO Network's Library of Files (FAQs & Traditional Apologetics).
The Newchurch of the New Order -- what most people cluelessly still call "Catholic" -- is not Catholic, and doesn't want to be. A case in point: St. Joseph's "Catholic" Children's Hospital in Florida.
When a nearby Newchurch school wanted to distribute religious-themed gifts at Christmas to the children who were patients, Newchurch Franciscan Sister Pat Shirley," St. Joseph's Vice President of Missions, vetoed Catholic gifts for the children. Ornaments that bore the generic sentiment, "Joy to the World" and "Peace on Earth" were "approved." Nativity lapel pins, ornaments bearing a "Merry Christmas" message, and T-shirts imprinted "Jesus Is the Heart of Christmas" were vetoed. The "Catholic" hospital has a policy to inspect visitors entering the St. Joseph's to confiscate Catholic "contraband."
The principal of the Newchurch school, from the Salesian Sisters of St. John Bosco, spoke out with unusually cutting words for a "loving" Newchurcher: "It's not Tampa General. It's not Wal-Mart. It's a Catholic [sic] hospital, so if you want to distribute items that say 'Merry Christmas,' even if there are people there that are of other faiths, it's kind of understood that it's a Catholic hospital." [Source: St. Petersburg Times]
You've got it, sister. St. Joseph's isn't a Catholic hospital. As all former "Catholic" hospitals are now, it is a Newchurch hospital of the New, One-world Order, the Novus Ordo Seclorum.
Here is one of those Ripley's "Believe It or Not" kinds of stories. Poland -- a Catholic country until Vatican II and JPII came along -- had the opportunity to vote Jesus as the honorary king of Poland. Political parties backed the resolution, but the resolution eventually failed not because secular authorities opposed it, but because the bishops of Catholic [sic] Church opposed it! On December 20, 2006, several Newchurch bishops, including Gdansk Archbishop Tadeusz Goclowski, expressed their opposition. [Source: Fox News]
The saga of the SSPX's Superior General, Bernard Fellay, over the last year has been a revelation about the sad state into which the Society of St. Pius X has fallen since the death of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1991. The fact that the European newspapers continue to call the SSPXers "Lefebvrites" is ironical, as, in essence, Fellay has rejected Lefebvre's principles. The SSPXers should more properly now be called "Fellayites."
Fellay has now admitted, in a December 20, 2006, interview with Nice-Matin, what he has heretofore denied, that he has not had contact with Newrome since his August 29, 2005, "Beheading" meeting with Benedict-Ratzinger. He now says: "Contacts [with Newrome] take place; we exchange letters." Further, he admitted that "it had been assured to us that the text 'liberalizing' the Tridentine [sic] Mass would be published in October 200." Newrome shafted him with that statement, since the "text" was never issued.
So, it appears that Fellay has still been involved in back-door politicking with the New Order. Fellay says: "We do not set conditions for Rome.". No? Has he now backed down from his "non-negotiable condition" for the unconditional restoration of the Traditional Latin Mass? Apparently so.
It's a dark, dirty secret, but Newchurch can no longer deny it: Newchurchers are leaving in droves. And they are leaving to embrace not secularism, but Evangelical Protestantism. This fact was admitted in an important Newchurch publication, Pastoral and Homiletic Review, in a recent article, "Why Do Catholics Become Evangelicals?" And the publication has an answer -- an answer that confirms what traditional Catholics have been saying all along. In fact, Newchurch has a name for the phenomenon of "Catholics" leaving Newchurch: "The Theology of Exit." "No Christian group is growing faster than the Fundamentalists," says the article. "And many of their converts are coming from the Catholic [sic] Church -- mainly, badly educated Catholics." And here are the reasons given by the article:
Out of the claimed 60,000,000 Newchurchers in 1997 in the United States (and nobody seems to know how that number was concocted), only 25% minimally practiced their faith. In 1999, the National Catholic Reporter conducted a study that showed a general decline in Novus Ordo service attendance -- which is now about 15%, or one in seven, attending the service with any regularity.
After forty years of Vatican II "enlightenment" stressing the Bible (at least those parts of it that are politically correct), the article states: "most Catholics in the pew would be hard-pressed to intelligently distinguish between Gospels, Epistles, and/or Psalms." The New Order replacement for Catholic Baptism is the so-called Rite of Christian Initiation (RCIA). The RCIA, deeply founded in Protestantism and the Modernist heresy, has been an utter failure. "Four-fifths of the adult participants in the class did not know what the word 'liturgy' meant," admitted the article.
Traditional priests preach sermons on the doctrines of the Catholic Faith without hesitation or equivocation. Newchurch presbyters (and deacons) know that if they preach a "homily" (the Newchurch version of a sermon) "clearly and forthrightly, [they] will catch flak for it." Therefore, they "fall back on a feel-good approach to the homily, light on content, long on uplifting anecdotes and the power of positive thinking."
The Catholic Church used to be the greatest missionary organization in the world. Missionaries fanned out all over the world to convert pagans and infidels, to save their souls. Quite a number of them suffered martyrdom in the process. Now, however, Newchurch preaches "All Religions Are Equal" and "We All Worship the Same God." So what need is there for evangelization to Catholicism?
One might, therefore, ask: Why is Newchurch surviving at all? The article is quite honest about the answer. Not because of belief in the New Order, it says, but "because of births into the religion and the large number of Catholic [sic] immigrant and refugees entering the U.S. every year." But now the bad news for the Newchurch of the New Order:
Hispanics have surpassed African-Americans as the largest ethnic minority group in the U.S., and the majority of Hispanics are Catholic, often though, only nominally or culturally. That is changing. Upwards of 100,000 Catholics in the United States leave the Church in favor of Evangelical denominations each year.... For the first time there is one historically Catholic country, Guatemala -- which only fifty years ago [before Vatican II] was 90% Catholic -- that is now approaching a 50% membership in Evangelical Protestant churches. This phenomenon is occurring, not only in Guatemala, but throughout Latin America and Africa as well. The majority of their converts are Catholic.
No wonder Newrome is talking about throwing into the invalid Novus Ordo service a few Latin phrases and an old hymn or two. Don't be deceived, good Catholics. There is talk of a spurious "New Indult" not because Newpope and Newchurch love the Traditional Latin Mass, which he has never celebrated, but because he is reading the same statistics that you have just read.
NEWROME IS NOW IN A STATE OF PANIC. IT IS NOT THE TIME FOR TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS TO SELL OUT TO SOME PHONY "NEW INDULT" NOW THAT THEY ARE WINNING THE BATTLE FOR THE FAITH! RATHER, NOW IS THE TIME TO DEMAND THE ABSOLUTE RESTORATION OF THE TRUE MASS, THE TRUE SACRAMENTS, THE TRUE DOCTRINE, AND THE TRUE MORALITY. If Catholics stupidly accept some "indult" instead of The Real Thing, they deserve the invalid and grace-less nonsense they settle for. If only the Fellayites and the Indultarians only knew the power they had now, if only they played their trump card on Newpope and Newchurch, they wouldn't be so ready to sell out to a phony "New Indult."
I am confused about the fabled "New Indult." Didn't Archbishop Lefebvre agree to the same thing in 1988?
The Fathers Reply.
Archbishop Lefebvre had nothing to do with an "indult." As a matter of fact, the "indult" of 1988 was Newchurch's panic reaction to the Archbishop's refusal to go along with "Modernist Rome." Newchurch was deathly afraid that traditional Catholicism would grow, so it threw out a deceptive crumb of an "indult" in 1988 to protest traditional Catholicism and the Archbishop. In fact, the "indult" was simply a Newchurch stratagem of deluding some "conservative" and indultarian Newchurchers to stay in New Order Church.
Actually, the Archbishop spoke out against the deception of an "indult" (privilege) for something that is an Apostolic and Canonic right. It is little like a Black man accepting a seat at a lunch counter because the owner, as a one-time favor, decides to accord him the privilege, not because the Black man has a legal right to do so anytime he pleases.
Archbishop Lefebvre initialed a preliminary document while he was in a situation of intimidation by Cardinal Ratzinger and other Newvatican officials in their offices. He was smart enough to extricate himself from that situation, return home alone that night, and consider the matter outside of the coercive atmosphere. He realized immediately that he was being led down the garden path to Modernism by the Newvatican foxes, and he repudiated the document the very next morning before it was officially signed.
A fabled "New Indult" would make no difference to traditional Catholics. After all, we have stuck by the fully Traditional Latin Mass (not the modernized "Indult" Mass) since the 1960s. It is only for Newchurchers who want a Latin phrase or hymn thrown in every once in a while. Traditional Catholics are not taken in by that deception, as they would be selling out the Roman Catholic Mass, Sacraments, doctrine, and morality for a few words of modernized Latin.
2006 must be put down as the "Year of the Sell-out." It was the year that Bernard Fellay tried to sell out the Society of St. Pius X to Newchurch and was stymied when his scheme was exposed by the European press and independent news sources such as the TRADITIO Network, and, as a consequence, many of his own members turned against him. It was the year that "visions of sugar plums danced in the heads" of naive "conservative" and indultarian Newchurchers that a "New Indult" would correct the evils of the Newchurch of the New Order that have built up over the last forty years.
Such people are an embarrassment to the 12,000,000 Roman martyrs who died for their Faith. They are an embarrassment in comparison to the Protestant Episcopalians of the United States, who, instead of selling out to the Modernist version of their sect that has been taken over by homosexual bishop-fornicators, lesbian priestesses, and the whole New Order programme. Episcopalians have reached the point of revolt, which even "conservative" and indultarian Newchurchers haven't yet had the guts to imitate.
For about thirty years the Episcopalian Church has been one big unhappy family. Under one roof there were female bishops and male bishops who would not ordain women. There were parishes that celebrated gay weddings and parishes that denounced them; theologians sure that Jesus Christ is the only route to salvation, and theologians who disagreed. Now, after years of threats, traditional Episcopalians have realized that this situation is intolerable and started the process of secession on December 17, 2006.
The Traditional Episcopalians of America have formed alliances with overseas traditional bishops in Africa, Asia, and Latin America who share traditional theological views about homosexuality and the interpretation of Scripture. They say that they intend to form a new American branch that would rival or even supplant the "mainline" Modernist Episcopalian Church.
Eight traditional Episcopalian churches around Washington, D.C., for instance, announced that their parishioners have voted to cut their ties with the "mainline" Episcopalian Church. Two are large, historic congregations that minister to the Washington elite and will take with them real estate worth a combined $27,000,000. Virginia, the largest Episcopalian diocese in the country, will lose about 10 percent of its 90,000 members to start. Early in December 2006, the entire diocese of San Joaquin, California, voted to sever its ties with the "mainline" Church. Six or more American dioceses say that they are considering such a move. In the last three years three dozen American churches have voted to secede to the Traditional Episcopalian Church. In one church, the vote was 402 to 6 to secede.
The "pope" of the worldwide Anglican (Episcopalian) communion, Rowan Williams, is now struggling to hold the communion together while facing a revolt on many fronts from emboldened traditionalists. Imagine how quickly the Traditional Latin Mass, Sacraments, and Faith would return to Newchurch if "conservative" and indultarian Newchurchers acted the same way toward pope Benedict-Ratzinger! Does "New York second" ring a bell? Instead, these "conservative" and indultarian Newchurchers keep selling out to the corrupted Newchurch of the New Order and simply end up being treated as pawns in Newchurch's Modernist game.
I noticed two things about the new liturgical calendar that the Society of St. Pius X publishes. January 1, while designated as a Holyday of Obligation, is listed only as "Octave day of the Nativity" and not as the "Feast of the Circumcision." Second, on Fridays and other days of abstinence usually designated by a fish symbol, the calendar has a fish but with the word "traditional" superimposed on the fish image. (Why would that be necessary?) I find these two observations eerily disturbing.
The Fathers Reply.
If you looked harder, you'd find other discrepancies as well. The SSPX is in a quandary. It purports to be traditional, but wants to stay on the good side of Newchurch on many matters. Apparently, the traditional practice of the Roman Catholic Church for essentially 2000 years that Catholics abstain from meat on Friday as a penitential act in recollection of Our Lord's sacrifice on the Cross on Good Friday is not a sufficient justification for continuing the practice without equivocating. The reason that the holydays have been changed on the calendar is that the SSPX observes Hannibal Bugnini's preliminary changes to usher in the New Order.
Immaculate Heart of Mary Church Publications produces unquestionably the best and most complete traditional calendar available (pre-1950 rubrics). It is in full color, both in the calendar boxes and in the religious art that accompanies each month. It contains full information about all feasts (including those proper to the United States), commemorations, votive Masses, fasts and abstinence, and more. In the back matter, there is excellently-summarized information about indulgences, fast and abstinence, and other practical matters. $9.00 from 2200 Smelter Ave., Black Eagle, MT 59414-1213, (406) 452-9021, firstname.lastname@example.org.
The TRADITIO Network makes available on line the information from the most traditional form of the Roman Rite, before the rubrical changes of 1950, 1956, 1960, and 1962. This is most traditional form, to which more and more traditional Catholics are returning in preference to the Modernized Mass of 1962. It is the one that corresponds to the fully traditional version of the Breviarium Romanum. For further information, see the TRADITIO Network's Traditional Liturgical Calendar department.
St. Lawrence Press produces the best and most complete annual Ordo available (pre-1950 rubrics). This Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini Sacrique Peragendi [Order of Reciting the Divine Office and Carrying Out the Sacred Rites], entirely in Latin and in the traditional form, contains detailed information about the Mass and Divine Office that priests and the most advanced laypeople use, much more complete in its detail than any calendar can give. Additional pages give the rubrics for Solemn Votive Masses, rubrics for Conventual Masses and private votive Masses, and the text for the movable feasts chanted on Epiphany. $15.00 (in cash) from 59 Sandscroft Ave., Broadway, Worcestershire WR12 7EJ, UK, email@example.com.
Will Benedict-Ratzinger "request" that Latin be returned to Newchurch seminaries, as yet another "rumor" would have it? Lotsa luck! It is already the universal law of the Church, observed in the total breach rather than the observence. And guess on whose authority this law was most recently decreed? None other than the man some call the first conciliar pope: the "beloved" John XXIII!
Whatever happened to Pope John's 1962 Apostolic Constitution Veterum sapientia, which required that seminary courses be taught in Latin? That seminarians be proficient in Latin? The professors not competent in the Latin be fired? Pope John promulgated this Constitution in the most solemn form, rarely used, personally signing it before the College of Cardinals assembled. Yet this Constitution was essentially thrown into the trash can by the New Order that came in after the pope's death. Just try to find a reference to it in documents about the Vatican II period. You won't find it.
For further information, see LATNECES: The Necessity of Latin for the Roman Catholic Church, including the Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia [On Promoting the Study of Latin], Given by His Holiness Pope John XXIII in the TRADITIO Network's Library of Files (FAQs & Traditional Apologetics).
A mere Benedict-Ratzinger "request" would be yet another paper exercise. Newpope would be shown up as even weaker than John XXIII, as he wouldn't even require Latin, just request it, so the "rumor" goes. We know what will happen to such a request -- it will be thrown into the wastebasket by the Newchurch bishops. Even if Benedict-Ratzinger imposed a requirement, it would be ignored.
Conciliar popes are impotent paper tigers by their own choice: they know it (JPII and Benedict-Ratzinger have both admitted it in so many words), and all the bishops know it too. Apparently, the only people who don't know it are the "conservative" Newchurchers and indultarians!
I note that Antonio Socci and a few other Italian heretofore "moles" are requesting a "New Indult." Expect an updated "1962 Missal" as well that will contain the feastdays of Jose Maria Escriva (the founder of the Opus Dei cult) and the thousands of Newchurch suspect "canonizations" by JPII.
Those who hold the true Catholic Faith who will not give thanks to the false Church of Darkness (a phrase coined by Anne Katherine Emmerich) if Newchurch "permits" a couple more instances of the "Indult" Mass to be performed, probably invalidly, by Newchurch presbyters who mouth the Modernist doctrines of Vatican II.
That prediction seems ably to be borne out by the recent threatening words of Newchurch Secretary of State Bertone:
If I can put it in a sound-bite, the Church doesn't really worry about atheists, however devout, because they're out of her spiritual jurisdiction, so to speak. Much more worrisome are those inside the Church who work to distort its faith and moral principles, or who oppose the pope and his design for [a Modernistic] renewal of the Church.
Benedict-Ratzinger's own words from April 2006 in reference to Saint John the Evangelist convey the same message:
No voice in the New Testament rises with greater force to highlight the reality and the duty of fraternal love between Christians, yet the same voice addresses itself with drastic severity to the adversaries who were members of the community, but are so no longer.
We are well past the time for the "conservative" Newchurch fence-sitters to come down and stand with the true Catholic Faith instead of wasting their efforts in an extension of the spurious "Indult Mass."
In view of the fact that Benedict-Ratzinger recently renounced his title as Patriarch of the West, I found a photograph that is a stunning contrast of Newpope with his saintly predecessor. The photograph depicts Pope St. Pius X as Patriarch of the West and Supreme Pontiff, with Lord Cyril VIII, Patriarch of Antioch and other members of the Melchite Eastern Uniate hierarchy.
The Fathers Reply.
It is instructive to compare the message of the two photographs above. Pope Pius X is depicted as Supreme Pontiff and Patriarch of the West, seated above the Eastern patriarch. Benedict-Ratzinger appears on an equal basis with the schismatic Oecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I.
On November 30, 2006, Newpope created scandal on his recent Turkish trip by celebrating the Byzantine liturgy with the schismatic Oecumenical Patriarch, but he has never celebrated the Traditional Roman Mass! Curiously, Bartholomew has criticized Benedict-Ratzinger for giving up Rome's traditional Apostolic liturgy. Moreover, Bartholomew in the Church of St. George greeted Benedict-Ratzinger in the biblical language of the Eastern Church, Greek. The natural response would be for Newpope to use Latin. Instead, inexplicably, he used a vulgar tongue, English!
Remember, good Catholics. Forget Benedict-Ratzinger's words; they're just propaganda. Look at his acts. Study the photographs above and analyze for yourself whether you think that the Newchurch of the New Order is Catholic. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
In one of the most interesting comments published on traditional Catholic Mel Gibson's Apocalypto, a highly allegorical film set among the forests of Central America and the ancient Mayan civilization, a Time reviewer, David van Biema, notes that it is only at the very end that Christianity makes a brief but portentous appearance, in the form of a fleet of Spanish ships that appears suddenly on the horizon. The protagonist, a kind of "noble pagan," and his wife watch from the jungle as a small boat approaches the shore bearing an explorer and a kneeling priest holding high a crucifix-topped staff. "Should we join them?" asks the wife. "No," the protagonist replies; rather, they should go back to the jungle, their home.
The reviewer opines that Mel Gibson has little use for the "institutional" Catholic Church, that is, the Newchurch of the New Order, and thus "rejects this display of muscular, official Catholicism," as he also objects to the muscling in of the unCatholic revolution of Vatican II. It is in this context that van Biema finds the meaning of the film's final allegory, as Gibson prefers a "less mainstream version of the Faith." That's putting it mildly!
It is clear from the rest of the review that van Biema is an anti-Christian bigot, who prefers human sacrifice at the expense of Catholicism. Nevertheless, he seems to be correct in finding merited anti-Newchurch allegory in this film by the world's best-known and outspoken traditional Catholic.
In spite of all the propaganda, how does Newvatican really feel about traditional Catholics? They are no better than athiests, indicates the new Newchurch Secretary of State, Newcardinal Tarcisio Bertone.
When an Italian journalist asked Bertone about atheists who may support the pope on certain issues such as his stance on Islam, Bertone replied: "If I can put it in a sound-bite, the Church doesn't really worry about atheists, however devout, because they're out of her spiritual jurisdiction, so to speak. Much more worrisome are those inside the church who work to distort its faith and moral principles, or who oppose the pope and his design for renewal of the Church." The last phrase is an obvious slam against traditional Catholics by Newpope's #2 man, personally selected by himself.
Time was when everyone was under the "jurisdiction" of the Church, as the Scriptures teach us that Our Lord Jesus Christ hopes for the conversion of all. That is why the Church, at great expense of life and materiel, traditionally sent missionaries all over the world to convert atheists, pagans, infidels, and the rest to the Catholic Faith. No longer. Newchurch is a club, pure and simple. Athiests are okay. It is the traditional Catholics who are despised by Newchurch because they dare to call themselves "Catholics" and publicly accuse the conciliar popes of their errors. Yet that is just what the Catholic Faith teaches them to do: to stand up to error, even if it infects the highest office in the Church. For further information, see POPELIM: Limitations of Papal Authority to Change Sacred Tradition, From the Writings of Roman Catholic Popes, Councils, Saints, and Theologians in the TRADITIO Network's Library of Files (FAQs & Traditional Apologetics).
Benedict-Ratzinger has actually condemned himself out of his own mouth. In April 2006, addressing a crowd of 30,000, he pointed to the "Apostle of Charity," St. John. "No voice in the New Testament rises with greater force to highlight the reality and the duty of fraternal love between Christians," he said, "yet the same voice addresses itself with drastic severity to the adversaries who were members of the community, but are so no longer." [Source: L'avvenire]
And it is at just this time in the history of the Church, in view of the shocking immoralities -- sexual, financial, and otherwise -- that go right to the top, as well as the Newchurch-imposed non-Catholic service, sacraments, and theology, more and more Catholics are asking: "Are the post-conciliar popes themselves members of the Catholic community?"
The Ecclesia Dei Commission, buffeted by criticism from around the world, met in plenary session on December 12, 2006, to discuss the whole "new indult" controversy. On April 8, 2006, Benedict-Ratzinger appointed to the commission for five-year terms two Newchurch cardinals known to be opposed to any new indult: William Levada and Jean-Pierre Ricard, the latter of whom has been particularly vocal in public against a "new indult." [Source: Catholic World News]
Some Newvaticanologists are dragging out a trial balloon floated two months ago, turning the current "indult" around, so that permission would have to be withheld by the bishop for an "Indult Mass" rather than the other way around, as at present. In other words, presbyters could proceed without permission, if they wanted to take their "career" in their hands, and wait until until the poison-pen letter ordering a halt and their banishment arrived in their mailboxes.
Such a "new indult" would just be Newchurch pulling another fast one. Apostolic Tradition, the dogmatic Council of Trent, and a Solemn Papal Bull of Pope St. Pius V have canonized the Traditional Latin Mass. Even JPII's 1986 Cardinalatial Commission found not that an indult (revocable privilege) should be granted but that a right and an obligation exists. It would be just like the pro multis fiasco, in which Newchurch, after forty years, agreed to change the "translation" into the vulgar tongues, but has not mandated that the phony "Masses" of the past forty years, let alone future phony Novus Ordo "Masses," be re-celebrated in the traditional form.
The question, of course is this: what presbyter who values his "career" would start celebrating "Indult" Masses without advance permission, which will not be given beyond what it is today? What would really happen is that some presbyters will meekly and humbly (and privately) lodge a request and then say nothing when it is rejected. Most, however, would not even do that. There is no canonical impediment (under the Vatican II Codex Iuris Canonici) stopping presbyters from saying the invalid Novus Ordo service in Latin, with all the smells and bells and chant. If presbyters will not even dare to do now what they already have a perfect right to do under the fake 1983 Code, why on earth would they risk celebrating the "Indult" Mass in Latin under a "new indult"?
Of course, we must keep in mind that these rumours are just that. Nothing coming from the Italian press, it seems, is ever true. They have blown reports on the "new indult" since before Easter 2006. But if this one is true, it would be true to Newchurch's other deceptions. I will be merely "sound and fury" (and the "conservative" Newchurchers would certainly blather furiously) "signifying nothing."
The "conservative" Newchurchers have taken a new tack to explain away contradictions between pre- and post-Vatican II teachings, that it is merely a difference in "emphasis." This tack seems to be having some effect among traditional Catholics whom I know. How can this be answered?
The Fathers Reply.
The idea that Newchurch, having failed to justify the New Order on the basis of truly Catholic doctrine, is trying a "paradigm shift" seems to be borne out of late. It is obviously part of the Benedict-Ratzinger game plan: to use "smoke and mirrors" to deceive the "conservatives" and the indultarians. At least JPII was honest in comparison. He hated traditional Catholicism, and that was that. But reality is reality. Forget the words, forget the "documents"; look at actions and reality. "Documents" mean nothing to Newchurch except as deceptive propaganda; it is actions that matter:
When Benedict-Ratzinger tells the world that from now on he will celebrate only the Traditional Latin Mass -- and does it, then we might start to believe him.
Don't you get the idea that Newrome is in a state of confusion? Supposedly, Benedict-Ratzinger has been trying to make a sell-out deal with the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), but on December 7, 2006, Newcardinal Giovanni Re of the Newvatican Congregation for Bishops upheld the legality of the New Order "excommunications" announced by Bishop Fabian "Phony" Bruskewitz, of Lincoln, Nebraska, against Call to Action, Catholics for a Free Choice and ten other groups, including the Society of St. Pius X.
In his November 24, 2006, letter, Re declared that the excommunications were "properly taken." The letter applied specifically to Call to Action, which had appealed. The other groups did not appeal their "excommunications." Members of the groups remain "excommunicated" until they repudiate their membership by sending a letter to the organisation and having their names removed from any rosters or mailing lists.
Bruskewitz has acquired the eponym "Phony" because of his duplicitous words and actions. He "excommunicates" Freemasons, then participates in the local Masonic picnic. He brings the "indult" Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) seminary to the Lincoln area, then guts its activities. He is supposedly "Catholic," but allows a Methodist "bishop" to be consecrated in his "Catholic" cathedral.
Bruskewitz is a fox. He is raking in money from deluded Newchurch "conservatives" all over the country. He gets "conservative" shills to front for his New Order duplicity. Yes, Bruskewitz is a real piece of work. Good Catholics, don't fall prey to this "phony."
Sounds like the National Inquirer, doesn't it? Yet these are the wages of sin of the Newchurch of the New Order headed by Benedict-Ratzinger, who continues to sit on his hands while his bishops and presbyters have now upped the ante of Newchurch crime to murder.
As the TRADITIO Network has warned, these Newchurch bishops have sunk to such a degree of immorality and depravity that in addition to sex crimes and embezzlements, they may be guilty of murder, or of being accomplices to murder. There has always been suspicion about the involvement of the local Newchurch bishop in the case of the as-yet unsolved 1998 murder of Fr. Alfred Kunz, of Dane, Wisconsin, as it appears that Fr. Kunz was going to blow the whistle on the bishop for his involvement in sex crimes. Now Newchurch bishop Raphael Fliss, long suspected as involved in the case of two Hudson, Wisconsin, murders has been formally accused and will confront a jury.
A judge already ruled in October 2006 that there was probable cause that Presbyter Ryan Erickson shot and killed James Ellison, a 22-year-old college student, and Dan O'Connell, 39, who had confronted Erickson of sex crimes against children at his Hudson Newparish. Investigators found both Ellison and O'Connell to have had clean records and to have been the subject of no scandals. Police confronted the presbyter at the rectory and confiscated several guns that he kept on church property. Prosecutors surmise that the victims became aware of the presbyter's sex crimes and were about to turn him over to authorities; thus, the presbyter murdered both of them before police could learn of his dirty secret. Erickson had confessed to a member of the parish: "I've done it, and they're going to get me."
Presbyter Erickson took a very unCatholic way out of facing justice: he hanged himself in 2004 on the grounds of St. Mary of the Seven Dolors, the parish where he preached New Order morality. Thus, Presbyter Erickson compounded the deadly sin of suicide with sacrilege. (The post-Vatican II Codex Iuris Canonici apparently allows presbyters to sacrifice themselves to preserve the reputation of Newchurch!)
Now the finger of the law is pointed directly at the Newchurch Bishop of Duluth-Superior, Wisconsin, since 1985, Rafael Michael Fliss. Investigators found that Fliss ordained Erickson, knowing that he had a history of sex crimes against children. Fliss is now personally charged with wrongful death. "[He has] "blood on its hands.... If Bishop Fliss had done what he should have done and removed Ryan Erickson from the priesthood [sic] and reported him to the police, James Ellison and Dan O'Connell would be alive today," read the charges. "This bishop, knowing he had a psychopath..., knowing that he had a child molester who was a priest [sic] kept him in a parish, protected him for years." [Sources: Minneapolis-St. Paul ABC News, Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune]
With Benedict-Ratzinger being the originator of the "We All Worship the Same God" New Theology, introduced by him at Vatican II, it is no surprise that Newchurch presbyters, already unhinged from their association with the New Order, are going gung-ho to ape other religions.
Presbyter Kamalesh Kaurav wears a white beard with the loincloth and shawl of a Hindu ascetic. The presbyter, known now as Swami Sadanand, was formerly known as Fr. Michael Purattukara of the Newchurch Carmelites of Mary Immaculate in Kerala, India. In 1991 he set up a "Catholic" ashram in 1991. It is interesting to note that the "swami" uses Sanskrit, an ancient non-vernacular language used in the Hindu liturgy. Apparently, "Fr. Swami" is too good for the Latin of his own faith! [Source: Indian Catholic]
In New Mexico in the United States, Presbyter Bill Sanchez had his genes tested and discovered that he has a set of genetic markers on his Y-chromosome that is also found in about 30 percent of Jewish men. So now Presbyter Sanchez sports a Star of David around his neck on the same chain that holds his crucifix, and keeps a menorah in his office at St. Edwin Newparish in Albuquerque. And we were taught that Judaism is a religion, not a race. (So much for B'nai B'rith on that one!) [Source: The Albuquerque Tribune]
Bedeviled Kevin Morgan, of Tennessee, has deluded himself that he has found the "Virgin Mary" in a knothole. Why should we be surprised? The poor man probably finds "Christ" in the cookie of the Protestant-Masonic-Pagan New Order! At least Morgan has had the savvy to make friends with mammon. He is considering selling the knothole, hoping to get more than the $28,000 that some idiot on eBay paid for a grilled-cheese sandwich purporting to be the likeness of the "Virgin Mary"!
I have been in discussion with someone who claims to have read all of the Vatican II documents. He says that nowhere in those documents does Vatican II mention "communion" in the hand and of the presbyter facing the congregation while saying the Novus Ordo service. Is that true?
The Fathers Reply.
Yes. The documents themselves do not address this. It was the papal commission set up by Paul VI to carry out the council. Typically, councils do not get into every little detail; Trent didn't either. The council sets goals and guidelines, then papal commissions prescribe the details. The difference is that Trent was a dogmatic council; Vatican II was merely "pastoral." Trent's commission was headed by St. Charles Borromeo. Vatican II's commission was head by the Freemason Hannibal Bugnini.
This fact, however, does not excuse Vatican II of the blame for creating the New Order. It introduced, at least ambiguously, various principles of the unCatholic New Order, such as:
Even today, when Benedict-Ratzinger supports the errors that were introduced from Vatican II and continue, expanded, to the present day, he justifies those actions by his loyalty to the Great God of Vatican II.
Traditional Catholic producer-director Mel Gibson's new film, Apocalypto, released on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, December 8, 2006, is anything but mundane. It will stir controversy -- and it should. It is, essentially, a depiction of the harsh and cruel paganism of the Mayan culture of the Yucatan before the advent of the Spanish Catholics, who are presented as the antidote to the paganism, which would murder, rape, and pillage even the milder pagan villages of the area to gather men for human sacrifice to the Mayan gods.
This may be the most violent film ever made, but it is not gratuitous violence. It is a factual presentation of the violence of the pre-Columban period, and Gibson does not draw back from its honest depiction, any more than he drew back from the cruelty of crucifixion that he depicted in The Passion of the Christ. The pagan Mayans may have developed a beautiful written language reminiscent of Egyptian hieroglyphs, they may have been acute astronomical observers and record-keepers, but their paganism was raw and violent. Said one reviewer: "Apocalypto elevates [Gibson] him to the position of the greatest living director in the world today. He is the standard of casting, cinematography and research. Apocalypto is avant garde, state of the art, and evergreen at every step of the way."
The historical depiction of gross violence in pagan cultures will disgust some. It is obviously meant to. If you are the kind of person who doesn't want to look facts in the face, but to stick your head in the sand while such immoralities of the present day as the rape and other crimes against children perpetrated in the name of the Protestant-Masonic-Pagan New Order by Benedict-Ratzinger and his episcopal and presbyteral staff, you should not see this film. It depicts paganism for what it is. In any case, it is not suitable, for this reason, for children.
Many aspects of Apocalypto deserve to be nominated for the upcoming Academy Awards. The photography, shot in Costa Rica, is breathtaking: the jungle scenes and particularly the waterfall scenes. The actors, all unknown natives, have some of the most expressive faces ever shot and carry the story, even though there is not one word of English in the film. Like The Passion of the Christ, the language used is an ancient one, and the subtitles are relatively sparse. In fact, one could have done away with them entirely, just as Gibson was going to do for The Passion, before the Philistines talked him out of it.
It is interesting to note that although the B'nai B'rith secularists are fulminating about boycotting Gibson for his alleged "anti-Semitism" (whatever that word means this week in the liberalist political vocabulary) and although the film opened in very few theaters, Gibson's film beat out the competition.
On the basis of the prayer of one of the "nobler" pagans to a merciful Mayan goddess, one perceptive viewer of the film predicted that Gibson was laying the groundwork for a sequel in the story of the appearance of Our Lady of Guadalupe, who brought the Catholic Faith to these savage peoples through the agency of the Spanish conquistadors and the Franciscans who accompanied them and who rooted out from Central America the human sacrifice that was practiced there until the advent of Catholicism.
If there is a hero in Gibson's film, it is the traditional Catholic Faith. And just how civilizing that Faith can be was is shown by the cruelty and savagery that it eradicated. Let's give our traditional Catholic Faith the historic credit that it deserves. Mel Gibson certainly does.
A Jesuit presbyter in central Java has performed a Javanese exorcism ritual during a Novus Ordo service to "purify" 89 mostly teenage Catholics. Presbyter Yohanes Mardiwidayat incorporated the ruwatan into an "inculturated" Novus Ordo service performed November 26, 2006, in the Newparish hall of St. John the Apostle Church in Pringwulung, 420 kilometres southeast of Jakarta. "Inculturation" is the error introduced at Vatican II that allows local pagan rites to be introduced into the Novus Ordo service.
Mardiwidayat even called this pagan service "Catholic," saying that "ruwatan helps us live our faith life in accordance with local culture." Hmmm. Aren't we supposed to live our faith life in accordance with Catholicism? The presbyter also said that "we perform ruwatan so that people do not consider us strangers." Hmmm. Should Newchurchers worship their ancestors in Japan, sacrifice chickens in Africa, put out food for leprechauns in Ireland? Is Newchurch Catholic? (No.)
A pagan Javanese "exorcism" is simply another name for using witchcraft or sorcery to "expel demons." Not only is this is an offense against the First Commandment, but it is the experience of exorcists that using black magic to expel a demon not only doesn't achieve an exorcism but actually makes the case of the one being "exorcised" all the worse. Of course, the New Order has no power to "exorcise" anything.
Kudos to Patricius Anthony for having the courage to write the article Children at Mass: What Is Catholic? in the TRADITIO Network's Special Features department about the all-too-frequent practice of some parents who foist their unprepared and unruly infants onto an entire congregation. I am the parent of eight children myself and do not bring any of them to church unless I know that they can sit quietly.
At our church there is someone who brings her unruly infants to Mass, and one of them even tries to sing (wail?) with the choir. I wonder what kind of charity that exhibits to our hard-working choir, which devotes much time to preparing elevating Catholic sacred music for the edification of our congregation. Sometimes we can't even follow the priest's sermon because of crying infants. Yet I travel hours to get to a Traditional Latin Mass and worship God in an atmosphere of reverent quiet and meditation. At this rate I might as well go back to the Novus Ordo service!
Our poor priest has several times announced from the pulpit that infants should be taken to the crying room, but certain parents seem bound and determined to foist their children's disciplinary problems onto the whole congregation. These parents would never get away with such uncouth and uncharitable behavior if they took their infants to a symphony concert or opera, for which people spend $100 dollars for a ticket. And yet the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is supposed to be priceless.
Perhaps the fault here lies with the other members of the congregation. When an infant becomes disruptive to the point that the Mass is being disrupted, if the parent doesn't have the good sense God gave him to remove the infant, then the usher or some other member of the congregation should intervene.
[N.B. The following report contains aspects of typical Novus Ordo propaganda of the time, which contradict more objective reports, such as the Gallup polls of pew Catholics. At the same time the report admits the revolutionary quality of the changes and the resistance with which they were met at the time by pew Catholics.]
At the Roman Catholic chapel on the University of New Mexico campus last week, one woman worshiper commented on the vaguely familiar hymn sung at the end of the Mass. "It's very pretty," she said. "Who wrote it?" Her response was a disbelieving gasp when the priest explained that O God, Almighty Father was a Lutheran hymn.
She was not the only U.S. Catholic to be surprised as the nation's dioceses prepared for the introduction on Nov. 29, 1964, the first Sunday in Advent, of sweeping changes in the Mass. In obedience to decrees of the Vatican Council [a Novus Ordo lie], U.S. churches are busy making way for a reformed liturgy that is almost half in English, requires wholehearted congregational participation in word and song, and allows for such "Protestant" borrowings as plainness in altars, and hymns by Luther and Wesley.
At first, the degree of liturgical novelty will vary greatly from city to city. Traditionally, Midwestern priests and bishops have been most active in championing liturgical reform; many churches in Chicago, St. Louis, and Oklahoma City, for example, have for a decade or more had such "innovations" as dialogue Mass, congregational singing of entrance hymns, altars at which priests say Mass facing the people. All this will be new to some East Coast and California dioceses, where conservative Irish-American clerics have done their best to keep the Mass to the form prescribed by the 16th century Council of Trent.
In Los Angeles, James Francis Cardinal McIntyre has done nothing to encourage liturgy-reforming pastors. So far, his chancery has issued only one brief instruction on Mass revisions, and at least one parish will make no changes at all until next spring. "It's no big deal here," said one priest. Other bishops will conform to the spirit of the new regulations gradually. In Washington, D.C., Archbishop Patrick O'Boyle has insisted that pastors introduce the changes with 16 weeks of explanatory sermons. Says Msgr. Robert Arthur, a Washington liturgist: "You can't just take 350,000 people and shake them and say -- look, you did this today, but you're going to do that tomorrow."
New York's Francis Cardinal Spellman has made no secret of his preference for the traditional way. But now many churches in his archdiocese have a lay commentator to lead the congregation in reciting the Gloria, Creed, and other prayers in English. In the equally conservative diocese of Brooklyn, staid Irish and Italian churches have been conducting midweek rehearsals and demonstration Masses to accustom their flocks to the prayers and hymns.
The mechanics of the change are often troublesome. Although Catholic publishers have rushed into print new altar missals for the priest, laymen will have to fumble with leaflets and mimeographed texts of the prayers in English. The new Mass should be celebrated on a plain altar by a priest facing the congregation; many pseudo-Gothic churches have ornate high altars fixed to the wall -- a situation that calls for either drastic architectural surgery or the unaesthetic installation of an additional altar.
Not all Catholics like the new way. Many older priests find it hard to abandon the practices of a lifetime, and tend to obey the letter rather than spirit of the change. Some laymen also prefer the old "church of silence" and complain that spoken prayers are distracting. Says one San Francisco Catholic: "I feel like I'm a member of a children's chorus, having to sing this wretched little hymn out loud."
In part the complaint is justified, since the English texts of the Mass approved by the U.S. hierarchy lack the poet's touch, and there is no easy solution to the problem of suitable music. Gregorian chant does not fit the English words. Many congregations dislike the simple but widely used psalm melodies composed by French Jesuit Joseph Gelineau, and most traditional Catholic hymns in English are so poor that the bishops have had to set contemporary composers to creating new ones.
By and large, younger Catholic laymen and priests are enthusiastic about the new approach to worship, and even some Latin diehards have found after a month or so of practice that the Mass has become a more meaningful and personal encounter with God. Besides, they know by now that the old order returneth not. In Rome a post-conciliar liturgical commission [the Masonic Bugnini Commission] is at work on an even more drastic restructuring of Catholicism's central act of worship that will strip away many over-the-centuries accretions to the original Roman rite. [This was the common Novus Ordo lie at the time was destroyed by the work of liturgical academics such as Msgr. Klaus Gamber, who was highly praised by Pope Pius XII, in his The Reform of the Roman Liturgy (1993).]
Milwaukee is certainly one of the worst of the some 300 cesspools that are the Newchurch dioceses of the United States. Milwaukee's former Archbishop, Rembert Weakland, while he was chastising traditional Catholics, was availing himself of a young male prostitute and paying him off with half a million dollars of Newchurch funds.
Now we hear that a Newchurch nun, the principal of a "Catholic" elementary school in Milwaukee, is accused of no fewer that 200 sexual assaults against the children, taking place in the Newchurch convent and school office. The Sisters of Mercy released a statement on December 4, 2006, stating, "Such a matter still runs counter to the very ministry of the Sisters of Mercy." You think?
But the greatest scandal here is not a predatory nun -- or all the predatory nuns and presbyters of Newchurch -- a Pontius Pilate of a pope, who seems content to wash his hands of the crimes of his underlings while he cavorts over to Mohammedan territory, there to pray to Allah with the Infidels. His priorities are certainly clear: and they're certainly not Catholic -- by any stretch of the imagination. [Source: Milwaukee Channel 12]
Forget "indults." Forget traditional Catholicism. Benedict-Ratzinger's head of the Divine Worship Commission, Newcardinal Francis "the Artful Dodger" Arinze, has delivered the pope's message to traditional Catholics: "the vernacular is here to stay, and the Church doesn't regret the introduction of local languages at all." To soften the blow, he suggested "perhaps trying an occasional Latin hymn or prayer as a finishing touch." For further information on Arinze and his programme, see Patricius Anthony's article ARINZE: Cardinal Arinze's Changing Church in the TRADITIO Network's Special Features department.
Good Catholics, do you see the Protestant mentality of Newchurch? Even Martin Luther wanted Latin, Greek, and Hebrew to remain in the sacred services. Benedict-Ratzinger, Arinze, and the like are more Protestant than Luther!
If a true, traditional Catholic pope were elected and respected the seat of Peter and his duties as the Vicar of Christ, how would he go about undoing the damage inflicted upon the Church by Vatican II? Would he have any power to change the landscape of the Catholic faith back to what Christ intended, or would he be thwarted by the Modernist sect of bishops and laity?
The Fathers Reply.
The answer to the present crisis is not in the papacy. This is, rather, a time of test for the people, in which true Catholics are being called to stand by the traditional Catholic Faith. When the people unite around the true Faith, the mop-up will be relatively easy. This conversion cannot be successfully imposed from the top down; it must be accomplished from the bottom up. The New Order has failed because it was a false Faith, imposed from the top town.
The error that many traditional Catholics make is that they are looking for some "savior" pope. "If only we had the right pope, all the problems would be solved." Nonsense! The Catholic Faith has only one Savior, and that is Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Faith and the Church must be in the hearts of the faithful, the so-called sensus Catholicus. If it is not there, it doesn't matter who pope is. That is why all of this "indult" nonsense has failed. The pope can issue any document he wants, but it will not change things. Newchurch and its people are committed to the New Religion, not to Roman Catholicism.
There is a precedent in Church history for the current situation, and that is the ubiquitous Arian heresy of the fourth century. St. Jerome tells us that the vast majority of the bishops went over to the heresy, and even the pope supported it. It took great Saints of the likes of St. Basil the Great, St. Athanasius, St. Martin, and St. Augustine to stand up to the Church gone mad, but, as John Henry Cardinal Newman pointed out in his seminal work on the period, it was the Catholic Faith in the hearts of the people, the sensus Catholicus. that maintained the Faith while the ecclesiastics went off the deep end. Eventually, it was a rather simple matter to mop up after the heresy had been resisted by the small group of orthodox Catholics for about a century. For further information on the Arian heresy, see ARIANS: The Orthodox Saints Against the Arian Heresy of the Fourth Century in the TRADITIO Network's Library of Files (FAQs & Traditional Apologetics).
But these things do take time. Don't look for quick fixes. We're only forty years into the errors of Vatican II and its aftermath. So, good Catholics, strap yourselves in and be prepared for a long siege, which will not be resolved in your lifetime.
St. Matthew's Church in Indian Orchard, Massachusetts, a 142-year-old colonial church, and the rectory next door were sold by the local Newchurch diocese for $150,000 so that it can be converted into a mosque. The Newchurch presbyter-pastor's comment: "The parish leadership is very thrilled that it will continue to be a house of worship." This is how Newchurch describes turning over an historical Catholic church to be converted into a Mohammedan mosque. Newchurch's mission seems to be to play Judas to the Roman Catholic Faith.
Traditional Catholic producer-director-actor Mel Gibson donated in 2005 another $8,000,000 of his The Passion of the Christ profits into the traditional Catholic foundation that he has been supporting, from which the Holy Family Traditional Catholic Church in Agoura Hills, California, is being built. In 2004 he donated $5,000,000.
Thus, Gibson has had the last laugh on such anti-traditional Catholic bigots as Abraham Foxman of the B'nai Brith (Sons of the Jewish Covenant). Their tirades against Gibson simply increased profits on the movie, which are being used to establish traditional Catholic churches around the country. St. Michael the Archangel Traditional Catholic Church in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, is the second such church. If his new film, Apocalypto, is a hit, Gibson is expected to donate even more money to the cause next year. (Note that the Foundation does not take external requests for funds. It plans its own projects carefully from internal analyses.)
Presbyter Joseph Fessio, Benedict-Ratzinger's publisher in the United States, recently added his voice to those of a number of cardinals and bishops, who have dumped on the idea of a new "indult" for the Modernized Mass of 1962. Fessio's and Benedict-Ratzinger's positions on the question are very similar. Neither particularly likes the "Indult" Mass -- it speaks volumes that Newpope has never celebrated the "Indult" Mass -- but prefer a slightly less flamboyant version of the New Order Protestant-Masonic-Pagan service. Fessio is an open advocate of the Novus Ordo service in a "reform of the reform." In other words, he's fine with the Vatican II New Order. He just thinks that a thin new veneer could be put on it. Fessio commented in early December 2006 to a "conservative" Newchurch publication:
He [Benedict-Ratzinger] knows that rapid changes cause consternation in the pews and, in some cases, people even leave the Church. Therefore, the modifications he might undertake most likely will be measured and well thought out. Unfortunately for traditionalists, he fears to disturb the sensibilities of people in the pews again -- even if it is to correct things that were clearly mistakes. He knows that people have left the Church due to these changes before and is cautious out of concern they might do the same thing again. Those who love Tradition are at a disadvantage.
Fessio's statement simply confirms what the TRADITIO Network has said all along. The Mass for these Newchurchers, including Newpope, is simply an ecclesiastical game. It doesn't matter that even Newvatican has de facto admitted the invalidity of the Novus Ordo service in matter and form, but Newpope will do nothing to make up for the millions of phony "New Messes" perpetrated since 1969, which, according to Catholic Sacramental Theology, must all be repeated in the valid traditional form.
Fessio doesn't even make a distinction between the "Indult" Mass and the Novus Ordo service. He told the Newchurch publication:
I don't like calling it the "Traditional Latin Mass" because I think the way I celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass is traditional. I've been thinking about trying to introduce a new label: the Vetus Ordo.
So, Fessio and Benedict-Ratzinger are "cafeteria non-Catholics." They have no real respect for Apostolic Tradition, the papacy and its past pronouncements, or the Catholic Mass passed on in all its essentials by St. Peter, the first pope, to the Church, elaborated by the Apostles themselves and perfected by Popes St. Damasus and St. Gregory the Great. You can be sure that these Newchurchers, even if they tried for a new "indult," would foul it up and make of it a bigger disaster than it already is!
You have to pity those poor Newchurch bishops. They are no longer Catholic, but they have a substitute faith: "Global Warming." You see, when you lose faith in God, Christ, the Holy Mass and Sacraments, Catholic theology and morality, you have to put something in its place. Apparently, for the Newchurch bishops of the United States it's the Great God of Nature.
Newchurch archbishop Harry "Flaky" Flynn, of St. Paul-Minneapolis, led the chorus in urging the U.S. Congress to mitigate the threat of "global warming" -- an unproven hypothesis whose veracity is strongly questioned by leading scientists. "Global warming is a religious issue," said Flynn. Theological kooks like Flynn are calling for a "Catholic Theology of Climate Justice." They claim that in the Gospels, "Jesus talks of the kingdom of God as the re-establishment of creation, not just a realignment of the human order. It's the restoration and renewal of creation -- human and nonhuman." [Source: CNS]
What nonsense! The Gospels preach spiritual conversion to the New Covenant and Christ's spiritual kingdom. That's what He died for -- not to save a tree. Newchurch has thrown out the Catholic Faith and substituted for it some kind of nature paganism, with a pagan Novus Ordo service, sacraments, theology, and morality to support it.
Once again Newchurch and Newpope are shown up for the hypocrisy that is characteristic of the New Order. They perpetuate the illusion that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, one of the few Catholic bishops who stood by their episcopal oath to the Roman Catholic Faith (remember: Benedict-Ratzinger himself was not consecrated as a bishop; he was merely ordained as a New Order bishop), is "excommunicated," whereas the bishops of the publicly schismatic Chinese Communist Patriotic National Church are de facto accepted.
on November 30, 2006, Benedict-Ratzinger, in a shameful act of hypocrisy toward the Faith, expressed mere "sorrow" when yet another bishop was created in the schismatic Patriotic National Church of Communist China "without papal approval." This was the third episcopal ordination just this year in the publicly-schismatic group, which adheres to Communist Premier Wen Jiabao, as the English did to King Henry VIII. [Source: Associated Press]
Why, in the eyes of the Newchurch of the New Order, were Archbishop Lefebvre and his consecrandi deemed worthy of "excommunication" from Newchurch, whereas schismatic Communist bishops go scot free? Sheer hypocrisy. Benedict-Ratzinger wants to win over the Chinese to Newchurch; he knows that he will never win over traditional Catholics.
Benedict-Ratzinger has turned out to be far worse than even JPII the Less. JPII merely kissed the Mohammedan Koran. Benedict-Ratzinger went into a Mohammedan mosque and prayed to Allah. Previously, he had performed at Divine Liturgy with the schismatic Patriarch of Constantinople. This man is an embarrassment to the papacy. The sooner God grants his wish to retire to Germany, the better.
Hollywood is in a quandry. Traditional Catholic director-producer-actor Mel Gibson's allegorical film, Apocalypto, about a peaceful village of hunter-gatherers who are attacked and enslaved by the bloodthirsty overlords of their Meso-American civilization, filmed in the Yucatan in a Mayan dialect, has been receiving rave reviews in pre-screenings even before its official opening on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, December 8, 2006. "Apocalypto is a remarkable film..., offering hitherto unseen sights of exceptional vividness and power," heralded Variety. Similar kudos came from other Hollywood reviewers.
Hollywood embarrassed itself in 2004 by refusing even to nominate Gibson's 2004's The Passion of the Christ for Academy Awards after liberalists and secularists viciously attacked -- politically, not cinematically -- Gibson's literal depiction of the Passion, which then went on to become the eleventh All-time Top-grossing American Movie (2007 World Almanac). Oscar nominations for 2006 films are coming up in a few weeks. Will Hollywood discriminate against yet another blockbuster from Hollywood's most successful producer-director-actor because he is a traditional Catholic?
Can the 5,830 voting members of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, an organization that, like broader Hollywood, includes many haters of traditional Catholics, ignore a film that is already being considered by critics to be among the best of the year? Hypocritical Hollywood embraced D.W. Griffith, whose work fed racist stereotypes; Leni Riefenstahl, whose talent served Nazi Germany; and Roman Polanski, who in 1977 pleaded guilty to having sex with a minor and then fled the United States.
Although Disney is distributing this film, it is not being aggressively marketed and placed. In one metropolitan area of 5,000,000, it is being shown in only three theaters. Apparently, the American Civil Liberties Union would like to see freedom of speech for liberalists, but not traditional Catholics!
The real St. Nicholas lived early in the fourth century in what is now Turkey. Orphaned as a young boy, he was left with substantial financial means by his parents. He used this inheritance to benefit others, especially children. Deeply religious, Nicholas became the Bishop of Myra in Turkey and played an important leadership role in the Church during the period of the Arian heresy, when most of the bishops, and probably even the pope, had adopted the heretical position.
Called the "Wonderworker," he was well known for his generosity to children, hence his association with the legend of Santa Claus. Saint Nick as another name for Santa Claus persists to this day. St. Nicholas is the patron saint of virgins. His patronage of purity may explain his association with the "naughty" and "nice" categories when Saint Nick checks and rechecks his list.
Legend has it that St. Nicholas became aware of a desperately poor parishioner having three daughters with no dowry to recommend them for marriage. The father had planned to sell them into prostitution to provide some means of support. By night, St. Nicholas secretly brought bags of gold on three separate occasions to the man's home. These generous visitations allowed the three daughters to have sufficient means to avoid whoredom and later strike a marriage covenant. On the third visit to deliver the gift, Nicholas was caught in the act of generosity by the grateful father. Many make the Santa Claus-like association of this story to St. Nicholas the gift-giver.
The feastday, of double rank, of St. Nicholas, Bishop & Confessor, occurs on December 6 in the traditional Roman calendar. For further information on the facts and traditions relating to Christmas, see FAQ11: How Do You Explain These Traditional Catholic Practices in the TRADITIO Network's Library of Files (FAQs & Traditional Apologetics).
Instead of all folderol that Benedict-Ratzinger created by quoting an obscure Byzantine emperor on the question of the Mohammedanism, he may as well have quoted the Prince of Theologians, the Catholic Church's principal theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas.
It should be pointed out at the start that St. Thomas had no unreasoned hatred of the Mohammedans. Rather, he prized their scholarship (although he disputed its conclusions), as the Mohammedan scholars in Moorish Spain, such as Averroes (whom St. Thomas called "The Commentator" [on Aristotle], as he called Aristotle "The Philosopher") had translated many Greek works into Latin. It is said that St. Thomas did not have an acquaintance with Greek in the thirteenth century, as such knowledge had been substantially lost in the West during the so-called Dark Ages, until the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, when the Greek scholars fled Constantinople for the West and were instrumental in starting the period known as the Renaissance, which prized its reacquaintance with the classical Greek authors.
St. Thomas's statement on Mohammed and his followers, found in his Summa Contra Gentiles, a more approachable treatise for many, who are challenged by the scholarly depth of his Summa Theologica. As a matter of fact, the Summa contra Gentiles was written to counter the philosophy of the Mohammedans, who had taken possession of large parts of Spain, who were not expelled until some 200 years latter, in 1492, by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabel. St. Thomas calls a spade and space and conforms to what we hear in the present day of things such as the seventy virgins awaiting Mohammedan murderers:
He [Mohammed] seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh urges us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity.
He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to Divine Inspiration, for a visible action that can be only Divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of Truth. On the contrary, Mohammed said that he was sent in the power of his arms -- which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning. Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms.
Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimony of the Old and the New Testaments by making them into a fabrication of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place faith in his words believe foolishly. (Lib. I, Chapter 16, Art. 4
Just days after Boston announced that it would be dumping the "Indult" Mass, Los Angeles made a similar announcement. As of the First Sunday of Advent 2006, the "Indult" Mass that had been held at San Fernando Mission Church was ended. There appear to be two reason for the move:
Los Angeles, like all dioceses, has sunk into the gutter since the time of the Second Vatican Council. At that time its cardinal archbishop was Francis McIntyre, who, with New York's Francis Cardinal Spellman, refused to implement the Novus Ordo in their archdioceses. When Cardinal McIntryre retired in 1970, all Hell broke loose, and now Los Angeles suffers under the "arch-heretic," as he is commonly known because of his unCatholic theology, Roger Mahony.
The pastor of the mission church has encouraged those who used to attend the "Indult" Mass to attend the Novus Ordo Protestant-Pagan-Masonic service instead. Two of these are still being offered on a grotesque table jammed in front of the historic altar constructed by the Franciscan missionaries of Father Serra. (Note that the church did not cancel one of the two Novus Ordo services!)
Fortunately, several of the California Missions have passed out of the hands of Newchurch, which has desecrated them, into the hands of the Park Department of the State of California. These missions have been the site of several independent Traditional Latin Masses over the years. When the Church fails, sometimes the state becomes the savior of the Faith. The ways of the God are truly unsearchable! (For further information, see Holy Cards, Missions & Stations of the Cross.)
I wrote to you about a month ago, and you kindly posted my E-mail. The reviews are now coming in for traditional Catholic producer-director Mel Gibson's new film, Apocalypto, which will go into general release on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, December 8, 2006. And just what I predicted would happen is indeed occurring.
Actually, I am surprised that the majority of the reviews have been quite positive, but Fox News reviewer Roger Friedman has hated Gibson from the day he announced that he was making The Passion of the Christ (and Fox News is supposed to be "conservative"). Anyway, we can look forward to more of these "hate-Gibson" reviews after the film goes into general release.
This is again why those of us in the Traditional Catholic Movement need to support Gibson's effort. I don't know whether I am going to like Apocalypto, but I do know that I want those people in the media who hate Gibson to be embarrassed by the popularity of his work among the general public, just as The Passion of the Christ became one of the most popular films in history in spite of the most virulent hate campaign by Abraham Foxman of B'nai B'rith and other anti-Christians against it.
Benedict-Ratzinger commemorated the Feastday of St. Andrew, Apostle, on November 30, 2006, not by celebrating a Traditional Latin Mass, but by joining Infidels in Istanbul's Blue Mosque to pray to Mecca. Benedict-Ratzinger joins his predecessor John Paul II the Less in being the only two who have set foot in a Mohammedan mosque. JPII is also known for kissing the Koran.
In praying to Mecca, Benedict-Ratzinger was following the instructions of his Mohammedan spiritual guide, Mufti Mustafa Cagrici. Cagrici said: "Turn toward the Kiblah," the direction of Mecca, which all Muslims must face when they perform their prayers. Benedict-Ratzinger complied and prayed meditatively for two minutes with his hands crossed on his stomach in a classical Muslim prayer attitude known as "the posture of tranquility." He also received a work of Ottoman calligraphy that read: "In the name of Allah the merciful." Benedict-Ratzinger stayed in the mosque for half an hour and exited, "visibly delighted," according to The Daily Star of Lebanon.
On December 3, 2006, in the 13th year of its apostolate on the internet, the TRADITIO Network has reached its 5,000,000th reader. TRADITIO was the first traditional Roman Catholic site to appear on the internet. We were here even before the Vatican was, even before Amazon.com was! We thank the Lord for our five million participants over these years and for our hundreds of dedicated correspondents from all over the world, who keep us current on everything going on in the bowels of Newvatican, in the inner sancta of various traditional organizations, and at many Traditional Latin Mass sites. TRADITIO was determined by an Alexis-Amazon statistical survey to be the most read traditional Roman Catholic web site on the internet.
In its daily Commentaries from the Mailbox, TRADITIO does not just copy news reports from secular and religious publications, who in fact have very little background or understanding of what they write about, nor does TRADITIO represent any particular organization's viewpoint. Instead, TRADITIO provides the hard-hitting, independent analysis and perspective of half a century of Roman Catholicism, even from before Vatican II. TRADITIO is avidly read even within the bowels of Newrome and Menzingen.
In addition to the daily Commentaries, TRADITIO provides resources and materials for its participants to study and learn about the traditional Roman Catholic Faith: FAQs, Library of Files (Traditional Apologetics), Holy Cards, Missions, Stations of the Cross, Novus Ordo Service Photo Gallery, Papal Photo Gallery, Special Features and Articles by prominent traditional writers, a list of Traditional Catholic Priests Wanted and Available, numerous files and texts on the Traditional Latin Mass, Office, Sacraments, and Chant, and the Traditional Liturgical Calendar, and more.
We are touched by the many thousands of messages that we have received from Newchurchers who say that they have been converted, or have reverted, to the traditional Roman Catholic Faith because of TRADITIO's uncompromising, independent commentaries and materials. Of course, we are just one of many means through which Our Lord appears be working out the Traditional Catholic Restoration of the 21st century.
A survey was conducted on November 8, 2006, on a sample of 555 people calling themselves Catholics. When they were asked: "If there were to be a regular celebration of the Mass in its traditional form, in Latin and with the pope's approval," only 6% answered: "I would attend regularly." This just goes to show that the "Indult" Mass is a waste of time in the Newchurch of the New Order. The Newchurchers aren't Catholics anyway, and those who are have other sites at which to attend not only the truly Traditional Latin Mass but also the Sacraments, and be taught traditional Catholic doctrine and morality. By this point any true Catholic has left the New Order and its temples, so the remaining Newchurchers are not interested in the true Mass, but want the Protestant-Masonic-Pagan Novus Ordo service.
I have read that the Athanasian Creed we Catholics use is not the work of the great Saint. Can you please shed light on this subject?
The Fathers Reply.
That's an old nugget that the Eastern Orthodox have been trying to sell since the Eastern Schism. Since the Athanasian Creed, one of the three major Creeds of the Church (together with the Apostles Creed and the Nicaeo-Constantinopolitan Creed) and a part of the traditional Divine Office, clearly states that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque), it is an embarrassment to the Eastern schismatics that one of their own Great Eastern Doctors contradicts their erroneous teaching on the Most Holy Trinity.
Whether St. Athanasius personally composed the Creed bearing his name or not is immaterial. The same thing can possibly be said of some of the Epistles of St. Paul, which may have been written not by St. Paul himself, but by his colleagues (St. Titus, St. Timothy, or others). It is Tradition that answers the question for us. Regardless of exact authorship or the title, both the Creed and the Epistles have been perennially accepted as the doctrine and teaching of the Church through Apostolic Tradition.
The noose finally caught Roger "Mad" Mahony, known as the "Arch-heretic of the New Order" for his unCatholic teachings. In the moral area, he has been squirming for years against reports that as head of the Newchurch archdiocese of Los Angeles, presided over a program of child rape by L.A. presbyters. Whenever the noose got tighter, Mahony would play the victim and lash out against others. When the chief investigator for the U.S. Conference of Catholic [sic] Bishop reported that the bishops were suborning child rape and were no better than a Mafia, Mahony himself engineered the firing of the ex-FBI agent.
Mahony was exposed in a U.S. News & World Report investigative report ("The Deathcare Business," March 23, 1998, pp. 50-58) for "cutting a deal with a funeral chain" that gave Mahony a kickback in the form of "an undisclosed percentage of the proceeds from each funeral [performed] at the cemeteries, money to help Mahony realize his dream of building a $100 million cathedral downtown.... The cardinal figured we better get in the game and provide the same one-stop shopping offered by the competition." In other words, the corrupt Mahony took money from bereaved families at their moment of grief so that he could build his pagan temple.
Three ... two ... one ... zero! NO INDULT!
According to my calendar, the month of November has ended, not only at Rome but even in Alaska. Hence we can now, yet again, see how the "indult"-supporters have been held in suspense, fooled, and let down by the pagans and Modernists who sit in the chair of Moses at Rome. The little local popes in France have commanded the general pope in Rome, and the pontiff has obeyed orders as usual.
We were told by these Italian "Vaticanologists" and journalists that, this time, the universal indult was a-coming for sure in the month of November. One source said that it would all happen before November 6, when the French bishops had their episcopal powwow; others said simply, "sometime in November" for sure. We were told that this gang of journalists was not like the others. No, this gang was at the top of the tree; these boys had the inside story. (That's what they said last time, too, back at Eastertime.) It was even reported that Newcardinal Zen, of Hong Kong, had seen a signed document that magically disappeared after some French prelates had temper fits and boarded jets for Rome.
Remember how these Vaticanologists reported on this "indult" coming from the now-fired Newcardinal Castrillon-Hoyos (recently replaced by the Marxist Newcardinal Hummes) in May of 2005 at Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome? Nothing happened, except that the recently-disgraced Cardinal Law of Boston showed up to join the "indult"-supporters in prayer. Then there were the wild reports of the "universal jurisdiction." Instead, a tiny flat and very hot plain in Brazil got a special exception, the Campos, an indult in a jungle cage. Then there were the reports from the same Vaticanologists about this "indult" before Good Friday, after Easter, before Lent, and so on. One source has recently clarified that this November "indult" would actually come "before Christmas". Days later, the story had changed to "between Christmas and Epiphany." But they don't say which year they mean! Keep biting your nails, "indult"-supporters. It may come any year now!
But suppose it does come? Suppose the Newpope were to recognise a general right to celebrate the Modernized Mass of 1962 in Latin. Would it be effective? First, these ignorant commentators and Vaticanologists don't know their Vatican II canon law, under which every presbyter has the right to celebrate one service per day. To celebrate more than one, he must have the permission of the local ordinary. While it is true that bishops scandalously allow all their presbyters to celebrate the maximum number per day (viz., three on Sundays and holydays and two on other days), this permission can be withdrawn in the case of any particular presbyter. A bishop faced with an "indult"-loving priest could forbid him from celebrating more than once a day if he insisted on saying the 1962 Latin Mass.
But there is more. Another Vatican II canon stipulates that every presbyter who has any appointment (whether as pastor, chaplain, or whatever) -- and that is nearly all non-retired presbyters -- must celebrate at least one service on Sundays and holydays for the people entrusted to his care. And Protocol 1411-99 (now ecclesiastical law for Newchurch because published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis) stipulates that such services must be the "normative" service of Newchurch, which just happens to be the Protestant-Masonic-Pagan New Mess. Hence, the local bishop, by reading these laws together, could command his "indult"-loving presbyters to celebrate only one service per Sunday and make that the New Mess. So much for a universal "indult"!
But what about the few presbyters who have no appointments (e.g., "assistant" pastors or vicars or curates)? Well, these presbyters are mostly younger men who are seeking the security that comes from having appointments. But they will never get these appointments if they cross their Newchurch local popes. As for the remainder, they are "problem presbyters," who are normally assigned to be prison and hospital chaplains for life.
What about retired presbyters who love the "Indult" Mass in Latin? Well, they must still celebrate in "sacred places" under Vatican II canon law, and the local bishop can remove that status from any chapel anywhere. True, they possibly could circumvent their bishops under an exception clause, but at great expense and risk. They know where their pension cheques come from! There was one retired presbyter in California, to my recollection, who had his cheque discontinued for being too conservative.
Moreover, even if these canonical restrictions were not in place, Newchurch presbyters leaning towards Tradition will not cross their bishops. Under Vatican II Canon Law, they can now celebrate the New Mess in Latin with all the smells and bells -- and needing no permission -- and yet there are very few of these Messes being celebrated, and their number has slowly declined over the last twenty years. If they will not risk the New Mass in Latin, who would think that they will risk the "Indult" Mass in Latin?
Real Catholic priests need no indult, and they need no recognitio from Rome of an existing right. The recognition is clear from traditional Canon Law and has never been extinguished. That was the unanimous conclusion of the 1986 Cardinalatial Commission, one of whom happens to be the present pope. Alfons Cardinal Stickler, who was another, let the cat out of the bag about ten years ago, and it was published. (For further information, see ECCLESIA: "Ecclesia Dei" - Before and After the "Indult".)
It follows that all disciplinary actions and threats from local bishops are null and void. Hence, those good priests who celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass without any Newchurch permission do so lawfully, licitly, and validly. If there are any questions about liceity and/or validity, they concern the fraudulent pagan service that has intruded into the churches built by the real Catholics of the past. Even the Eastern heresiarch Bartholomew knows this, and is tried to tell it to the pope this week -- to no avail!
Ephesus. The name of the city resounds mightily in Catholic ears. The residence of the Blessed Virgin Mary with St. John the Apostle, where they both died. The city where St. Paul spent his longest missionary journey and to whose people he wrote these words:
Let no man deceive you with vain words. For because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief. Be ye not therefore partakers with them. For you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. Walk then as children of the light. For the fruit of the light is in all goodness and justice and truth: Proving what is well pleasing to God. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness: but rather reprove them (Ephesians 5:6-11/DRV).
Yet here it was that Benedict-Ratzinger on November 29, 2006, chose to perform not the Catholic and Apostolic Mass, but that work of darkness, the Novus Ordo service, which his predecessor Paul VI indicated was tainted with the "smoke of Satan." Who can forget the words of St. John the Apostle, written to the Church of Ephesis in the Apocalypse of the New Testament?
I know they works and thy labour and thy patience and how thou canst not bear them that are evil. And thou has tried them who say they are apostles and are not: and hast found them liars.
It is as if across 1900 years the Beloved Disciple were reaching out to condemn Newpope, who has abandoned the Catholic and Apostolic Mass and in its place substituted the invalid Novus Ordo service, concocted by the Freemason Hannibal Bugnini to be the centerpiece of the New Order of Newchurch.
The tiny throng provided a vivid picture of how reduced the community of Newchurchers has become in the area where it enjoyed its first important spurt of growth nearly two millennia ago. Among 70,000,000 million Turks, the overwhelming majority are devotees of Allah, not Christ. There are only 20,000 Newchurchers, less that a third of one percent. Now the great Basilica at Ephesus built in the 6th century by the Emperor Justinian over St. John's tomb is in ruins, just as is the Newchurch of the New Order, which numbers barely a handful of Ephesians.
There's one thing that the indultarians have learned about the risk of the "Indult" Mass: they can't be too "successful"; otherwise, Newchurch will shut them down. That's exactly what happened to several "indult" situations previously reported on by the TRADITIO Network. And now it's happened to Holy Trinity Newparish, site of the "Indult" Mass in Boston.
It is ironic that in 1998 the Boston Steeples Project, which was trying to repair Boston's historic churches, was trumpeting: "Today, Holy Trinity is the site of the Archdiocese's only Traditional Latin Mass [incorrect: it is the Modernized Mass of 1962]. Most of the German congregation has moved to the suburbs, but a young and vibrant Latin Mass community has taken its place. The building has magnificent stained glass windows that have deteriorated, there is evidence of recent water damage on several of the large murals inside the church, and some of its historic bells are no longer used because of structural concerns." Now the Philistine Boston Archdiocese is dumping the historic church.
The Newchurch archdiocese has announced that the parish would be closed and its assets would be turned over to the Cathedral of the Holy Cross. The indultarians are supposed to move to Mary Immaculate of Lourdes, in Newton. The Newton site will become the dumping ground for a number of Newchurch D.P.'s: those who were in Newton to begin with, those who would be expelled from Holy Trinity, and another group from another semi-closing Newparish.
The indultarians said that they feel they have little reason to trust the archdiocese, after years of obstacles placed in the path of their growth, of which this is the just the latest step. "At every step of the way, we've had roadblocks put up against us," said one indultarian. "They're moving us to a church that's so full. Those people won't even have the opportunity to assimilate one parish at a time. It's like making syrup -- you can't put too much sugar in, or it won't assimilate. And that's their plan." [Source: Bay Windows]
You'd think that if the man was smart enough to figure that out, he'd be smart enough to conclude that the indultarians are not wanted by Newchurch and instead take advantage of a truly Traditional Latin Mass at Mary Immaculate Queen in adjoining Woburn, which is held under independent auspices, outside the politics of Newchurch and the spurious "indult."
Once again it becomes clear that the "Indult" Mass is a Newchurch ruse to eke out a little drib or drab of "conservatism" to keep the indultarians in the Newchurch pews and kicking in their dollars to support sex crimes. It is a deceit because the "Indult" Mass becomes merely an empty artifact, entirely surrounded by the New Theology and New Morality of Newchurch. The indultarians have been "had," and more and more of them are realizing as the days go by that they are simply being played as pawns and fools by Newchurch.
"In Rome they are wolves and foxes and sharks," said SSPX's Bishop Richard Williamson in a speech given in Poland on November 19, 2006. Williamson warned that "if the shark can charm his victim, he will more easily swallow" and states that "the only safe thing to do is not to talk" to Newrome. Because of this policy of Archbishop Lefebvre in the past, he said, "the shark did not succeed in swallowing the Society."
Williamson stated in no uncertain terms that Newchurch "is still Modernist, and therefore in 2006, as in 1988, if the Society came to some kind of agreement with Rome, there would be a very grave danger of the sharks smoothly swallowing the dear little Society. It would very smooth. No blood. No tearing to pieces. Just quietly, the barrier of teeth closing behind the Society.... Just one little problem: Catholic resistance would have to start all over again."
In an insightful analysis, Williamson characterized the manner in which Newrome deftly deceives the Indultarians, who are all to willing to sell out the Roman Catholic Faith to the Newchurch of the New Order merely for some "human respect":
So, a Cardinal Ratzinger, even a Cardinal Castrillon [Hoyos], may mean well, and this is why they deceive. This is why Catholics who have charity interpret them kindly. Catholics assume they have good intentions. It looks as though they had good intentions, and so why shouldn't we come to an agreement? We will no longer have to swim against the current! We no longer have to fight with everybody else in our family. We are no longer exiles or outcasts. We are again friends with everybody because the official [sic] Church is friends with everybody. The official Church is friends with Communists, with the Mohammedans, with the Jews.
Williamson describes the trap that Benedict-Ratzinger has laid for the Traditional Catholic Movement. The bishop warns that if Newrome fabricates a new "indult" to ensnare the indultarians into the New Order:
We will cut a very nasty figure if we refuse! We are going to look like the Big Bad Wolf, and the pope will look like Little Red Riding Hood. It will be a difficult situation, and many Catholics of Tradition will be tempted. If the Society does refuse (which is very likely), then Rome will look like the "good guys."
So, my dear friends, to conclude, be prepared to fasten your seatbelts because you may need to fasten your minds to Catholic Truth, which is absolute and unchanging Truth.... So, don't think that if Rome is kind, the problem is over. What Archbishop Lefebvre used to say was, "These churchmen must accept the doctrine of the encyclicals of the 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries. They must profess the Syllabus [of Errors] of Pius IX and Lamentabili and Pascendi of Pius X.... Then, we will know that they have come back to Truth and absolutely. Then, there will be no more problem between the Society and these Romans [sic].... So, my dear friends, I wish all of us, if necessary, persecution. There are clouds all around the horizon.
Finally, an SSPX prelate has had the guts to speak out the truth in no uncertain terms. The TRADITIO Network too has long been warning that Newrome are "wolves and foxes and sharks." Any sellout to a new "indult" concocted and controlled by the Newchurch of the New Order would be insane. "The Catholic resistance would have to start all over again." The SSPX liberal faction and the indultarians who would sell out their right to the valid Roman Catholic Mass and Sacraments for a mere "indult" (a revocable privilege, not a right) eked out by Newchurch should listen carefully to Williamson's words. They're the most perceptive words that we've heard in quite a while!
You've got to give Newchurch points for how much deception they have perpetrated on an ignorant press. A case in point: the Lincoln Journal Star has called the Newchurch diocese of Lincoln "conservative." Yet above we have its bishop, Fabian "Phony" Bruskewitz, looking oh so traditional -- until you discover that the service from which he is exiting was a "Jewish Sabbath" Mess!
Bruskewitz is an icon of New Order deception. He plays the part of a "conservative," yet he is anything but. He moved the "indult" Fraternity of St. Peter from Scanton, Pennsylvania, to Denton, Nebraska, in 2000, after which hardly a peep has been heard from the Fraternity. It is essentially suppressed and stunted in growth.
Some years ago the "conservative" Newchurchers drooled over Bruskewitz for his threat to "excommunicate" the "Catholic" Freemasons in his diocese. But where was the beef? In the typical style of Newchurch deception, ninety days later, when Bruskewitz was supposed to impose the threatened "excommunication," Bruskewitz recanted. He told the local press that he didn't intend to make good on his threat. Instead, he proceeded to participate in the Masonic Shriner's picnic! (We won't talk about the fact that he let out his cathedral to be used for the "consecration" of a Methodist bishop.)
Yes, good Catholics, Newchurch is a fraud. What you see is not what you get! What you get is not Catholic in any sense of the word, but a Protestant, Masonic, pagan fraud.
As a traditional Catholic, what am I to think of military service, given the current state of affairs? I am considering enlisting in the military, but have hesitations, specifically about having to take an oath that involves protecting the U.S. Constitution, which I feel is a purely Modernist document. Are those hesitations justified? And if so, are they possibly enough to justify me choosing not to enlist?
The Fathers Reply.
We don't know whence you got the idea that the U.S. Constitution is a "Modernist document." It is a civil document, not a religious one, and even Pope Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Letter Longinqua of January 6, 1895, highly praised the American Republic and its wise founders, even calling George Washington "the Great." The Church has no preference of governments, as long as she can grow and flourish under them. And she has done so under monarchies, republics, dictatorships, and other forms.
Actually, the ancients considered the best form of government to be the Republic, a mixed form that partakes of the advantages of all the other forms. It is clear that the main pattern for the U.S. Constitution was the Roman Republic, which the Founding Fathers studied intensely and read of in the original Latin works that explained it, such as those of Cicero and Livy. Other influences upon the U.S. Constitution were the Statutes of the Dominican Order (which similarly partakes of a mixed form of government) and Canon Law.
From classical and Thomistic philosophy, which is based on it, we accept that that citizen has a duty in piety to his state, as he does to his parents and teachers. Therefore, ceteris paribus, military service can certainly be a part of the citizen's duty and is to be praised.
The Newchurch presbyter, Raymond Gravel, pastor of St. Joachim-de-la-Plaine at La Plaine, Quebec, has been elected the Member of Parliament for the Montreal area of Repentigny in a by-election. He won the by-election on November 27, 2006, by a "landslide," representing the Bloc Québecois, the far Left party. Gravel had the support of Benedict-Ratzinger's Newvatican and his local Newchurch bishop, Gilles Lussier, of Joliette.
Gravel has made it public that he disfavours any restriction on abortion in Canada. At present, abortion is legal in Canada right up to and including the moment of birth. There are no restrictions. Gravel does not want the law to be limited in any way. Gravel also favours the new change to Canada's marriage law, making it possible for men to claim that they are marrying other men (and women other women). In an August 2003 letter to Montreal's La Presse, Gravel said that Newvatican's position against same-sex marriage was "discriminatory, hurtful and offensive for everyone who works to promote human rights and to re-establish justice and equality."
Gravel's Newchurch Bishop informed the press that after consulting with his presbyteral council, he gave Gravel permission to run in the by-election. Under Newchurch canon law, such permission could have been given only with the approval of Benedict-Ratzinger. Frantic letters from "conservative" Newchurchers poured in to the office of Canada's Papal Nuncio, Archbishop Luigi Ventura to no avail.
The Liberty Counsel has published its 2006 "Naughty and Nice" list, which catalogs retailers who either censor or recognize Christmas. The Liberty Council says that retailers who seek to profit from Christmas while pretending that it does not exist should realize that they have offended the vast majority of Americans, who enjoy Christmas. Customers have a choice.
Partial "Naughty" List