The Catacombs

Welcome, Guest

You have to register before you can post on our site.

Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics

» Members: 262
» Latest member: aasonlittle2854
» Forum threads: 6,310
» Forum posts: 11,812

Full Statistics

Online Users

There are currently 355 online users.
» 1 Member(s) | 351 Guest(s)
Facebook, Google, Yandex

Latest Threads

Infanticide is real, Cath...
Forum: Against the Children
Last Post: Stone
2 minutes ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 1

Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Twen...
Forum: October 2024
Last Post: Deus Vult
9 hours ago
» Replies: 1
» Views: 159

Our Fr. Hewko's Sermons:...
Forum: October 2024
Last Post: Deus Vult
Yesterday, 12:47 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 56

New Cardinals: Mostly Unk...
Forum: Pope Francis
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:13 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 73

Please Pray for Bishop Ti...
Forum: Appeals for Prayer
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:10 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 452

Feast of the Holy Rosary ...
Forum: Our Lady
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:07 AM
» Replies: 8
» Views: 16,505

Daily offering of the Ble...
Forum: Our Lady
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:03 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 2,901

Twentieth Sunday after Pe...
Forum: Pentecost
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:01 AM
» Replies: 6
» Views: 12,538

St. Alphonsus Liguori: Da...
Forum: Pentecost
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:58 AM
» Replies: 6
» Views: 4,017

Fr. Hewko: Autumn Rosary...
Forum: Rev. Father David Hewko
Last Post: Deus Vult
10-05-2024, 09:22 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 88

Archbishop Lefebvre: On Sedevacantism [1979]

Posted by: Stone - 03-10-2021, 01:08 PM - Forum: Sedevacantism - Replies (1)

The New Mass and the Pope

Taken from Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre - Chapter 38

In the following statement Archbishop Lefebvre clarified his position and that of the Society of St. Pius X on the subject of the New Mass and the Pope.

8 November 1979
The New Mass and the Pope

How often during these last ten years have I not had occasion to respond to questions concerning the weighty problems of the New Mass and the Pope. In answering them I have ever been careful to breathe with the spirit of the Church, conforming myself to her Faith as expressed in her theological principles, and to her pastoral prudence as expressed in moral theology and in the long experiences of her history.

I think I can say that my own views have not changed over the years and that they are, happily, those of the great majority of priests and faithful attached to the indefectible Tradition of the Church.

It should be clear that the few lines which follow are not an exhaustive study of these problems, The purpose, rather is to clarify our conclusions to such an extent that no one may be mistaken regarding the official position of the Society of St, Pius X.

It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are then free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics, even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith.

Now, it is easy to show that the New Mass, as it was formulated by the officially authorized Conciliar Liturgical Commission considered together with the accompanying explanation of Mgr. Bugnini, manifests an inexplicable rapprochement with the theology and liturgy of the Protestants. The following fundamental dogmas of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are not clearly represented and are even contradicted:

- that the priest is the essential minister of the Rite;

- that in the Mass there is a true sacrifice, a sacrificial action;

- that the Victim or Host is Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, present under the species of bread and wine, with His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity;

- that this Sacrifice is a propitiatory one;

- that the Sacrifice and the Sacrament are effected by the words of the Consecration alone, and not also by those which either precede or follow them.

It is sufficient to enumerate a few of the novelties in the New Mass to be convinced of the rapprochement with the Protestants;

- the altar replaced by a table without an altar stone;

- Mass celebrated facing the people, concelebrated, in a loud voice, and in the vernacular;

- the Mass divided into two distinct parts: Liturgy of the Word, and Liturgy of the Eucharist;

- the cheapening of the sacred vessels, the use of leavened bread, distribution of Holy Communion in the hand, and by the laity, and even by women;

- the Blessed Sacrament hidden in corners;

- the Epistle read by women;

- Holy Communion brought to the sick by laity.

All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it. The de-sacralization is such that these Masses risk the loss of their supernatural character, their mysterium fidei; they would then be no more than acts of natural religion. These New Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects.

Must one conclude further that all these Masses are invalid? As long as the essential conditions for validity are present (matter, form, intention, and a validly ordained priest), I do not see how one can affirm this.

The prayers at the Offertory, the Canon, and the Priest’s Communion which surround the words of Consecration are necessary, not to the validity of the Sacrifice and the Sacrament, but rather to their integrity. When the imprisoned Cardinal Mindszenty, desiring to nourish himself with the Body and Blood of Our Lord, and to escape the gaze of his captors, pronounced solely the words of Consecration over a little bread and wine, he most certainly accomplished the Sacrifice and the Sacrament.

It is clear, however, that fewer and fewer Masses are valid these days, as the faith of priests is destroyed and they possess no longer the intention to do what the Church does – an intention which the Church cannot change. The current formation of those who are called seminarians today does not prepare them to celebrate Mass validly. The propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is no longer considered the essential work of the priest. Nothing is sadder or more disappointing than to read the sermons or teachings of the Conciliar bishops on the subject of vocations, or on the occasion of a priestly ordination. They no longer know what a priest is.

Nevertheless, in order to judge the subjective fault of those who celebrate the New Mass as of those who attend it, we must apply the roles of the discernment of spirits given us in moral and pastoral theology. We (the priests of the Society) must always act as doctors of the soul and not as judge and hangmen. Those who are tempted by this latter course are animated by a bitter spirit and not true zeal for souls. I hope that our young priests will be inspired by the words of St. Pius X in his first encyclical, and by the numerous texts on this subject to be found in such works as The Soul of the Apostolate by Dom Chautard, Christian Perfection and Contemplation by Garrigou-Lagrange, and Christ the Ideal of the Monk by Dom Marmion.

Let us now pass to a second but no less important subject: does the Church have a true Pope or an impostor on the Throne of St. Peter? Happy are those who have lived and died without having to pose such a question! One must indeed recognize that the pontificate of Paul VI posed, and continues to pose, a serious problem of conscience for the faithful. Without reference to his culpability for the terrible demolition of the Church which took place under his pontificate, one cannot but realize that he hastened the causes of that decline in every domain. One can fairly ask oneself how it was possible that a successor of Peter can, in so little time, have caused more damage to the Church than the French Revolution.

Some precise facts, such as the signatures which he gave to Article VII in the Instruction concerning the New Mass, and to the Declaration on Religious Liberty, are indeed scandalous and have led certain traditionalists to affirm that Paul VI was heretical and thus no longer Pope. They argue further that, chosen by a heretical Pope, the great majority of the cardinals are not cardinals at all and thus lacked the authority to elect another Pope. Pope John Paul I and Pope John Paul II were thus, they say, illegitimately elected. They continue that it is inadmissible to pray for a pope who is not Pope or to have any "conversations" (like mine of November 1978) with one who has no right to the Chair of Peter.

As with the question of the invalidity of the Novus Ordo, those who affirm that there is no Pope over-simplify the problem. The reality is more complex. If one begins to study the question of whether or not a Pope can be heretical, one quickly discovers that the problem is not as simple as one might have thought. The very objective study of Xaverio de Silverira on this subject demonstrates that a good number of theologians teach that the Pope can be heretical as a private doctor or theologian but not as a teacher of the Universal Church. One must then examine in what measure Pope Paul VI willed to engage in infallibility in the diverse cases where he signed texts close to heresy if not formally heretical.

But we can say that in the two cases cited above, as in many another, Paul VI acted much more the Liberal than as a man attached to heresy. For when one informed him of the danger that he ran in approving certain conciliar texts, he would proceed to render the text contradictory by adding a formula contrary in meaning to affirmations already in the text, or by drafting an equivocal formula. Now, equivocation is the very mark of the Liberal, who is inconsistent by nature.

The Liberalism of Paul VI, recognized by his friend, Cardinal Daniélou, is thus sufficient to explain the disasters of his pontificate. Pope Pius IX, in particular, spoke often of the Liberal Catholic, whom he considered a destroyer of the Church. The Liberal Catholic is a two-sided being, living in a world of continual self-contradiction. While he would like to remain Catholic, he is possessed by a thirst to appease the world. He affirms his faith weakly, fearing to appear too dogmatic, and as a result, his actions are similar to those of the enemies of the Catholic Faith.

Can a Pope be Liberal and remain Pope? The Church has always severely reprimanded Liberal Catholics, but she has not always excommunicated them. Here, too, we must continue in the spirit of the Church. We must refuse Liberalism from whatever source it comes because the Church has always condemned it. She has done so because it is contrary, in the social realm especially, to the Kingship of Our Lord.

Does not the exclusion of the cardinals of over eighty years of ages, and the secret meetings which preceded and prepared the last two Conclaves, render them invalid? Invalid: no, that is saying too much. Doubtful at the time: perhaps. But in any case, the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the election by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy suffices to validate it. That is the teaching of the theologians.

The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? How, as there are no Cardinals, is he to be chosen? This spirit is a schismatical one for at least the majority of those who attach themselves to certainly schismatical sects like Palmar de Troya, the Eglise Latine de Toulouse, and others.

Our Fraternity absolutely refuses to enter into such reasonings.

We wish to remain attached to Rome and to the Successor of Peter, while refusing his Liberalism through fidelity to his predecessors. We are not afraid to speak to him, respectfully but firmly, as did St. Paul with St. Peter.

And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith.

Thus, I have never refused to go to Rome at his request or that of his representatives. The Truth must be affirmed at Rome above all other places. It is of God, and He will assure its ultimate triumph.

Consequently, the Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters, and oblates, cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid. Certainly, we suffer from this continual incoherence which consists in praising all the Liberal orientations of Vatican II and at the same time straining to mitigate its effects. But all of this must incite us to prayer and to the firm maintenance of Tradition rather than to the affirmation that the Pope is not the Pope.

In conclusion, we must have that missionary spirit which is the true spirit of the Church. We must do everything to bring about the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the words of our Holy Patron, St. Pius X: Instaurare omnia in Christo. We must restore all things in Christ, and we must submit to all, as did Our Lord in His Passion for the salvation of souls and the triumph of Truth. "In hoc natus sum," said Our Lord to Pilate, "ut testimonium perhibeam veritati." “I was born to give witness to the Truth."

Notes:
1. See Pope Paul’s New Mass, p. 240.

2. Ibid., pp. 65-66.

3. Inaestimabile Donum forbids girls to serve on the altar, but this instruction is widely defied in the U.S.A. The Apostolic Delegate has been made aware of this but no action has been taken to curtail the abuse (see The Angelus, December 1982).

Archbishop Lefebvre: The New Mass and the Pope

Posted by: Stone - 03-10-2021, 12:58 PM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - No Replies

The New Mass and the Pope

Taken from Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre - Chapter 38

In the following statement Archbishop Lefebvre clarified his position and that of the Society of St. Pius X on the subject of the New Mass and the Pope.

Si Si No No: They Think They've Won!

Posted by: Stone - 03-10-2021, 12:26 PM - Forum: The Architects of Vatican II - Replies (7)

Si Si No No - August 1993 No.3

They Think They've Won!

Part 1

Pope St. Pius X described Modernism as the synthesis of all heresies. From the beginning of this century, it grew and infected many of the clergy and laity. It teaches that our knowledge of God cannot be certain and that faith comes out of man's need of a God. From these principles, Modernism sets out to destroy dogmas and divine revelation. It seeks to reduce Christ to mere human dimensions, and makes divine inspiration a common gift to all of mankind. This modernism, the coming together of all heresies, is now the “official theology of Vatican II.”

PART ONE: THE APPARENT VICTORY OF MODERNISM EXPOSED AND DENOUNCED BY ST. PIUS X

St. Pius X, in his encyclical Pascendi (1907) denounced those modernist "partisans of error" who concealed themselves "in the very womb and heart of the Church" insidiously spreading destruction "from within the Church itself...So that the danger today lies in the very heart and veins of the Church."

This same saint added the pain of excommunication against anyone contradicting the encyclical Pascendi or the decree Lamentabili, which exposed and condemned Modernism.

He also insisted that all bishops and religious superiors be on their guard against modernist infiltration, to carefully screen those chosen as seminary professors, as well as prospective seminarians and priests, saying:

Quote:"If any [priest] be found tainted with modernist errors...let them be absolutely forbidden from teaching anything whatsoever. Also any seminarian in any way even suspected of attachment to these condemned modernist novelties and doctrines, must be refused all access to Holy Orders" (Motu Proprio, November 18, 1907).

Pope St. Pius X knew that the modernists sought out followers in seminaries and religious houses, where the future of the Church was formed. In order to do this, they secretly organized themselves into hidden sects.

DENOUNCED BY THE GREAT THEOLOGIAN FR. GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE, O.P.
In 1946, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange wrote a brilliant article entitled: "Where is the New Theology Leading Us To?" To Modernism, he replied. He then proceeded to denounce this work of doctrinal corruption, saying that: "Typed sheets have been distributed among the clergy, seminarians and Catholic intellectuals, containing strange doctrinal assertions and negations."

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange quoted, at length, many parts of those secret sheets - a preview of all the heretical novelties that would emerge in this post-Vatican II era. One example will be sufficient: "A general convergence of all religions to a universal Christ, which will satisfy them all. This seems to me to be the only possible imaginable conversion for a Religion of the future." This is the very essence of today's ecumenism, which seeks to bring together all religions, in a Christ separated from His Mystical Body, the Catholic Church.

THE CONFIRMATION
Confirmation of this treachery comes to us today, from the very lips of those representing this New Theology. A mouthpiece of theirs is the journal Communio and in an article of November-December, 1990, the Jesuit Fr. Peter Henrici (born 1928) tells us that:

a) In Jesuit seminaries, contrary to papal instructions, the doctrine, method and principles of St. Thomas Aquinas were openly scorned and held in contempt. Henrici assures us that "the official scholastic studies of St. Thomas were merely thumbed through."

b) Behind that facade of official studies, modernist texts and tracts were secretly circulated to the most brilliant and promising seminarians.

Those same modernist concepts, secretly passed around, would later reappear as the New Theology. Those who showed interest and promise in theology, would be given the modernist Fr. Henri de Lubac's book: The Supernatural - the most forbidden of forbidden books! Then they would receive another of his books, Corpus Mysticum. This was done to inculcate them with the principle that identical theological terms could have different meanings with the passage of time or when looked at in another context. Thus we say goodbye to unchanging divine and apostolic Tradition! Goodbye to the homogenous development of dogma! Goodbye to unchangeable truths!

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was right in saying the novelty of this New Theology would deprive the Church of its sound Tradition. Today, the ideas and assumptions of that novelty, make up the premises of the New Tradition, which, though it is living, is no longer coherent.

These treacherous modernist theologians, then condemned, were later rewarded at Vatican II. The aggiornamento (updating) spirit of Vatican II placed the Conciliar Fathers in a position where they had to rely upon the preparatory work done by theologians prior to the Council. In other words, those Vatican II bishops who succumbed to the siren song of the aggiornamento ended up having to rely upon the works of those who had concocted and cultivated a New Theology in direct opposition to Catholic theology.

A great number of these Conciliar Fathers did not know or understand the New Theology. It had been cultivated in secrecy, in closed circles. It was hidden behind traditional sounding terms. The Fathers, ignorant of these facts, gave this often traditional-sounding, New Theology a kind of ecclesiastical orthodoxy and acceptability.

A VETERAN’S TESTIMONY
Similar expressions of modernist triumphalism are found in the work of Fr. Henri Bouillard, S.J. - a veteran of the New Theology. On the occasion of the inauguration of a center known as the Maurice Blondel Archives at the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium, Bouillard stresses the influence of Blondel's philosophy on the New Theology: "Blondel's thoughts and ideas have, in their essential theses, progressively won the day." The orthodox teachings, brushed aside and dismissed by Blondel are "no longer valid today."

THE COUNCIL – VATICAN II
For Bouillard, the most conclusive and positive proof of the modernist victory is Vatican II, where "they abandoned the concept of looking at the natural and supernatural orders as two superimposed things neither having any kind of internal link with the other." It is interesting to note that, in none of Vatican II's major documents, will you find the use of the word, supernatural. Bouillard's affirmation is only too true, being well documented and easily proved by the official documents of Vatican II. Under the influence of Modernism, it has deliberately and studiously avoided in its most important documents (especially those dealing with ecumenism) the use of the word, supernatural. Thus its major documents implicitly approve naturalism, which is the essence of Modernism. This naturalism has also proved itself the basis of Blondel's philosophy and of De Lubac's theology.

So, we must ask ourselves today, what is being substantially proposed to us as Catholics in the name of Vatican II? The answer is that same New Theology officially condemned by Pope Pius XII. What lies hidden beneath this billboard? Nothing else but that same modernism condemned by Pius X and which leads to a radical denial of the existence of divine revelation, the divinity of Our Lord and the divine origin of the Catholic Church.

THE WINNERS
Still more recently, in 30 Days (December 1991), we find the same Fr. Henrici saying:

a) that the New Theology condemned by Pope Pius XII in the Encyclical Humani Generis, has now "become the official theology of Vatican II."

b) that the key positions in the Church are already in the hands of the actual representatives of the New Theology, whose mouthpiece is the journal Communio: "Nearly all of the theologians who have been named bishops in recent years, have come up through the Communio line. Their names form a list of important persons destined for the top careers: the Germans, Lehman and Kasper, the Swiss, Von Schonborn and Corecco; the Italian, Scola; the Belgian, Leonard and the Brazilian, Romer.”

The Jesuit professor at the Gregorian University, Peter Henrici, slyly laments: "The founding members, Balthasar, De Lubac and Ratzinger, have all become cardinals. Many of the second generation have been chosen as bishops."

He also adds such important names as that of "the Dominican theologian in the Papal residence, Georges Cottier; also Jean Duschesne, press agent for Cardinal Lustiger; the Hegelian André Léonard, Bishop of Namur" who has charge of St. Paul's Seminary, the place where Cardinal Lustiger sends his seminarians. According to 30 Days: "These are the ones (they say!) who have won."

THE BREAK
Similar cries of triumph and indirect confessions of treachery are found in post-Vatican II era, Neo-modernist literature:

A book by Fr. René Latourelle, SJ. entitled Vatican II-1962-87: Results & Views 25 Years Later, was in fact "produced by the Jesuit Universities in Rome." (from the Italian magazine Avvenire). The book has 68 contributors from 20 countries (all, but two, are Jesuits) clearly illustrating the triumph of this New Theology and the favor lavished upon it by Pope Paul VI. One of these contributors, Fr. Martini SJ., says:

Quote: "Though it's not quite a case of excommunications being followed by canonizations, nevertheless some notorious theologians who were reprimanded prior to Vatican II, later found themselves playing a major role amidst Vatican II experts, and thus had a great influence in the formulation of Vatican II decrees. In 1950, some of their books were officially removed from library shelves. After the Council, these same authors were named cardinals (De Lubac and Danielou)."

Thus do we see the Encyclical Humani Generis, of Pope Pius XII, quickly being repudiated and disowned by another Pope. Those who had always faithfully adhered to Rome's directives, now wondered to whom they owed obedience: to the Pope of yesterday who was in full agreement with his predecessors, or the present Pope, who had evidently broken with the constant and traditional direction of the Church.

More recently, on the anniversary of De Lubac's death, the Vatican newspaper L 'Osservatore Romano (September 1992) devoted an entire page to Cardinal De Lubac and “the great theses of a precursor of Vatican II.” In it we read:

Quote:"Our thoughts turn to Blondel, Gilson, Mounier, Maritain, De Lubac, Chenv and many others, who prepared the philosophical and theological positions which later emerged in many themes of Vatican II."

Therefore, we must admit that the New Theology, officially condemned by Pope Pius XII, as being nothing but a heap of "false opinions, which threaten to overthrow the very foundations of Catholic doctrine," has now become "the official theology of Vatican II" (Fr. Henrici).

This open Neo-modernist war against the Church is a grave reality, especially since it is waged by persons occupying such high positions in the Church. The reason why we are exposing the current situation in such detail is to shake people out of their indifference or numbness, and to put them on their guard against this very real danger threatening their souls.

It is nothing less than that long-standing "often passive, but nevertheless real resistance" of the bishops themselves, which paved the way for the present crisis in the Church, a crisis that is simply the triumph of Modernism in the Catholic Church. Therefore, it is necessary to know a little more about those who think they have won and just what it is that they are after.

They think that they have won the day simply because they do not believe in the words of Jesus Christ "And I say to thee: that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it! (Matt 16:18)"

MAGISTERIUM SCORNED
(Translator’s note: MAGISTERIUM- The Church’s divinely appointed authority to infallibly teach the truths of Religion, “Going therefore, teach ye all nations…teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Matt. 28:19-20)

Quote:“The Church insists that its future priests be formed in the philosophical disciplines 'according to the method, doctrine and principles of the Angelic Doctor’ (St. Thomas Aquinas). The reason being that experience over many centuries has proven (to the Church) that the method of St. Thomas Aquinas, whether informing young minds, or sounding the depths of the deepest truths, stands high above all others by its singular merits; his doctrine is in complete harmony with Divine Revelation and in perfect accord; it is particularly useful and efficient in laying, in all safety, the foundations of Faith, as well as in reaping, in a sure and useful manner, the fruits of true progress.” - Pope Pius XII, Humani generis

Those who think themselves to be “winners” are those neo-modernists faithful (if we can use this expression) to the line of the founding fathers of the “New Theology,” and particularly to the (tortuous, involved and obscure) line drawn by the Jesuit Henri de Lubac and that of the ex-Jesuit Hans Urs von Balthasar. "The representatives of the New Theology are celebrated as if they constituted the cornerstone of the Church" rightly recorded the famous thinker and writer Dom Jules Meinvielle.

But before presenting you with these "holy fathers" of the post-Conciliar Catholic world, it would be most opportune and useful to briefly illustrate the very essence of the "new theology."

THE SIMPLE PRINCIPLE OF A COMPLEX HERESY

The German priest and theologian Johannes Dörmann, in his best book The Strange Theology of John Paul II and the Spirit of Assisi writes:

Quote:"The 'New Theology,' although many-sided and varied, is really quite simple in its principle, and that is why its multiple forms can be grouped together under the same title. Its different forms ALL HAVE ONE THING IN COMMON: THEIR STUDIED REJECTION OF TRADITIONAL THEOLOGY. (p.55)"

The author then provides us with a concise and effective explanation of what is meant by the "rejection of Traditional theology," referring to the last Council which deemed it necessary to abandon the Church's scholastic language or terminology for "pastoral" motives:

Quote:"The chief theologians (who were actually directing the Council) saw very clearly that in this question of scholastic language, both theology as well as the Faith itself were at stake. For scholastic terminology was indissolubly linked to scholastic philosophy which itself is linked to scholastic theology which is, in its turn, closely knit to the Dogmatic Tradition of the Church." (p.52)

And consequently, this abandoning of scholastic language would end up, in the last analysis, in saying farewell to the Divine and Apostolic Tradition so faithfully kept and guarded by the Church.

Quote:"This rejection or abandonment of the 'language of the Scholastic school' by the Council Fathers (Dörmann writes) constituted for them (those theologians directing the Council) the SINE QUA NON or indispensable condition which would assure a complete rupture from traditional dogmatic teachings, in order to set the 'New Theology' in place after having ceased using 'the previous traditional theology' and discarding it once and for all. (p.53)"

SHEER UTOPIANISM

And just what was the motivation of this dumping of Traditional theology? ...They were motivated by "this simple and seductive idea: a 'New Theology' consonant with modern, scientific characteristics, as well as with the modern image of the world and history. (p.55)"

In other words they were motivated by the old and constantly recurring Utopia of the Church being reconciled with the modern world, that is with modern philosophical thought, and with which Pope Pius IX (Syllabus, Proposition 80) declared that the Church cannot and must not reconcile itself, seeing its essentially anti-Christian character and outlook:""(Modern) men are, in general, strangers to truth and supernatural benefits and graces, thinking as they do to be able to satisfy themselves exclusively by human reason and in the natural order of things as they (vainly) expect to reach in them their own perfection as together with their own happiness" (Vatican I, preparatory outline of Catholic Doctrine).

Quote:"For those partisans of the 'new theology' (Dörmann continues), the slogan, 'aggiornamento' simply meant a resolute opening-up on the part of the Church to modern thought (which is totally alien to Truth as well as supernatural treasures and values) in order to end up with a completely new and different theology from which would be born a new secularized Church, adapted to its modern time. (p.54)"

This is nothing but modernist Utopianism. "Where is the new theology taking us? It is taking us in a straight line to modernism," wrote Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange O.P. in 1946.

And in fact, digging a little more deeply into the matter, we find beneath the simple principle of the new theology, that same perversion of the notion of truth which serves as the very foundation of modernism: "Truth is no more unchangeable than man himself, for it evolves with him, in him and by him. (Pope Saint Pius X, in his Decree Lamentabili, condemned proposition #58)"

From all this, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange O.P. who, laying aside all pretense at prophesying, simply came to these logical conclusions in 1946 (16 years BEFORE Vatican II):
"And where is this New Theology headed with its new masters from whom they seek to draw their inspiration? Where is it heading if not for the road to skepticism, whims and heresy"? ("La nouvelle theologie. Ou va-t-elle?" In Angelicum #23-1946, p.136)

A BLAMEWORTHY UTOPIA

This attempt to reconcile the Church with the "modern world" cannot be considered an innocent utopia. The Magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs, has, over and over again, blocked the way to such moves, particularly Popes Gregory XVI (Mirari Vos, 1832), Pius IX (Syllabus, 1864), Saint Pius X (Pascendi; 1907) and, on the eve of the last Council, Pius XII (Humani Generis, 1950).

In this last encyclical, scorned, disavowed and buried by those very same persona whom it condemned, Pius XII, illustrating the (theological) climate preceding the Council, points out "with anxiety" and clarity the dangers of the "New Theology" which, seeking its basis outside the enduring philosophy, endangers the entire structure of Catholic Dogma. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that Pope Pius XII does not hesitate one moment to underline in red the scorn heaped upon the Magisterium, an underlying scorn borne out by its attitude:

Quote:29. But reason can perform these functions safely and well, only when properly trained, that is, when imbued with that sound philosophy which has long been, as it were, a patrimony handed down by earlier Christian ages, and which moreover possesses an authority of even higher order, since the teaching authority of the Church, in the light of Divine Revelation itself, has weighed its fundamental tenets, which have been elaborated and defined little by little by men of great genius. For this philosophy, acknowledged and accepted by the Church, safeguards the genuine validity of human knowledge, the unshakable metaphysical principles of sufficient reason, causality and finality, and finally the mind's ability to attain certain and unchangeable truth.

30. Of course this philosophy deals with much that neither directly nor indirectly touches faith or morals, and which consequently the Church leaves to the free discussion of experts. But this does not hold for many other things, especially those principles and fundamental tenets to which we have just referred (validity of human knowledge, the unshakable metaphysical principles, etc...). But never may we overthrow it, or contaminate it with false principles, or regard it as a great, but obsolete, relic. For truth and its philosophic expression cannot change from day to day, least of all where there is question of self-evident principles of the human mind or of those propositions which are supported by the wisdom of the ages and by Divine Revelation.

32. How deplorable it is then that this philosophy, received and honored by the Church, is scorned by some who today call it outmoded in form and rationalistic, as they say, in its method of thought. While scorning our philosophy, they extol other philosophies of all kinds, ancient and modern, oriental and occidental, by which they seem to imply that any kind of philosophy or theory, with a few additions and corrections if need be, can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. No Catholic can doubt how false this is, especially where there is question of those fictitious theories they call immanentism, or idealism, or materialism, whether historic or dialectic, or even existentialism, whether atheistic or simply the type that denies the validity of the reason in the field of metaphysics.34. It would indeed be unnecessary to deplore these aberrations from the truth, if all even in the field of philosophy, directed their attention with the proper reverence to the teaching authority of the Church, which by divine institution has the mission not only to guard and interpret the deposit of divinely revealed truth, but also to keep watch over the philosophical sciences themselves, in order that Catholic Dogmas may suffer no harm because of erroneous opinions."

Thus do we see confirmed that which we have been repeating for years: we have irrefutable as well as unmistakable proof that although they are members of the Catholic Hierarchy, the neo-modernists have disobeyed and continue to disobey the constant and therefore infallible Magisterium of the Catholic Church and their own "obedience" which they, in turn, seek to impose in their style of new Church, results in the moral obligation of the true and faithful Catholics to disobey the false orders of their new-style Church.

TRUE AND FALSE "RESTORATION"

From what we have just seen, it logically follows that true restoration can only come by traveling along in a reverse direction from the one which led to the rupture or breaking away from the Doctrinal Tradition of the Church: a return to constant and durable philosophy, and therefore to Scholastic Theology, therefore to the Dogmatic tradition of the Church in faithful obedience to the constant directives and teachings of the Magisterium of all the Popes.

Those neo-modernists following the modern “line” of de Lubac and of von Balthasar are now posing as “moderates and even as “restorers,” but they categorically refuse to repudiate or renounce their “New Theology” from which – whether they like it or not - arose this crisis which today paralyses the life of the Church.

“Our line” (the one we follow) - declared, sure of himself, Fr. Henrici S.J. to (the review) 30 DAYS (December 1991) – “is the one of the extreme centre. No excessive attention (sic!) to the Magisterium, nor CONTENTION. No right, nor left. Attachment to tradition (which in the language or “Newspeak” of de Lubac and of the “new” theologians, is not - as we will see - the Dogmatic tradition of the Church) in the line of the new theology of Lyon (seat of de Lubac as well as that of the other “founding fathers” (of the new theology), which underscored the non-opposition (i.e. identification) between nature and supernature, between faith and culture, and which has become the official theology of Vatican II.”

“That same ‘New Theology’ Pope Pius XII officially condemned in his Encyclical Humani Generis as simply being a whole heap of “false opinions threatening to lay waste the very foundations of Catholic Doctrine!” It is, therefore, even more imperative to bring to light just what is behind the “moderation” of these neo-modernists of the “extreme centre,” yes, but still modernists just the same.

Hirpinus

Translated from Courrier de Rome, March 1993
[Emphasis mine.]

Fr. Henri Charles Chery O.P.: The Art of Confessing

Posted by: Stone - 03-10-2021, 09:59 AM - Forum: Church Doctrine & Teaching - Replies (2)

The Art of Confessing

by Fr Henri Charles Chery O.P.

[A French Dominican Priest who wrote many books in the 1940's and 1950's]

Part I

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-SM...f=1&nofb=1]

THESE WORDS are not addressed to the “big sinners” who come before Christ to relieve themselves of a great burden. They are not even addressed to Catholics who are making their annual Easter confession. But these lessons may be helpful for those people who have the “habit” of weekly, bimonthly or monthly confession.

“Habit” is a colorless word if it signifies only a praiseworthy regularity; it is a cold word if it signifies routine. And sadly, everyone knows that a praiseworthy regularity easily degenerates into something routine.

The majority of penitents lament the miserable banality of their confessions, the small amount of fruit derived, and sometimes even their little interest in the exhortation that the confessor addresses to them when they come to find him. Some have disgust for it, confess only by custom, and finally end up spacing their recourse to the sacrament of penance in a way that is prejudicial to their spiritual progress.

This disgust, and its consequences, do these not come from those who do not know how to confess? There is a manner, an “art,” that could make this regular exercise into a serious means of sanctification.

In writing these lines, we have particularly thought of the numerous young people who seek to live a true Christianity in a generous effort of sincerity. Not yet habituated, they suffer from a horror of routines, and they reject formalities. They are right. But they need to know that formalism is introduced through the fault of the ‘users,’ and I dare say, that it depends on them to keep intact, or lose, their religious vitality, for want of a personal effort.

The rites are conveyors of life, but only to the living.

The use of confession, if it is well understood, can be a serious support for the development of the spiritual life.

But first, since we are going to speak of confession, and nothing but confession [accusation of sins], it is necessary to carefully note that this is not the whole sacrament of penance, that it is not even the principal element. This principal element consists of a regret, an accusation, an absolution, a reparation. The sacrament is constituted essentially by an absolution effacing the fault of a heart that repents. If a penitent, on his deathbed for example, cannot [verbally] express his accusation, the sacrament can [still] take place [even] from this [unspoken] accusation; it cannot take place without regret. God, for His part, can effect the sacrament (in the absence of any priest qualified to give it): (but) He cannot save a soul in spite of itself, or remit a sin that someone obstinately refuses to regret.

Such people for whom the essential seems to be their accusation will do well to remember it. The priest exhorts them to contrition, to the means to be considered so as not to fall back into their fault, but once their accusation has been made they seem not to follow him, distracted as they are by the concern to enunciate such and such other sin that did not initially come to their lips. If it were a matter of a serious fault, it would be normal not to withdraw before expressing it; but most often it is a matter of venial faults. One mainly worries about being complete; but it is necessary above all to be contrite.

Consequently, in the few moments usually spent preparing for confession, it will be good not to give everything to the examination of conscience, but even more to implore the grace of God, in order to obtain a sincere regret for one’s faults, and to express in advance one’s contrition and the intention not to fall again.

To whom am I going to address myself when I go to confession?

First response: to a priest. I am deliberately using this general term to emphasize that the primordial importance in the use of the sacrament of penance must be granted not to the qualities of the man who hears confessions, but to his quality as minister of Christ. Because we lack faith, we excessively attach ourselves to the human value of the confessor, a real, objective value, or a value that attributes to him our sympathy and our confidence.

Whether this is to be taken into consideration is undeniable, but from a point of view which is, so to speak, on the margins of the sacrament.

This comes into play for the counsel that will follow the accusation and precede absolution. But the sacrament is not constituted by this counsel; it can even do without it. The important thing is to deal with the Christ who holds forgiveness, with the living Christ acting in his Church. Every priest who has received from the Church the powers to absolve you validly, acts in persona Christi, in the name of Christ. He opens for your soul the spring of pardon – which is the Blood of the Redeemer Christ – and He washes it in this Blood.

Erroneous for lack of faith is therefore the attitude of such penitents who delay liberating themselves from a serious sin or who indefinitely delay a confession which would release them from a growing malaise (by purifying the infection that spreads little by little) because “their confessor” is not there. If they had an understanding of what the sacrament is – sovereignly valuable in its purifying work, independent of the quality of the confessor who is before all else the “minister of Christ,” that is to say, the ear of Christ to hear the admissions, the wisdom of Christ to judge, and the mouth of Christ to pronounce the remission – they would attach themselves less to the human appearances and not delay at all.

It is appropriate here to mention why I must admit my faults to a priest instead of contenting myself with an admission directly expressed to God in the intimacy of my heart. This is because I am a member of the Church.

My fault has offended God and diminished myself: it is a lack of the love that I owe to my Creator and to the virtuous love that I must show for the child of God that I am. And it also harmed the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. “Every soul that raises itself, raises the world.” Likewise, every Christian who sins upsets the perfection of the Christian community. The most obscure of sins causes a wound to the tree of which I am a branch. Whether I detach myself from the tree completely by mortal sin, or whether I separate myself only a little, the entire tree suffers. I rise from the Church in my vitality, for God has entrusted his graces to the Church for me. I should, therefore, also rise to escape my fault.

In the early centuries this responsibility before the Church was more obvious, since accusation was public and professed before the entire community. Presently, the discipline has softened, but it is always before the Church that I accuse myself – through the person of the priest who hears me, and the Church from which I receive reconciliation through the ministry of the priest who absolves me.

I thus confess to the priest because he is a priest. This does not prevent me from choosing him as humanly capable of understanding and advising me. We are not speaking here, since it is not our aim, of that which is called (a little improperly perhaps) “direction.” Even while remaining strictly on the plane of confession, it is surely better for the progress of the soul if it usually addresses itself to the same confessor. After some time (provided we have followed the advice we shall give later concerning the manner of accusing ourselves), he (the same confessor) knows whom he is dealing with. He knows your tendencies and your habitual weaknesses. Even if you have little to say, he knows what points should be insisted upon in his exhortations. Little by little you have revealed the difficulties with which you are struggling: your particular situation. He does not risk, as would a stranger who does not understand you, perplexing you by an untimely remark. At a difficult moment in your life, he can stop you from making a dangerous fall. And at any time, he is able to suggest to you appropriate decisions to get out of your torpor if you let yourself fall asleep.

How should you choose him?

Above all, he needs good sense and right judgment. Also, holy if this is possible – this is clear – but a balanced and insightful priest will always be preferable to another of a more fervent life with less sound judgment.

Do not forget that you seek a counselor, and that as is the wisdom of the counselor, so is the value of his advice. But as he is also one who leads, you ought to desire that he be demanding. A good-natured confessor who merely lulls you with soothing words or sends you away with absolution and a general exhortation, would risk leaving you to languish in your sin or your serious imperfections.

This is why it is necessary, if need be, to encourage the confessor to this beneficial requirement and to humbly accept his invitations to effort. You will recall that the first condition for him to be useful to you is that you trust him. You can have the best confessor in the city; but if you cannot open yourself up to him frankly, he can do nothing for you. You should thus choose him so that you do not feel paralyzed in his presence and that you readily consider him as a father, perceptive, capable of realizing your situation and to interest himself in it, open to the realities of life, sure in his diagnoses, and of firm goodness in his counsel.

If you do not find him (one such ideal priest), do not be much distressed. Go to a priest1: he has the grace of state. The Holy Ghost will use him anyway for your best good, provided you are listening.

If you do find the ideal priest, do not easily switch from him. While remaining fully free from another choice, do not let yourself be “undone” by a few impressions, all the more by some crushing of self-esteem or by some of his demands. Persevere until you have positive proof that you are making no progress in his school, despite a loyal and constant effort on your part.

(To be continued)

Note:
1. This text was written before Vatican II Council. Today, we must be precise: “a traditional priest validly ordained”. We know that there is a doubt on the validity of the new rite of priestly ordination (look at the letter of Archbishop Lefebvre on our website). There is also a doubt about the validity of the ordinations performed by conciliar bishops, even when they use the traditional rite.

In his sermon of the consecration of four bishops (June 30, 1988), Archbishop Lefebvre said: “If God calls me, from whom will these seminarians receive the priestly ordination: from conciliar bishops whose sacraments are ALL doubtful?

Padre Pio said that the Third Secret of Fatima was about a “False Church”

Posted by: Stone - 03-10-2021, 09:29 AM - Forum: Catholic Prophecy - No Replies

Chief exorcist Father Amorth: Padre Pio said that the third secret of Fatima was about a “false church” in the End Times

Veritas Vincit | July 5, 2017

In a recent article on the “Secret of Fatima”, Steve Skojec, the founder and editor of OnePeterFive, published for the first time in the English language words from Rome’s chief exorcist, Father Gabriele Amorth (d. 2016), about Padre Pio and his knowledge of the Third Secret of Fatima. They come from a newly published book written by José María Zavala, entitled The Best Kept Secret of Fatima (El Sécreto Mejor Guardado de Fátima). Zavala interviewed Father Amorth in 2011, and was instructed to keep the interview secret until after the exorcist’s death.

Fr. Amorth personally knew Saint (Padre) Pio for 26 years, and it is from this towering figure of 20th century Catholic sanctity that he claims to have learned the contents of the Third Secret of Fatima. According to Fr. Amorth, Padre Pio said that the Third Secret pertained to the infiltration of the Vatican by Satan and the rise of a “false church” – details that are not found in the Vatican’s official publication of the Third Secret in 2000.

Below we publish details of the interview with Fr. Amorth:

In the interview, Fr. Amorth relates — as he has done elsewhere — that he does not believe the consecration of the world by Pope John Paul II in 1984 was sufficient to satisfy the requirements set forth by Our Lady.

“There was no such consecration then,” he [Father Amorth] says. “I witnessed the act. I was in St. Peter’s Square that Sunday afternoon, very close to the Pope; so close, I could almost touch him.”

Pressed by Zavala as to why he so forcefully believes that the consecration was not done, Fr. Amorth replied: “Very simple: John Paul II wanted to mention Russia expressly, but in the end he did not.”

Fr. Amorth said further: “I have no doubt that the consecration did not occur on the terms required by the Virgin. But we must not lose sight of what she herself wanted to tell us through Lucia: ‘In the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph.’”

Zavala then asked about the Third Secret: “Forgive me for insisting on the Third Secret of Fatima: Did Padre Pio relate it, then, to the loss of faith within the Church?”

Fr. Gabriele furrows his brow and sticks out his chin. He seems very affected.

“Indeed,” he states, “One day Padre Pio said to me very sorrowfully: ‘You know, Gabriele? It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church.’”

“Oh my God! Some kind of Antichrist! When did he prophesy this to you?” I [Zavala] ask.

“It must have been about 1960, since I was already a priest then.”

“Was that why John XXIII had such a panic about publishing the Third Secret of Fatima, so that the people wouldn’t think that he was the anti-pope or whatever it was …?”

A slight but knowing smile curls the lips of Father Amorth.

“Did Padre Pio say anything else to you about future catastrophes: earthquakes, floods, wars, epidemics, hunger …? Did he allude to the same plagues prophesied in the Holy Scriptures?” [asks Mr. Zavala]

“Nothing of the sort mattered to him, however terrifying they proved to be, except for the great apostasy within the Church. This was the issue that really tormented him and for which he prayed and offered a great part of his suffering, crucified out of love.” [says Fr. Amorth]

“The Third Secret of Fatima?”

“Exactly.”

“Is there any way to avoid something so terrible, Fr. Gabriele?”

“There is hope, but it’s useless if it’s not accompanied by works. Let us begin by consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, let us recite the Holy Rosary, let us all do prayer and penance …"

by Maike Hickson, http://www.onepeterfive.com

[Emphasis - The Catacombs]

The Dangers of the New Mass

Posted by: Stone - 03-10-2021, 08:10 AM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition - No Replies

The Dangers of the New Mass

Taken from the Catholic Apologetics website

"From the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts." (Malachias 1:11)

St. Augustine said: "He who devoutly hears Holy Mass will receive a great vigor to enable him to resist mortal sin, and there shall be pardoned to him all venial sins which he may have committed up to that hour."1

Had satan been aware that Jesus Christ was the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, he would have never pushed for the Crucifixion. Every True Mass reminds him, once again, of his terrible mistake and at the same time it is a vehicle for bestowing infinite grace on mankind. It is no wonder that the devil has an intense hatred for the True Mass.

St. John Fisher said: "He who goes about to take the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass from the Church plots no less a calamity than if he tried to snatch the sun from the universe."2

St. Alphonsus said: "The devil has always attempted, by means of heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of the antichrist, who before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as a punishment for the sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel, 'And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice."3 (Daniel 8:12)

St. Robert Bellarmine said: "When we enter ornate and clean Basilicas, adorned with crosses, sacred images, altars and burning lamps, we most easily conceive devotion. But on the other hand, when we enter the temples of the heretics, where there is nothing except a chair for preaching and a table for making a meal, we feel ourselves to be entering a profane hall and not the House of God."4

Luther's slogan was: "Take away the Mass, destroy the Church."5

St. John Vianney said: "All the good works together are not of equal value with the Sacrifice of the Mass because they are the works of man, and the Holy Mass is the work of God."6

How did we get the Mass?
A general history: In his letter to the Corinthians in the year 88 A.D., Pope St. Clement of Rome (martyr and fourth Pope after St. Peter), wrote that Our Lord laid down the order of the Mass, referring to the Offertory, Consecration and Communion. St. Justin the Martyr (in his writings, 155 A.D.) stated that after His Resurrection, Our Lord taught the Apostles how to say Mass.

Many liturgical historians believe that the writings of St. Clement and St. Justin were expressed in a formal way by St. Ambrose (approximately 360 A.D.) in a book titled, De Sacramentis. De Sacramentis essentially contains the canonized Mass prayers. The Mass prayers appeared in written form only three hundred years after Jesus Christ's death. It was in the 4th century that Latin became the official language of the Church and the word missa was introduced. This was probably introduced by St. Ambrose in the Leonine Sacramentary (Pope St. Leo in 450 A.D.) and the Gelasian Sacramentary (Pope Gelasius I in 498 A.D.). The essential parts of this missal were found to be almost the same as those in the Tridentine Mass. In the year 600 A.D., Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604 A.D.) finished his Gregorian Sacramentary, which is essentially the Mass "codified" by Pope St. Pius V in 1570.7

The True Mass goes back to Apostolic times; and it was "codified", solidified, or set in stone by St. Pope Pius V in his Papal Bull Quo Primum Tempore on July 14, 1570. Pope St. Pius V specified the exact Mass ritual "of and for" the Roman Rite. Only this Liturgy or Ritual was to be used from that time until the end of time (for the Roman Rite). The Canon with the exception of one short clause, inserted by Pope Gregory the Great, had remained unchanged ". . . until 1962, when John XXIII added the name of St. Joseph to the Canon of the Mass. A total of 26 words have been added to the Traditional Canon, by Popes Leo (440-461 A.D.) and St. Gregory the Great (590-604 A.D.). Thus, as the Council of Trent accurately states, the Canon is composed out of the very words of the Lord, the tradition of the Apostles, and the pious institutions of the holy Pontiffs."8

Names Given to the Roman Rite of the Mass
It is called "the Mass of All Times" (because it dates back to the Apostles in its essential elements--though it is eternal in its nature), the "Tridentine Mass" (only because the 16th century Council of Trent <Tridentum in Latin> ordered it to be "codified"), the "Mass of Pius V" (after the Pope who actually "codified" it in 1570), and on occasion (but loosely and incorrectly) "the Latin Mass" (incorrectly because any Rite can be translated into Latin and because the Novus Ordo Missae itself was issued originally in Latin).9 The True Mass should be called the Roman Rite of the Mass. This way there isn't any confusion.

New World Order: New Order of the Mass
In the middle to late 60's, Rome started to have the Mass said in the vernacular and then in 1970, Paul VI gave us a whole new rite of Mass called the "Novus Ordo Missae". It is not by chance that the enemies of the True Faith who are building "a Novus Ordo Seclorum" (a new world order) would establish "a Novus Ordo Missae" (a new order of the Mass) to destroy the Roman Catholic Church. Even in the original Latin form, the New Mass was bad enough, but after going to the vernacular through the International Committee on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), disaster ensued, and the questions of validity were justified. A total of 35 prayers or approximately 70% of the Tridentine Mass has been replaced or discarded.10

Ambiguous, Wishful Thinking; Binding No One
Here is what Paul VI put in the new Roman Missal on April 3, 1969: #13 "We hope that the Missal will be received by the Faithful" and #15 "We wish that these, our decrees and prescriptions, may be firm and effective."11 To impose a law the Pope must make it clear to the Church that a Law is being imposed, or that he is binding the Church to use this New Mass. He did not do so. What Paul VI did had nothing to do with the Church's indefectibility or the Pope's infallibility. Paul VI said on November 19, 1969: "This Rite (New Mass) and its related rubrics are not in themselves a dogmatic definition."12 Paul VI did not and could not change the Roman Rite of the Mass.

The People Supersede the Priest as the Indispensable Element
It is not necessary to examine all four of the Eucharistic prayers in the New Mass. However, let's look at Eucharistic Prayer #3: The following words are addressed to the Lord:

Quote: "From age to age you gather a people to yourself, in order that from East and West a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your Name."13

This phrase makes it clear that it is the people, rather than the priest, who are the indispensable element in the celebration. In the Encyclical Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII condemned the statement that "the eucharistic sacrifice" is an authentic concelebration of the priest as well as of the people present.

Biblical Prefigurement of True and False Worship
The purpose of the True Mass is the praise and adoration of Almighty God through the Sacrifice of Christ, who is the invisible priest and victim. The difference between the New Mass and the True Mass is the difference between Cain and Abel. We are told: "The Lord had respect to Abel and to his offerings. But to Cain and his offerings, He had no respect" (Gen. 4:3-5). At the beginning of human history, the two brothers set the pattern of true and false religious observance for all time. One was an immolation in expiation of sin, the other merely a friendly exchange of gifts between man and God. One was acceptable, the other was not.14 It has been said that in countries, such as Poland, the Communist Party uses their "inspectors of religion," to keep under surveillance those priests who say the True Mass, but they leave alone those who say the New Mass.15

Freemasonry Wields the Axe to the Root
"Archbishop Bugnini was a consultant in the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, and in the Sacred Congregation of Holy Rites. He was also the chairman of the Concilium which drafted the Novus Ordo Missae. Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was a freemason, initiated into the Masonic Lodge on April 23, 1963 (Masonic Register of Italy dated 1976). Monsignor Bugnini was removed from his office in the Vatican when it became public that he was a Mason. And instead of being publicly reproved, or required to renounce his Masonic membership, he was appointed Papal Nuncio to Iran."16

The president of this Concilium was Cardinal Lecaro, a man whom Cardinal Bacci called, "Luther resurrected."17 When we discuss the New Mass we must consider the authors. Whereas Paul VI was formally and juridically responsible, it was actually composed by the Concilium, which consisted of some 200 individuals, many of whom had functioned as periti ("expert theologians") during Vatican Council II.

The Concilium was helped by six Protestant 'observers' (ministers) who played a huge part in developing the New Mass. ". . . Paul VI publicly thanked them for their assistance in re-editing in a new manner liturgical texts ... so that the lex orandi (the law of prayer) conformed better with the lex credendi (the law of belief)."18 You need a new liturgy for a new religion. The New Mass is the new law of non-Catholic belief.

Attempting the Destruction of the Roman Rite
Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote:

Quote:"The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic Liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass."19

Tearing the Heart Out of The Roman Rite
Judging the Novus Ordo Missae (New Mass) in itself, in its official Latin form, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote to Paul VI on Sept. 25, 1969:

Quote:"The Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent."20

Of the 12 Offertory prayers in the Traditional Rite, only two are retained in the New Mass.21 And of interest is the fact that the deleted prayers are the same ones that Luther and Cranmer eliminated. Why did they eliminate them? Because, as Luther said, the "smacked of Sacrifice . . . the abomination called the offertory, and from this point on almost everything stinks of oblation."22 The Offertory and Consecration are the very heart of the True Mass.

Anything But A Sacrifice
Martin Luther said:

Quote:"The Mass is not a sacrifice ... call it Benediction, Eucharist, the Lord's Table, the Lord's Supper, Memory of the Lord or whatever you like, just so long as you do not dirty it with the name of a Sacrifice."23

16th century Protestant reformer, Thomas Cranmer said:

Quote:"The use of an altar is to make sacrifice upon; the use of a table to serve men to eat upon."24

When you line up the New Mass with the Anglican schismatic Book of Common Prayer (1549), they are almost identical; in fact, the Book of Common Prayer is more reverent than the New Mass.

The Law of Prayer Establishes the Law of Belief
Christopher Monchton informs us that in the English version of the New Mass there are over 400 mistranslations from the Latin.25

Almost 100 percent of the new Masses around the world are said in the vernacular. Just changing the Mass into vernacular is, in itself, condemned. Session 12, Canon 9 of the Council of Trent says: "If anyone says ... that the Mass should be said in vernacular only, let him be anathema."26

Constitution, "Auctorem Fidei," August 28, 1794, Pope Pius VI (1775-1799) The Suitable Order to Be Observed in Worship #33. The proposition of the Synod condemns the following in regard to the Mass:

Quote:"by recalling it (the Liturgy) to a greater simplicity of Rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice."

These changes were condemned by Pope Pius VI as "rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it."27

The New Mass is Pleasing to Protestant and Jew alike. In the Offertory of the New Mass the priest says precisely the same words as those which are used in the Jewish seder service. These are the words:

Quote:"Blessed art thou, O Lord God of all creation. For through your goodness we have this bread to offer, fruit of the earth and work of human hands it will become for us the bread of life. This wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands it will become for us our spiritual drink."28

It's frightening to think that the Offertory of the New Mass is taken word for word from the seder meal of the Jewish holiday of Passover. In the New Mass the Priest offers bread and wine; however, in the True Mass, the Priest offers the Immaculate Victim. It is a blasphemy to offer God bread and wine.

In the Novus Ordo Requiem Masses (the Mass for the Dead), the word "Soul" is not mentioned even once.29

Paul VI said on May 24, 1976:

Quote:"The New Ordo has been promulgated to replace the old after mature deliberation and in order to fulfill the Council's decisions."30

Canon 6 of the Council of Trent says:

Quote:"If anyone says that there are errors in the Canon of the Mass and that therefore it should be abrogated: let him be anathema."31

Back at the Council of Trent, in Session 22, the Council Fathers realized that the Mass was being attacked, and they basically said, "Let's make sure the Mass remains intact." After the Council, Quo Primum forever defined the liturgical morals - the Mass Liturgies, both Eastern and Roman.

Quo Primum
St. Pope Pius V said dogmatically and infallibly in Quo Primum that:

Quote:"It shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by us."

The Decree of Quo Primum was irrevocable, and Pope St. Pius V went on further to state in Quo Primum:

Quote:"This present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of Law . . . And if, nevertheless, anyone would ever dare attempt any action contrary to this Order of ours, handed down for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God, and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."32 (July 14, 1570)

Binding Peter's Successors
But, can one Pope change what another Pope has done? In pastoral matters, yes; in matters of Faith, No! When we talk about the Liturgy we are talking about the Faith. Quo Primum was not a discipline. It dealt directly with Faith and morals.

Faith and Morals

Faith: What you must believe to be saved.
Social Morals: How man behaves towards other men.
Liturgical Morals: How man behaves towards God.

Liturgy is not arbitrary or dispensable. The Liturgy is the essence of Catholic Faith.

Wrath Foretold For Those Who Destroy the Immemorial Mass

The Bull on witchcraft by Pope Innocent VIII demonstrates that Quo Primum was infallible. The Bull's language is not nearly as strong as Quo Primum, but ends with these words:

Quote:"If any man dare to go contrary to this command, which God forbid, let him know that upon him will fall the wrath of Almighty God, and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

These are the exact words used in Quo Primum at the end.

In the introduction to the 1928 Catholic Encyclopedia it says (speaking about Innocent VIII's Bull):

Quote:"If any man shall presume to go against the tenor let him know that therein he will bring down the wrath of Almighty God and The Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

The commentary afterwards says: "Could words weightier be found?"

Defining Truth and Binding the Faithful
The Encyclopedia goes on to say:

Quote:"Are we then to class this Bull in with the Bull Dogmatica Ineffabilis Deus where Pope Pius IX proclaimed the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception? Such a position is clearly tenable, but even if we do not insist that the Bull of Innocent VIII is an infallible utterance, that it does not in set terms define a Dogma, although it does set forth sure and certain truths, it must be held to be a document of supreme and absolute authority, of dogmatic force."

Pope Pius XI said in his apostolic constitution "Divini Cultus" on December 20, 1928, addressing the connection of the Sacred Liturgy with the Church:

Quote: "The Liturgy is an undoubtedly sacred thing; for through it we are brought to God and are joined with Him; we bear witness to our Faith . . . Hence a kind of intimate relationship between Dogma and Sacred Liturgy, and likewise between Christian worship and the sanctification of the people. Therefore, Pope Celestine I proposed and expressed a Canon of Faith in the venerated formulas of the Liturgy: "Let the Law of Supplication, (prayer) establish the Law of Believing . . ."33

Anathemas Against the New Missal
7th Session, Canon 13 of the Council of Trent: The correct Latin translation says:

Quote:"If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, customarily used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments, can be despised or can be freely omitted by the ministers without sin, or can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whomsoever, let him be anathema."34

This canon states very clearly that the Pope, who is the first and supreme pastor may never change any approved Rite of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Rite was fixed forever by Pope St. Pius V in Quo Primum. Paul VI tried to establish a whole new Roman Rite. There is only one Roman Rite of the Mass; there cannot be two.

In the Profession of Faith in the Council of Trent, the following was always professed by the priest begin ordained; he promises and vows:

Quote:"I also receive and admit the accepted and approved rites of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of all the aforesaid Sacraments."35

It is indisputable that according to the previous pronouncements of the Church that the New Mass is illegal, and therefore cannot be celebrated or attended. The issue of whether there is a valid consecration in the New Mass is another question which we will now address.

The Requirements for Validity
In the decree to the Armenians in the Council of Florence, it states the following:

Quote:"All these Sacraments are dispensed in three ways, namely, by things as the matter, by words as the form, and by the person of the minister conferring the Sacrament with the intention of doing as the Church does; if any of these is lacking the Sacrament is not fulfilled."36

Minister, Intention, Matter, and Form
The four main things necessary for a valid celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

minister: The celebrant must be a validly ordained priest.
intention: The celebrant must have the intention of confecting the Sacrament.
matter: The elements of the Mass must be wheaten bread and grape wine, made without additives.
form: The proper form (words) of consecration must be used.

According to the Council of Trent, these requirements cannot be altered by anyone, not even the Church itself, since they were established by Christ.

Is the New Mass Valid?
Let's first cover the issue as to whether the New Mass is valid by reviewing the vernacular. In most every vernacular translation of the New Mass, the words "many" have been changed to "all" in the Consecration. This is not a minor change! It will be argued that in the New Mass the priest says, "This is My Body" which are the same words used in the Tridentine Mass and so, if we use the right words for the Consecration of the Body, "This is My Body," we have a Sacrament. They do not believe anything else is required. Those who hold to this position ignore the defects in the "form" of the New Mass (essential words needed to confect the Sacrament).

Furthermore, they ignore the fact that the words in the form of the New Mass, while themselves essential to the form of the Sacrament, do not constitute the complete form of the Sacrament. Others will argue that both consecrations are not imperative to have a valid Sacrament. This is also contrary to the teaching of the Church. The proper intention necessary is an intention to confect not one, but both Sacraments. This is essential for a valid celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Both Consecrations are Necessary for a Valid Mass
St. Thomas Aquinas says:

Quote:"As often as the Sacrifice is offered, the consecration of both species is required, according to the will and institution of Christ. For Christ at the Last Supper, consecrating each (both) species, commanded: 'Do this in commemoration of me' . . . the very notion of sacrifice . . . demands the consecration of both species.37

De Defectibus
De Defectibus is a long document written by Pope St. Pius V which discusses certain defects which could arise in the celebration of Mass. It is largely a point of reference so the celebration of Mass would remain the same in all lands for all times. Defects were described in detail so that priests would always say Mass in the same manner.

Quo Primum and De Defectibus emanated from the Council of Trent. Both of these documents were found in the front of all Altar Missals as an easy reference for priest offering the Holy Mass. Quo Primum and De Defectibus were first included in the Missale Romanum in 1572. They were deleted from the ICEL (Committee on English in the Liturgy) version in 1969.

De Defectibus Chapter X, Part 3, prescribes that a Mass interrupted after the Consecration of the Host (because of illness or death of the celebrant) must be continued by another priest, i.e., that the wine must be consecrated to complete and effect the Sacrifice.

In the 1917 Code, Canon 817 states:

Quote:"It is unlawful even in the case of necessity, to consecrate one species without the other, or to consecrate both outside the Mass."

The complete form or words of Consecration needed for a valid Sacrament were clearly stated in the Council of Florence.

The Council of Florence, in 1442, declared that the following words must be used for a valid Consecration in the Mass:

Quote:"Wherefore the words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: 'For this is My Body: For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins."38

Various Mass Rites: "For Many" or "For All"
". . . The Church hast traditionally recognized as valid -- some 76 different rites in various languages, many of which date back to Apostolic times, not one however, has ever used "all" in the form for the Consecration of the Wine."39

Even the Anglican Common Prayer Book of 1549 didn't change the word "many to "all" in the consecration and it was still declared by Pope Leo XIII to be invalid.

Little Words and Letters Can Mean a Lot
Some people may say that discarding or changing a word or words in the Mass isn't a big deal. Church history has proven that little words, even little letters, can mean a lot.

The combats sustained by the Nicean Fathers against the Arians over the definition of the dogma of the Incarnation are witness to the uncompromising zeal for stating the truth without shade of alteration, gloss, or ambiguity which the faith demand in a time of crisis. Major differences could have been settled at that time by the addition of one single letter. The problematic homoousios denoting "consubstantial" needed only have been softened to homoiousios denoting "similar in nature."40

Jesus Christ, The Word of God has Spoken
Luke 16:17: "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the Law to fall."

Matthew 5:18: "For Amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth shall pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the Law, till all be fulfilled."

Our Lord Jesus Christ did not use the word "all" in the upper room in Matthew 26:26. He used the word "many." God help the New Order priest who uses the words which are different from the words that Jesus Christ used.

Perpetual Teaching of the Universal Church
The Church has always taught that the word "all", for very specific reasons, is purposely not used in the Consecration!

St. Alphonsus tells us:

Quote:"The words pro vobis et pro multis (for you and for many) are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the blood of Our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men but its fruits are applied only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault."41

Or, as the theologians say, this Precious Blood is sufficient to save all men, but in reality it does not save all -- it saves only those who cooperate with Grace.

The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is not a Sacrament for all men; it is a Sacrament for you and for many.

The Catechism by Decree of The Holy Council of Trent teaches that the additional words:

Quote:"for you and for many, are taken, some from St. Matthew, some from St. Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God . . . With reason, therefore, were the words 'for all' not used, as in this place the fruits of the passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation."42

St. Thomas Aquinas expressed the same opinion in the Summa, III, Q78, Art. 4, Reply to Objection 8. Pope Benedict XIV also expressed this opinion in De Missae Sacrificio.

Doubtful Consecration; Must Not Participate
Just for the reason that there is a doubtful Consecration in the New Mass, Catholics are obliged to abstain from any participation in such rites. Fr. Jone's Moral Theology, Chapter under the Efficacy of the Sacraments Part IV #2, states under examples:

Quote:"To administer or receive a Sacrament invalidly is a much greater sin than to administer or receive it unfruitfully."43

Pope Innocent XI, in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679, condemned the idea that a person could follow a probable opinion regarding the value of a sacrament and abandon the safer course.44 Pope Innocent XI condemned this thinking not once, but twice!

Pope Innocent XI
Errors of Michael of Molinos (Condemned in the decree of the Sacred Office, August 28, 1687, and in the Constitutions "Coelestis Pastor," Nov. 20, 1687)45

Quote:11. It is not necessary to reflect upon doubts whether one is proceeding rightly or not." (Condemned)46

"Condemned as heretical, suspect, erroneous, scandalous, blasphemous, offensive to pious ears, rash, or relaxed Christian discipline, subversive, and seditious respectively."47

Fr. Henry Davis says in his Moral and Pastoral Theology Vol. 2 p. 27:

Quote:"In conferring the Sacrament, as also in the Consecration in the Mass, it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course. The contrary was explicitly condemned by Pope Innocent XI (1676-1689); to do so would be a grievous sin against religion, namely an act of irreverence towards what Christ Our Lord has instituted."48

"It would be a grievous sin against Charity, as the recipient would probably be deprived of the graces and effects of the Sacrament. It would be a grievous sin against Justice, as the recipient has a right to valid Sacraments. Matter and form must be certainly valid. Hence, one may not follow a probable opinion and use either doubtful matter or form. Acting otherwise, one commits a sacrilege."49

That is one reason why the New Mass is a sacrilege.

Sacrilege By Which He is Offended
The New Mass is a sacrilege because it is a deliberate counterfeit of the established Mass of the Roman Rite. The True Mass was given a definite and unchangeable form by St. Pope Pius V so sacrilege could be avoided and condemned.

St. Thomas Aquinas describes a sacrilege:

Quote:"In a sacrilege, we find a special type of deformation, namely the violation of a sacred thing by treating it with irreverence." (Summa. II Q. 99, Art. 2)

What Part Does Truth Have With Error?
If the Novus Ordo Missae is not Catholic, then it cannot satisfy one's Sunday obligation, and would be a grievous sin to attend. St. Thomas Aquinas said:

Quote: "Falsehood in outward worship occurs on the part of the worshipper, and especially, in common worship which is offered by minister impersonating the whole Church. For even as he would be guilty of falsehood who would, in the name of another person, proffer things that are not committed to him, so too does man incur the guilt of falsehood who, on the part of the Church gives worship to God contrary to the manner established by the Church or Divine Authority, and according to the ecclesiastical custom. Hence, St. Ambrose says: "He is unworthy who celebrates the mystery otherwise than as Christ delivered it."50

Pope Innocent III, one of the greatest jurists, said:

Quote:"No one may depart from the universal customs of the Church."51

Saint Pope Pius X said in Pascendi Dominic Gregis:

Quote:"For Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the Second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those who dare, after the impious novelties of some kind or to endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow anyone of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church."

The English Martyrs' Blood Testifies Against the New Mass

The New Mass is strikingly similar to the service instituted by Cranmer (the liturgist of Henry VIII) following the Protestant Reformation. Pope St. Pius V told Catholics, at that time, that they were forbidden to attend such services. In fact, many went to their death rather than go to the churches where Cranmer's form of prayer was being said. If true Catholics went to their death rather than attend a mass such as the Novus Ordo, the response of the faithful today must be the same.

A New Liturgy For A New Religion
You need a new liturgy for a new religion. Just because the original Novus Ordo Missae had a few similarities to the True Mass, that doesn't make it Catholic. Consider the following description of the early Lutheran service, as given by the great Jesuit scholar, Hartmann Grisar:

Quote:"One who entered the parish church at Wittenburg after Luther's 'victory' discovered that the same vestments were used for divine service as before, and heard the same old Latin hymns. The host was elevated and exhibited at the consecration. In the eyes of the people it was the same Mass as before, despite the fact that Luther omitted all the prayers which represented the sacred function of the Sacrifice. The people were intentionally kept in the dark on this point. 'We cannot draw the common people away from the Sacrament, and it will probably be thus until the Gospel is well understood,' said Luther. 'The rite of celebration of the Mass,' he explained, is a 'purely external thing,' and he said further that 'the damnable words referring to the Sacrifice could be omitted all the more readily, since the ordinary Christian would not notice the omission and hence there was no danger of scandal.'"52

The Morality of the New Mass
The Council of Trent, Canons on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 3 says:

Quote:"If anyone says that the Sacrifice of the Mass is merely an offering of praise and thanksgiving, or that it is a simple memorial of the Sacrifice offered on the Cross, and that it should not be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfaction, and other necessities: let him be anathema."53

The New Mass is only an offering of praise and thanksgiving. At the New Mass anything can and does go. If the only church in town happened to be a protestant church, a Catholic surely could not attend services there. The same principle applies to the New Mass. Since it is not a Catholic Mass, a Catholic has no business being there. In fact, in most churches the New Mass would not even qualify to be a Protestant service. Many New Masses have laughing, joking, clapping, singing, dancing, hugging, kissing, flutes, guitars, charismatics calling up spirits, homosexual priests, Eucharistic ministers, communion in the hand, immodest dress, no dresses, no head coverings, no reverence, etc...

As the Antichrist will be so evil because he will claim to be the Real Jesus and will not be, so the New Mass is evil because it claims to be the Real Mass and is not. The New Mass is a deliberate counterfeit of the True Mass, and a non-Catholic service. It is very clear that according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church it would be a grievous sin to attend the New Mass. This is why the New Mass is deadly.

Notes

1. St. Leonard, The Hidden Treasure , p. 157
2. Rev. T. E. Bridgett, The Life of Blessed John Fisher (London: Burns & Oates, 1888). Bishop St. John Fisher was martyred, along with St. Thomas More, by Henry VIII in 1535.
3. St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Dignities and Duties Of The Priest (London: Benzinger Bros., 1889), p. 212.
4. Octava Controversia Generalis. Liber Ii. Controversia Quinta. Caput XXXI.
5. Fr. Paul Trinchard, Holy Mass, Holy Mary (MAETA: P.O. Box 6012, Metairie, LA, 1997), p. 41.
6. St. Leonard, The Hidden Treasure , p. 157
7. Fr. Paul Trinchard, Holy Mass, Holy Mary (MAETA: P.O. Box 6012, Metairie, LA, 1997), p. 4,5.
8. Dr. Rara Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, p. 11.
9. Ibid, p. 9.
10. Fr. Paul Trinchard, New Mass in Light of the Old (MAETA: P.O. Box 6012, Metairie, LA, 1995), p. 20.
11. Fr. James Wathen, The Great Sacrilege, p. 178, 179.
12. Fr. Paul Trinchard, Novus Ordo Condemned (MAETA: P.O. Box 6012, Metairie, LA, 1997), p. 34.
13. Comment of Fr. Joseph Jungmann, the Mass: An Historical, Theological And Pastoral Survey (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1976), p. 201.
14. Solange Hertz, On the Contrary (Veritas Press, Box 1704, Santa Monica, CA), p. 50.
15. Most Asked Questions About The Society Of Saint Pius X (Angelus Press, 2918 Tracy Ave., Kansas City, MO), p. 26.
16. Fr. James Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?, p. 178, 179.
17. La Tunica Stracciata by Tito Casini, Rome 1967 / Fr. Paul Leonard, A Theological Vindication Of Roman Catholic Traditionalism (Angelus Press, 2918 Tracy Ave., Kansas City, MO), p. 43.
18. Dr. Rara Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass , p. 24.
19. Latin Mass Magazine, Winter, 1995 / Christian Order, Oct. 1994.
20. Most Asked Questions About The Society Of Saint Pius X (Angelus Press, 2918 Tracy Ave., Kansas City, MO), p. 26.
21. Msgr. Frederick McManus, The Revival of the Liturgy, p. 217.
22. Dr. Rara Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass , p. 34.
23. Ibid., p. 29.
24. The Works of Thomas Cranmer (London: Parker Society), V. 2, p. 524.
25. Faith, Nov 1979.
26. Denzinger 956.
27. Denzinger 1533.
28. Fr. Donald Sanborn, Changes of Vatican II, Part IV (Catholic Restoration Bookstore, 2850 Parent, Warren, MI).
29. Fr. Anthony Cekada, "A Response", The Roman Catholic, Jan. 1987.
30. Fr. James Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?, p. 523.
31. Denzinger 953.
32. Fr. James Wathen, The Great Sacrilege, p. 173-175.
33. Denzinger 2200.
34. Denzinger 856.
35. Denzinger 996.
36. Denzinger 695.
37. De Eucharistia, Noldin-Schmitt, S. J., in "Summa Theologiae Moralis," III Innsbruck, 1940.
38. Denzinger 715.
39. Dr. Rara Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass , p. 55.
40. Solange Hertz, On the Contrary (Veritas Press, Box 1704, Santa Monica, CA), p. 75.
41. St. Alphonsus, Treatise On The Holy Eucharist
42. Patrick Henry Omlor, Questioning The Validity Of The Masses Using The New, All-English Canon (Athanasius Press; Reno, NV), p. 59.
43. Fr. Heribet Jone, Moral Theology (The Neumann Press, Westminster, MD, 1952), p. 311.
44. Denzinger 1151.
45. Denzinger p. 331.
46. Denzinger 1231.
47. Denzinger 1288.
48. Fr. Henry Davis, S. J., Moral And Pastoral Theology (London: Sheed And Ward, 1936), V. 2, p. 27.
49. Fr. Heribet Jone, Moral Theology (The Neumann Press, Westminster, MD, 1952), p. 323.
50. Dr. Rara Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass , p. 86.
51. Innocent III, de Consuetudine Theol. II-II, 104-105.
52. Dr. Rara Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass , p. 18.
53. Denzinger 950.

[Emphasis - The Catacombs]

The Dangers of the New Mass

Posted by: Stone - 03-10-2021, 08:10 AM - Forum: New Rite Sacraments - Replies (9)

The Dangers of the New Mass

Taken from the Catholic Apologetics website

Quote: "From age to age you gather a people to yourself, in order that from East and West a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your Name."13

Quote:"The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic Liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass."19

Tearing the Heart Out of The Roman Rite
Judging the Novus Ordo Missae (New Mass) in itself, in its official Latin form, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote to Paul VI on Sept. 25, 1969:

Quote:"The Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent."20

Quote:"The Mass is not a sacrifice ... call it Benediction, Eucharist, the Lord's Table, the Lord's Supper, Memory of the Lord or whatever you like, just so long as you do not dirty it with the name of a Sacrifice."23

16th century Protestant reformer, Thomas Cranmer said:

Quote:"The use of an altar is to make sacrifice upon; the use of a table to serve men to eat upon."24

Quote:"by recalling it (the Liturgy) to a greater simplicity of Rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice."

Quote:"Blessed art thou, O Lord God of all creation. For through your goodness we have this bread to offer, fruit of the earth and work of human hands it will become for us the bread of life. This wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands it will become for us our spiritual drink."28

Quote:"The New Ordo has been promulgated to replace the old after mature deliberation and in order to fulfill the Council's decisions."30

Canon 6 of the Council of Trent says:

Quote:"If anyone says that there are errors in the Canon of the Mass and that therefore it should be abrogated: let him be anathema."31

Quote:"It shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by us."

The Decree of Quo Primum was irrevocable, and Pope St. Pius V went on further to state in Quo Primum:

Quote:"This present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of Law . . . And if, nevertheless, anyone would ever dare attempt any action contrary to this Order of ours, handed down for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God, and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."32 (July 14, 1570)

Quote:"If any man dare to go contrary to this command, which God forbid, let him know that upon him will fall the wrath of Almighty God, and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

These are the exact words used in Quo Primum at the end.

In the introduction to the 1928 Catholic Encyclopedia it says (speaking about Innocent VIII's Bull):

Quote:"If any man shall presume to go against the tenor let him know that therein he will bring down the wrath of Almighty God and The Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

The commentary afterwards says: "Could words weightier be found?"

Defining Truth and Binding the Faithful
The Encyclopedia goes on to say:

Quote:"Are we then to class this Bull in with the Bull Dogmatica Ineffabilis Deus where Pope Pius IX proclaimed the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception? Such a position is clearly tenable, but even if we do not insist that the Bull of Innocent VIII is an infallible utterance, that it does not in set terms define a Dogma, although it does set forth sure and certain truths, it must be held to be a document of supreme and absolute authority, of dogmatic force."

Pope Pius XI said in his apostolic constitution "Divini Cultus" on December 20, 1928, addressing the connection of the Sacred Liturgy with the Church:

Quote: "The Liturgy is an undoubtedly sacred thing; for through it we are brought to God and are joined with Him; we bear witness to our Faith . . . Hence a kind of intimate relationship between Dogma and Sacred Liturgy, and likewise between Christian worship and the sanctification of the people. Therefore, Pope Celestine I proposed and expressed a Canon of Faith in the venerated formulas of the Liturgy: "Let the Law of Supplication, (prayer) establish the Law of Believing . . ."33

Anathemas Against the New Missal
7th Session, Canon 13 of the Council of Trent: The correct Latin translation says:

Quote:"If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, customarily used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments, can be despised or can be freely omitted by the ministers without sin, or can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whomsoever, let him be anathema."34

Quote:"I also receive and admit the accepted and approved rites of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of all the aforesaid Sacraments."35

Quote:"All these Sacraments are dispensed in three ways, namely, by things as the matter, by words as the form, and by the person of the minister conferring the Sacrament with the intention of doing as the Church does; if any of these is lacking the Sacrament is not fulfilled."36

Quote:"As often as the Sacrifice is offered, the consecration of both species is required, according to the will and institution of Christ. For Christ at the Last Supper, consecrating each (both) species, commanded: 'Do this in commemoration of me' . . . the very notion of sacrifice . . . demands the consecration of both species.37

Quote:"It is unlawful even in the case of necessity, to consecrate one species without the other, or to consecrate both outside the Mass."

Quote:"Wherefore the words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: 'For this is My Body: For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins."38

Quote:"The words pro vobis et pro multis (for you and for many) are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the blood of Our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men but its fruits are applied only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault."41

Quote:"for you and for many, are taken, some from St. Matthew, some from St. Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God . . . With reason, therefore, were the words 'for all' not used, as in this place the fruits of the passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation."42

Quote:"To administer or receive a Sacrament invalidly is a much greater sin than to administer or receive it unfruitfully."43

Quote:11. It is not necessary to reflect upon doubts whether one is proceeding rightly or not." (Condemned)46

Quote:"In conferring the Sacrament, as also in the Consecration in the Mass, it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course. The contrary was explicitly condemned by Pope Innocent XI (1676-1689); to do so would be a grievous sin against religion, namely an act of irreverence towards what Christ Our Lord has instituted."48

"It would be a grievous sin against Charity, as the recipient would probably be deprived of the graces and effects of the Sacrament. It would be a grievous sin against Justice, as the recipient has a right to valid Sacraments. Matter and form must be certainly valid. Hence, one may not follow a probable opinion and use either doubtful matter or form. Acting otherwise, one commits a sacrilege."49

Quote:"In a sacrilege, we find a special type of deformation, namely the violation of a sacred thing by treating it with irreverence." (Summa. II Q. 99, Art. 2)

What Part Does Truth Have With Error?
If the Novus Ordo Missae is not Catholic, then it cannot satisfy one's Sunday obligation, and would be a grievous sin to attend. St. Thomas Aquinas said:

Quote: "Falsehood in outward worship occurs on the part of the worshipper, and especially, in common worship which is offered by minister impersonating the whole Church. For even as he would be guilty of falsehood who would, in the name of another person, proffer things that are not committed to him, so too does man incur the guilt of falsehood who, on the part of the Church gives worship to God contrary to the manner established by the Church or Divine Authority, and according to the ecclesiastical custom. Hence, St. Ambrose says: "He is unworthy who celebrates the mystery otherwise than as Christ delivered it."50

Pope Innocent III, one of the greatest jurists, said:

Quote:"No one may depart from the universal customs of the Church."51

Saint Pope Pius X said in Pascendi Dominic Gregis:

Quote:"For Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the Second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those who dare, after the impious novelties of some kind or to endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow anyone of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church."

Quote:"One who entered the parish church at Wittenburg after Luther's 'victory' discovered that the same vestments were used for divine service as before, and heard the same old Latin hymns. The host was elevated and exhibited at the consecration. In the eyes of the people it was the same Mass as before, despite the fact that Luther omitted all the prayers which represented the sacred function of the Sacrifice. The people were intentionally kept in the dark on this point. 'We cannot draw the common people away from the Sacrament, and it will probably be thus until the Gospel is well understood,' said Luther. 'The rite of celebration of the Mass,' he explained, is a 'purely external thing,' and he said further that 'the damnable words referring to the Sacrifice could be omitted all the more readily, since the ordinary Christian would not notice the omission and hence there was no danger of scandal.'"52

The Morality of the New Mass
The Council of Trent, Canons on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 3 says:

Quote:"If anyone says that the Sacrifice of the Mass is merely an offering of praise and thanksgiving, or that it is a simple memorial of the Sacrifice offered on the Cross, and that it should not be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfaction, and other necessities: let him be anathema."53

A Refutation of Sedevacantism

Posted by: Stone - 03-10-2021, 07:02 AM - Forum: Sedevacantism - No Replies

This Refutation was published by the Knights of Our Lady and promoted by the Dominicans of Avrillé.

It is available for download here: http://www.dominicansavrille.us/wp-conte...antism.pdf

April 18th - Blessed Mary of the Incarnation and St. Apollonius

Posted by: Elizabeth - 03-09-2021, 11:05 PM - Forum: April - Replies (1)

[Image: marieincarnation-for-main-page.jpg]

Blessed Mary of the Incarnation
Carmelite
(1565-1618)

Blessed Mary of the Incarnation was born in Paris in February 1565; both of her parents were members of the most ancient families of that great city. Before she was born, several other children had seen the light of day, but all died in their infancy. During the time her mother awaited this child, she vowed her to the Blessed Virgin and Saint Claude, promising to clothe her in white until the age of seven and to offer her in a church of the Blessed Virgin. She was born a very healthy babe, and baptized with the name of Barbara, on the day after the Purification of Our Lady. She was of a gentle temperament and an angelic modesty, and at the age of eleven was placed as a intern student in a religious house of the Order of Saint Clare near Paris, where she had a maternal aunt. She continually advanced in virtue and felt great distaste for all the things of this world, along with an insatiable ardor for those of heaven.

When she returned home at the age of fourteen, she wished to enter a religious Order for the care of the sick in Paris, but her parents opposed this plan. Her mother informed her she would never permit her to become a nun. The young girl believed God was speaking to her through her mother and obeyed.

Several offers of marriage were presented, and before her eighteenth birthday she married Pierre Acarie de Villemor, a man of great nobility, piety and charity. Six children were born to them, and their pious mother raised them with great care. She taught them never to complain of circumstances or persons, inspired in them horror for lying, and strove to make them recognize in their hearts any sentiments of vainglory. Her three daughters became Carmelites, and her three sons entered, in turn, the magistracy, the priesthood and the military career.
When her husband encountered difficulties of a political nature, his household was seized, and the very furniture where the family was seated at table was removed from beneath them. She accepted these circumstances without growing troubled, and in fact defended her husband in court, drafting memoirs, writing letters and furnishing proofs of his innocence. He was acquitted and enabled to return to the city after three years.

Blessed Mary was so sage in her almsgiving that during a famine the wealthy persons who desired to help the poor caused their alms to pass through her hands, and this holy woman was universally honored. She entered into the spirit of the current reforms of the religious Orders and the foundation of new Congregations which were reviving the spirit of piety in France. Through her efforts she merited the title of Foundress of the Carmelites in France. Six nuns from Spain brought the spirit of Saint Teresa with them, and soon the principal cities of France had a house of this Order. Blessed Mary of the Incarnation also contributed to the works of the first Ursulines in Paris for the education of youth, and to the establishment of the Oratorians of Italy in France.

Her worthy spouse died in 1613; she then requested admission to the Carmelite Order herself. She arrived saying, I am a poor mendicant who begs of you the divine mercy, and that I may cast myself into the arms of religion. At Amiens where she dwelt, her own daughter was Superior; and a perpetual contest in humility began, observed by all. She died in 1618, on Wednesday of Easter week, at the age of fifty-two years, loved and praised by all who had known her. She was beatified by Pope Pius VI; her mortal remains are in the chapel of the Carmelites of Pontoise.

Saint Apollonius
Martyr
(† 186)

The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius had persecuted the Christians, but his son Commodus, who in 180 succeeded to the throne, was favorable to them, out of regard to his Empress Marcia, an admirer of the Faith. During this calm the number of the faithful greatly increased, and many persons of first rank, among them Apollonius, a Roman senator, enlisted themselves under the banner of the cross. He was already very well versed both in philosophy and Holy Scripture, as we learn from Saint Jerome, who had read and admired his discourse in the Senate of Rome on behalf of the Christian religion. The loss of this document is much regretted.

In the midst of the peace which the Church enjoyed, Saint Apollonius was publicly accused of Christianity by one of his own slaves. What followed evokes our surprise. Marcus Aurelius, during his reign, had published an edict ordering that the accusers of Christians be put to death, but he had done so without repealing the former laws against convicted Christians. Thus the slave was immediately condemned to have his legs broken and be put to death; but immediately afterwards, to ascertain whether the accusation was true, the same judge sent an order to Saint Apollonius to renounce his religion if he valued his life and fortune. The Saint courageously rejected such ignominious terms of safety, whereupon the judge referred him to the Roman senate, to give an account of his faith to that body, very hostile to Christians. Persisting in his refusal to comply with the condition, Saint Apollonius was condemned by their decree and beheaded.

Visions of Hell of St. Frances of Rome

Posted by: Elizabeth - 03-09-2021, 10:57 PM - Forum: The Saints - Replies (11)

I will be attaching the PDF of the book on the last post.

St. Frances of Rome’s Visions of Hell

TAKEN FROM THE FRENCH BOOK: THE DEVIL IN THE LIVES OF THE SAINTS

Translated December 2019

APPROBATION

Being a part of the Choice of Ascetic Readings published by Mr. Thibaud-Landriot and Co., we had one of our grand vicars examine the book entitled “Vie de Sainte Françoise Romaine” (The Life of St. Frances of Rome). According to the report that has been made to us, we willingly give our approval of the book, and we strongly recommend reading it.
In Clermont, on January 22nd, 1841.

L.C., Bishop of Clermont

By Monsignor:

Boucard, Chan., Secretary-General

All formalities prescribed by law have been fulfilled by the undersigned Publisher-Owners.
Thibaud-Landriot and Co.

Index

Part One
15th century

Chapter I

Diabolic Persecution
Against Saint Frances of Rome

Brought corpse. – On burning coals. - In the ashes. – Satanic perfidy. – Infernal group. - Blessed candles. - Hungarian delivered.

Chapter II

Visions of Saint Frances of Rome. - Entrance to hell. - The divisions of the fallen angels.

Chapter III

The tactics of temptation. - Immediately after death. - The name of Jesus.

Chapter IV

Limbo.

Chapter V

Lucifer's judgment. - The general torments of hell. - The blasphemies of the damned.

Chapter VI

The torments for each sin and for each kind of damnation

Laziness.
Gluttony.
Dancers.
Vanity.
Married Women.
Vicious Widows.
Impure Thoughts.
The Incest.
Sodomites.
Procuring Parents.
Religious Who are Unfaithful to the Vow of Chastity.
Ungrateful Children.
Envy.
Haters.
Anger.
Homicides.
Avarice.
Usurers.
Gamblers.
The Prideful.
Blasphemers.
Traitors.
Falsifying Wine Merchants.
Fraudulent Butchers.
Doctors without a conscience.
Dishonest pharmacists.
Bribable Judges.
Liars and False Witnesses.
Slanderers.
Bad Preachers.
Unworthy Confessors.
Sovereign Pontiffs.
Magicians.
Renegades and Apostates.
The Excommunicated.

Gov Hutchinson signs new Arkansas anti-abortion bill

Posted by: Deus Vult - 03-09-2021, 08:27 PM - Forum: Abortion - No Replies

Gov. Hutchinson signs new Arkansas anti-abortion bill

Around Arkansas
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – Gov. Asa Hutchinson has released a statement announcing his intention to sign Senate Bill 6, which would ban abortion in Arkansas except to save the life of the mother.

The measure, titled “Arkansas Unborn Child Protection Act,” was introduced by Senator Jason Rapert and Senator Mary Bently.

Hutchinson noted the bill does not include exceptions for rape or incest, which contradicts current precedents set by the Supreme Court.

The governor said that he would have wanted to see those exceptions in the bill but believes it is the “intent of the legislation to set the stage for the Supreme Court overturning current case law.”

“SB6 is a pro-life bill that prohibits abortion in all cases except to save the life of the mother in a medical emergency. It does not include exceptions for rape and incest.

Quote:“I will sign SB6 because of overwhelming legislative support and my sincere and long-held pro-life convictions. SB6 is in contradiction of binding precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court, but it is the intent of the legislation to set the stage for the Supreme Court overturning current case law. I would have preferred the legislation to include the exceptions for rape and incest, which has been my consistent view, and such exceptions would increase the chances for a review by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

The bill passed with overwhelming majorities in the Arkansas legislature, going through the Senate on a 27 to 7 vote with 1 “present” vote, and through the House 76 to 19, with 4 representatives abstaining and a single “present” vote.

The Eucharistic Meditations of the Cure d'Ars (St. John Mary Vianney)

Posted by: Hildegard of Bingen - 03-09-2021, 05:14 PM - Forum: The Saints - Replies (16)

THE EUCHARISTIC MEDITATIONS OF THE CURÉ D’ARS

The “Eucharistic Meditations of the Curé d’Ars”

– St John Baptist Mary Vianney – was first published in
English by Carmelite Publications in 1961, following the centenary celebrations of the saint’s death in 1959.

© Carmelite Publications 1961.

In the Foreword for the original edition we find the following words, equally applicable and apt for today, for the post-Vatican II Church, indeed even more significant:

“His discourses on the Most Blessed Sacrament can truly be said to be the most expressive of him and of his love for God . . . From them we can learn the most precious lessons of Eucharistic devotion. For these reasons we hope thatthis little book of Eucharistic meditations may have the effect of enkindling in many hearts something of the saint’s
own love for our Eucharistic Lord.”

THE CURÉ D’ARS: John Baptist Mary Vianney was born in Dardilly in France in 1786. He was ordained priest in 1815 and appointed cure of Ars – a village near Lyons – in 1818. He completely immersed himself in the work of his parish but soon gained a reputation right across Europe as a confessor and spiritual guide. He also the gift of healing and
of hidden knowledge but he was also tormented in life by evil spirits. He gave all he had to the poor and needy and went about in ragged clothes, eat poorly, and slept little. In the twelve months before he died in 1859 he was visited by over one hundred thousand people. He was canonized in 1925 and declared Patron of Parish Clergy in 1929.

MEDITATION 1: JESUS CHRIST IS PRESENT IN THE EUCHARIST

At the moment when the Mother of St. Alexis recognised her son in the dead body of thebeggar, who had lived for thirty years under the stairs in her palace, she exclaimed:

“O my son! too late have I known thee!” The soul leaving this life will see at last Him, whom it
possessed in the Eucharist, and at the sight of the consolations, beauties and riches that she had
ignored, she will likewise cry out:

“O Jesus! O my Life! O my Treasure!

O my Love! too late have I known Thee!”

Divine Saviour, while I meditate on the proofs of your presence under the sacramental veils,
enlighten my mind, influence my heart, inspire me with the lively, ardent faith, which is already a
vision of your eternal beauty.

Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist with His Body and Blood, His Soul and Divinity. Do
you wish for proofs clear and convincing?

1. OUR LORD HAS SAID IT.

The evening of the Last Supper, He took bread, blessed it, broke it and gave it to the Apostles,
and said: “Take and eat. This is My Body.” Then He took the chalice containing wine, and said:
“Drink ye all of this. This is My Blood. Do this in memory of Me.”

“This is My Body” - then it is no longer bread. “This is My Blood” - then it is no longer wine.
Jesus Christ has said it. I believe because He is the Truth, who does not deceive, the Power that all
things obey.

But why reason, O my soul? Believe and adore. Believe that Jesus Christ is in this sacrament as
truly as He was nine months in the womb of Mary, as really as He was nailed to the Cross. Adore
in humility and gratitude.

2. IT IS A FACT THAT IS IN ACCORD WITH REASON.

Our Lord has said: “All that you ask the Father in My Name He will give it to you.” Never
would we have thought of asking God to give us His own Son. But what man could not have even
imagined, God has done. What man could not say or think, and what he could not have dared to
desire, God, in His love has said it, planned it and carried His design into execution.

Would we have dared to ask God to deliver His Son to death for us: to give us His Flesh to eat
and His Blood to drink? If all this is not true, then man has been able to imagine things greater
than God can do. He would have gone further than God in the inventions of love. This is not
possible. In other words, what man could not even conceive, God has executed.

If the Eucharist, mystery of an infinite love, was an invention of the human spirit we would
have a greater idea of the love of God for men than that which God has realized.

But God does not let Himself be outdone in love, and we are compelled to say with St.
Ambrose, who applies to the Eucharist the words of St. Paul, “Eye hath not seen nor ear heard,
neither hath it entered into the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love Him.”
May He be blessed forever.

3. IT IS A FACT MADE EVIDENT BY A KIND OF INTUITION.

There is no room for doubting that Our Lord is in the Holy Eucharist. One knows well that
He is there. One feels it.

In receiving Holy Communion one feels something extraordinary, a sense of well-being which
pervades his whole body. What is this sense of well-being? It is Our Lord who communicates
Himself to all parts of our bodies, and makes them thrill with joy. We are compelled to cry out
with St. John: “It is the Lord.”

O Jesus, without wishing to aspire after the favours granted to your saints, give me, I pray, the
proof of your presence in Holy Communion by the unction of your grace, by the spiritual joy and
generous enthusiasm in the practice of virtue.

4. IT IS A FACT ATTESTED BY HISTORY.

A priest was saying Mass in a church of Bolsene and after pronouncing the words of
Consecration doubted the Host. At that instant the Sacred Host was quite covered with Blood.
Jesus Christ seemed to wish to reproach His minister for his infidelity, and to make him ashamed,
and at the same time to show us by this great miracle how convinced we ought to be of His holy
Presence in the Eucharist. This holy Host poured forth blood in such abundance that the corporal,
altar cloth and even the altar itself were covered. The Pope, who was informed of the miracle,
ordered that the corporal all saturated with blood should be brought to him. When it reached the
town of Orvieto it was received with the greatest ceremony, and exposed in the church. Each year,
this precious relic is carried in procession on Corpus Christi.

ANOTHER PROOF, THIS TIME PERSONAL.

“Do you believe that a piece of bread could detach itself and go on its own and place itself on
the tongue of one who was coming to receive it?” I asked this one day of two Protestant ministers
who did not believe in the Real Presence of Our Lord. “No.” Then it is not bread. Here is a story of
which I myself am a witness. A man had temptations against faith in the Real Presence. How does
one know it? It is not certain. The Consecration, what is it? What happens on the altar at that
moment? But he wished to be delivered from these temptations, and he prayed to the Blessed
Virgin to obtain for him a faith simple and peaceful. Listen now. I do not say that this happened
somewhere. I say that it happened to me. At the moment when this man came to receive
Communion, the Sacred Host left my fingers while I was yet a good distance away. It went of Itself
and placed Itself on the tongue of this man.

See how that ought to strengthen our faith! But, my God, what need have we of proofs after
the words of Jesus Christ Himself.

5. HOW DOES OUR LORD DWELL IN THE EUCHARIST?

In an invisible manner, hidden under the species of bread. He accommodates Himself to our
weakness. In heaven, when we will be triumphant and glorious, we shall see Him in His glory. If He
showed Himself now before us with this glory, we would not dare to approach Him, but He hides
Himself as someone in prison and says to us: You do not see Me, but this does not matter: ask Me
all that you wish, I will give it to you.

Oh! if we had the faith . . . if we were really persuaded of the Real Presence of Him who thus
hides Himself out of love, and who is there, His hands full of graces, longing to distribute them,
with what reverence we would come before Him, with what confidence we should invoke Him.

Little Chaplet of the Five Wounds of Jesus Crucified - Devotion to the Passion by St. Alphonsus

Posted by: Hildegard of Bingen - 03-09-2021, 01:24 PM - Forum: In Honor of Our Lord - No Replies

[Image: 5bb7e4eb240000500098a9b8.jpeg?ops=scalef..._noupscale]

DEVOTION TO THE PASSION

Little Chaplet of the Five Wounds of Jesus Crucified.

(Taken from St. Alphonsus’ Prayer-Book – pages 454-456)

O my Lord Jesus Christ, I adore the Wound in Thy left Foot. I thank Thee for having suffered it for me with so much sorrow and with so much love. I compassionate Thy pain, and that of Thine afflicted Mother. And, by the merit of this sacred Wound, I pray Thee to grant me the pardon of my sins, of which I repent with all my heart, because they have offended Thine infinite goodness. O sorrowing Mary, pray to Jesus for me.

“Our Father”, “Hail Mary,” “Glory be,” etc.

O my Lord Jesus Christ, I adore the Wound in Thy right Foot. I thank Thee for having suffered it for me with so much sorrow and with so much love. I compassionate Thy pain, and that of Thine afflicted Mother. And, by the merit of this sacred Wound, I pray Thee to give me the strength not to fall into mortal sin for the future, but to persevere in Thy grace unto my death. O sorrowing Mary, pray to Jesus for me.

“Our Father”, “Hail Mary,” “Glory be,” etc.

O my Lord Jesus Christ, I adore the Wound in Thy left Hand. I thank Thee for having suffered it for me with so much sorrow and with so much love. I compassionate Thy pain, and that of Thine afflicted Mother. And, by the merit of this sacred Wound, I pray Thee to deliver me from hell, which I have so often deserved, and where I could never love Thee more. O sorrowing Mary, pray to Jesus for me.

“Our Father”, “Hail Mary,” “Glory be,” etc.

O my Lord Jesus Christ, I adore the Wound in Thy right Hand. I thank Thee for having suffered it for me with so much sorrow and with so much love. I compassionate Thy pain, and that of Thy most afflicted Mother. And, by the merit of this sacred Wound, I pray Thee to give me the glory of paradise, where I shall love Thee perfectly, and with all my strength. O sorrowing Mary, pray to Jesus for me.

“Our Father”, “Hail Mary,” “Glory be,” etc.

O my Lord Jesus Christ, I adore the Wound in Thy Side. I thank Thee for having willed, even Thy Side. I thank Thee for having willed, even after Thy death, to suffer this additional injury, without pain indeed; yet with consummate love. I compassionate Thine afflicted Mother, who alone felt all its pain. And, by the merit of this sacred Wound, I pray Thee to bestow upon me the gift of holy love for Thee, that so I may ever love Thee in this life, and, in the other, face to face to all eternity in paradise. O sorrowing Mary, pray for me.

“Our Father”, “Hail Mary,” “Glory be,” etc.

Eternal Father, I offer Thee the precious Blood, the Passion and the Death of Jesus Christ, the sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of St. Joseph, in expiation of my sins, for the deliverance of the souls in purgatory, for the needs of our holy mother the Church, and for the conversion of sinners.

In the following pdf document, you will find all the prayers "Devotion to the Passion" by St. Alphonsus Liguori from his Prayer Book.

.pdf

Devotion to the Passion - Prayers to Jesus Christ.pdf (Size: 892.3 KB / Downloads: 0)

The Satanic Temple sues Texas: Interference with Their Abortion Rituals

Posted by: Stone - 03-09-2021, 12:33 PM - Forum: Abortion - No Replies

The Satanic Temple sues Texas for regulations that ‘interfere’ with their abortion ‘destruction ritual’

According to The Satanic Temple, regulations such as waiting periods interfere with a ritual that ‘sanctifies the abortion process’

March 9, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The Satanic Temple has sued the State of Texas, complaining that its abortion regulations, such as its sonogram-viewing requirement, interfere with the Temple’s “religious” abortion ritual and therefore violate their “religious liberty.”

A Satanic Temple attorney for plaintiff “Ann Doe” argued that “It is a substantial interference per se for the state to place a regulatory hurdle – one that costs money – in front of a religious exercise. The state might as well tax and regulate Mass."

The lawsuit echoes The Satanic Temple’s (TST) official belief that first trimester satanic ritual abortions are “exempt” from “unnecessary regulations” such as mandatory waiting periods and required reading materials.

TST’s information sheet on “Satanic Abortion Rituals” further explains their public stance on why they consider regulations to be a hindrance to a ritual that they have claimed “sanctifies the abortion process by instilling confidence and protecting bodily rights.”

Quote:“The Satanic Abortion ritual is a destruction ritual that serves as a protective rite. Its purpose is to case off notions of shame, guilt, and mental discomfort that a patient may be experiencing due to choosing to have a legal and medically safe abortion,” the document states.

“Even the most confident and unapologetic individual can experience uncomfortable feelings and anxiety for choosing to terminate their pregnancy. Laws in many states that impose waiting periods and state-mandated counseling can exacerbate these feelings, as can social condemnation and outright harassment by those who oppose abortion,” TST continues.

Texas abortion law requires that prior to obtaining an abortion, which is legal in Texas before the 20-week milestone, a woman must “must undergo ultrasound, be shown the image [of the unborn child], and have the image described to her,” and wait at least 24 hours after the ultrasound before obtaining an abortion.

The law also mandates the provision of materials that include a “comprehensive list of adoption agencies” and “realistic” color pictures showing the development of the unborn child “at two-week gestational increments.”

The TST abortion ritual involves the recitation of a so-called “personal affirmation”, which reads: “By my body, my blood, by my will it is done.”

Ritual participants are also to recite the TST tenets “One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s will alone,” and “beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.”

Naturally, no mention is made in TST writings of the unique human DNA and separate bodies of unborn children.

While perhaps most of the publicity surrounding The Satanic Temple has focused on its high profile black masses and its Baphomet statue outside the Arkansas capitol building, one of TST’s central campaigns is its defense of ritual abortions and their freedom from regulations.

Their website provides a letter that “lays out a claim for a religious exemption” to state abortion restriction laws, and also declares their commitment to “challenge states that fail to enforce their Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) laws.”

The Satanic Temple, which was founded in 2013 and recognized as a “church” by the IRS in 2019, began as a political organization aiming to reduce the presence of religion in the public sphere. In 2017, after Donald Trump signed a “religious freedom” executive order, TST’s co-founder Lucien Greaves declared in a newsletter that TST “must re-evaluate its prior principled refusal to accept religious tax-exemption.”

“It appears that now is a time in which a more principled stand is to meet our opponent on equal footing, so as to balance, as best we can, what has been a frighteningly asymmetrical battle. As ‘the religious’ are increasingly gaining ground as a privileged class, we must ensure that this privilege is available to all, and that superstition doesn’t gain exclusive rights over non-theistic religions or non-belief,” Greaves continued.

Since then, they have claimed that their “deeply held beliefs,” “narrative structure,” and use of symbols and practices make them a church.

TST sued the State of Missouri in 2015 and again in 2019 for similar abortion regulations. In these cases, they objected to Missouri’s “informed consent” law, which mandated a 72-hour waiting period as well as the presentation of information about abortion’s medical risks and the humanity of the preborn child. This information included a definitive statement that “the life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.”

The Satanists argued that these regulations violated the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), claiming that the informed consent materials communicated “religious opinion.”

“The question of when life begins is absolutely a religious opinion, and the state has no business proselytizing religious beliefs,” TST stated.

While TST vehemently opposes viewing sonograms of unborn children or reading information sheets that affirm the biological reality of an unborn child’s humanity, it states in its abortion ritual info sheet that, “Before performing the ritual, you may choose to review the safety, the debunked claims, and the scientific reality regarding abortion.”

In 2015, then-Attorney General Chris Koster noted that the Temple could not “cite a single opinion from any state or federal court holding that a state’s expression of a value judgment about abortion constitutes an establishment of religion.”

Practice of Christian Mortification

Posted by: Stone - 03-09-2021, 12:11 PM - Forum: Lenten Devotions - Replies (1)

Practice of Christian Mortification

by Cardinal Mercier (d. 1926)
Adapted from the Dominicans of Avrillé

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginal...f=1&nofb=1]

N.B.: All the practices of mortification which we have collected here are derived from the examples of the saints, especially Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Teresa, Saint Francis de Sales, Saint John Berchmans; or they are recommended by acknowledged masters of the spiritual life, such as the Venerable Louis de Blois, Rodriguez, Scaramelli, Msgr Gay, Abbé Allemand, Abbé Hamon, Abbé Dubois, etc…

Mortification of the body

1 — In the matter of food, restrict yourself as far as possible to simple necessity. Consider these words which Saint Augustine addressed to God: “O my God, Thou hast taught me to take food only as a remedy. Ah! Lord, who is there among us who does not sometimes exceed the limit here? If there is such a one, I say that man is great, and must give great glory to Thy name.” (Confessions, book X, ch. 31)

2— Pray to God often, pray to God daily to help you by His grace so that you do not overstep the limits of necessity and do not permit yourself to give way to pleasure.

3— Take nothing between meals, unless out of necessity or for the sake of convenience.

4— Practise fasting and abstinence, but practise them only under obedience and with discretion.

5— It is not forbidden for you to enjoy some bodily satisfaction, but do so with a pure intention, giving thanks to God.

6— Regulate your sleep, avoiding in this all faint-heartedness, all softness, especially in the morning. Set an hour, if you can, for going to bed and getting up, and keep strictly to it.

7— In general, take your rest only in so far as it is necessary; give yourself generously to work, not sparing your labour. Take care not to exhaust your body, but guard against indulging it; as soon as you feel it even a little disposed to play the master, treat it at once as a slave.

8— If you suffer some slight indisposition, avoid being a nuisance to others through your bad mood; leave to your companions the task of complaining for you; for yourself, be patient and silent as the Divine Lamb who has truly borne all our weaknesses.

9— Guard against making the slightest illness a reason for dispensation or exemption from your daily schedule. “One must detest like the plague every exception when it comes to rules,” wrote Saint John Berchmans.

10 —Accept with docility, endure humbly, patiently and with perseverance, the tiresome mortification called illness.

Mortification of the senses, of the imagination and the passions

1 — Close your eyes always and above all to every dangerous sight, and even – have the courage to do it – to every frivolous and useless sight. See without looking; do not gaze at anybody to judge of their beauty or ugliness.

2—Keep your ears closed to flattering remarks, to praise, to persuasion, to bad advice, to slander, to uncharitable mocking, to indiscretions, to ill-disposed criticism, to suspicions voiced, to every word capable of causing the very smallest coolness between two souls.

3 — If the sense of smell has something to suffer due to your neighbour’s infirmity or illness, far be it from you ever to complain of it; draw from it a holy joy.

4 — In what concerns the quality of food, have great respect for Our Lord’s counsel: “Eat such things as are set before you.” “Eat what is good without delighting in it, what is bad without expressing aversion to it, and show yourself equally indifferent to the one as to the other. There,”says Saint Francis de Sales, “is real mortification.”

5 — Offer your meals to God; at table impose on yourself a tiny penance: for example, refuse a sprinkling of salt, a glass of wine, a sweet, etc.; your companions will not notice it, but God will keep account of it.

6— If what you are given appeals to you very much, think of the gall and the vinegar given to Our Lord on the cross: that cannot keep you from tasting, but will serve as a counterbalance to the pleasure.

7— You must avoid all sensual contact, every caress in which you set some passion, by which you look for passion, from which you take a joy which is principally of the senses.

8— Refrain from going to warm yourself, unless this is necessary to save you from being unwell.

9— Bear with everything which naturally grieves the flesh, especially the cold of winter, the heat of summer, a hard bed and every inconvenience of that kind. Whatever the weather, put on a good face; smile at all temperatures. Say with the prophet: “Cold, heat, rain, bless ye the Lord.” It will be a happy day for us when we are able to say with a good heart these words which were familiar to Saint Francis de Sales: “I am never better than when I am not well.”

10— Mortify your imagination when it beguiles you with the lure of a brilliant position, when it saddens you with the prospect of a dreary future, when it irritates you with the memory of a word or deed which offended you.

11— If you feel within you the need to day-dream, mortify it without mercy.

12— Mortify yourself with the greatest care in the matter of impatience, of irritation, or of anger.

13— Examine your desires thoroughly; submit them to the control of reason and of faith: Do you never desire a long life rather than a holy life, wish for pleasure and well-being without trouble or sadness, victory without battle, success without setbacks, praise without criticism, a comfortable, peaceful life without a cross of any sort – a that is to say, a life quite opposite to that of Our Divine Lord?

14—Take care not to acquire certain habits which, without being positively bad, can become injurious, such as habits of frivolous reading, of playing at games of chance, etc..

15— Seek to discover your predominant failing and, as soon as you have recognised it, pursue it all the way to its last retreat. To that purpose, submit with good will to whatever could be monotonous or boring in the practice of the examination of conscience.

16— You are not forbidden to have a heart and to show it, but be on your guard against the danger of exceeding due measure. Resist attachments which are too natural, particular friendships and all softness of the heart.

Mortification of the mind and of the will

1— Mortify your mind by denying it all fruitless imaginings, all ineffectual or wandering thoughts which waste time, dissipate the soul, and render work and serious things distasteful.

2— Every gloomy and anxious thought should be banished from your mind. Concern about all that could happen to you later on should not worry you at all. As for the bad thoughts which bother you in spite of yourself, you should, in dismissing them, make of them a subject for patience. Being involuntary, they will simply be for you an occasion of merit.

3—Avoid obstinacy in your ideas, stubbornness in your sentiments. You should willingly let the judgments of others prevail, unless there is a question of matters on which you have a duty to give your opinion and speak out.

4— Mortify the natural organ of your mind, which is to say the tongue. Practise silence gladly, whether your rule prescribes it for you or whether you impose it on yourself of your own accord.

5— Prefer to listen to others rather than to speak yourself; and yet speak appropriately, avoiding as extremes both speaking too much, which prevents others from telling their thoughts, and speaking too little, which suggests a hurtful lack of interest in what they say.

6— Never interrupt somebody who is speaking and do not forestall, by answering too swiftly, a question he would put to you.

7— Always have a moderate tone of voice, never abrupt or sharp. Avoid exaggeration, as being horrible.

Mortifications to practice in our exterior actions

1 — You ought to show the greatest exactitude in observing all the points of your rule of life, obeying them without delay, remembering Saint John Berchmans, who said: “Penance for me is to lead the common life”; “To have the highest regard for the smallest things, such is my motto”; “Rather die than break a single rule.”

2 —In the exercise of your duties of state, try to be well-pleased with whatever happens to be most unpleasant or boring for you, recalling again here the words of Saint Francis: “I am never better than when I am not well.”

3 — Never give one moment over to sloth: from morning until night keep busy without respite.

4 — If your life is, at least partly, spent in study, apply to yourself this advice from Saint Thomas Aquinas to his pupils: “Do not be content to take in superficially what you read and hear, but endeavour to go into it deeply and to fathom the whole sense of it. Never remain in doubt about what you could know with certainty. Work with a holy eagerness to enrich your mind; arrange and classify in your memory all the knowledge you are able to acquire. On the other hand, do not seek to penetrate mysteries which are beyond your intelligence.”

5 — Devote yourself solely to your present occupation, without looking back on what went before or anticipating in thought what will follow. Say with Saint Francis: “While I am doing this I am not obliged to do anything else”; “let us make haste very calmly; all in good time.”

6 — Be modest in your bearing. Nothing was so perfect as Saint Francis’s deportment; he always kept his head straight, avoiding alike the inconstancy which turns it in all directions, the negligence which lets it droop forward and the proud and haughty disposition which throws it back. His countenance was always peaceful, free from all annoyance, always cheerful, serene and open; without however any merriment or indiscreet humour, without loud, immoderate or too frequent laughter.

He was as composed when alone as in a large gathering. He did not cross his legs, never supported his head on his elbow. When he prayed he was motionless as a statue. When nature suggested to him he should relax, he did not listen.

7 — Regard cleanliness and order as a virtue, uncleanness and untidyness as a vice; do not have dirty, stained or torn clothes. On the other hand, regard luxury and worldliness as a greater vice still. Make sure that, on seeing your way of dressing, nobody calls it “slovenly” or “elegant”, but that everybody is bound to think it “decent”.

Mortifications to practice in our relations with our neighbour

1 — Bear with your neighbour’s defects; defects of education, of mind, of character. Bear with everything about him which irritates you: his gait, his posture, tone of voice, accent, or whatever.

2 — Bear with everything in everybody and endure it to the end and in a Christian spirit. Never with that proud patience which makes one say: “What have I to do with so and so? How does what he says affect me? What need have I for the affection, the kindness or even the politeness of any creature at all and of that person in particular?” Nothing accords less with the will of God than this haughty unconcern, this scornful indifference; it is worse, indeed, than impatience.

3 — Are you tempted to be angry? For the love of Jesus, be meek.

To avenge yourself? Return good for evil; it is said the great secret of touching Saint Teresa’s heart was to do her a bad turn.

To look sourly at someone? Smile at him with good nature.

To avoid meeting him? Seek him out willingly.

To talk badly of him? Talk well of him.

To speak harshly to him? Speak very gently, warmly, to him.

4 — Love to give praise to your companions, especially those you are naturally most inclined to envy.

5 — Do not be witty at the expense of charity.

6 — If somebody in your presence should take the liberty of making remarks which are rather improper, or if someone should hold conversations likely to injure his neighbour’s reputation, you may sometimes rebuke the speaker gently, but more often it will be better to divert the conversation skillfully, or indicate by a gesture of sorrow or of deliberate inattention that what is said displeases you.

7 — It costs you an effort to render a small service: offer to do it. You will have twice the merit.

8 — Avoid with horror posing as a victim in your own eyes or those of others. Far be it from you to exaggerate your burdens; strive to find them light; they are so, in reality, much more often than it seems; they would be so always if you were more virtuous.

Conclusion

In general, know how to refuse to nature what she asks of you unnecessarily.

Know how to make her give what she refuses you for no reason. Your progress in virtue, says the author of The Imitation of Christ, will be in proportion to the violence that you succeed in doing to yourself.

“It is necessary to die,” said the saintly Bishop of Geneva, “it is necessary to die in order that God may live in us, for it is impossible to achieve the union of the soul with God by any means other than by mortification. These words ‘it is necessary to die’ are hard, but they will be followed by a great sweetness, because one dies to oneself for no other reason than to be united to God by that death.”

Would to God we had the right to apply to ourselves these beautiful words of Saint Paul to the Corinthians: “In all things we suffer tribulation… Always bearing about in our body the death of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be made manifest in our bodies.” (II Cor 4:8-10)

Pages (331): « Previous 1 … 254 255 256 257 258 … 331 Next »

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me