|
|
For answers to many questions, consult the Official Traditional Catholic Directory, Listing All Traditional Latin Masses and Traditional Resources for the United States and Canada, 12th Annual Edition (2007) - December 2006 Monthly Revised Edition. For further information, click on the Official Traditional Catholic Directory department, provided to the TRADITIO Network by the National Registry of Traditional Latin Masses. |
If you wish to support the TRADITIO Network's Apostolate, click on the box to the left to made a donation easily, securely, and confidentially by bank account or credit card through PayPal. Regular contributors become Benefactors of the TRADITIO Network, and their intentions are specially commemorated at Traditional Latin Masses offered. Indicate "TRADITIO" in the Payment For field. Using PayPal reduces our administrative burden considerably, but if need to use a paper check, see FAQ01: How Can I Help the TRADITIO Network's Apostolate? |
We here in Europe have been regaled with the news that after Benedict-Ratzinger had a powwow with the Protestant Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, during the week of November 20, 2006, there has been talk that Newvatican has been working on setting up an Opus Dei II organization for Anglican Protestants who would like to straddle the fence with Newchurch. The arrangement would allow those Anglican Protestants to be considered members of Newchurch while still remaining their Anglican Protestantism and Anglican rites. So, the "priests" that Pope Leo XIII declared invalid would become presbyters of Newchurch. It is unclear whether Anglican priestess would go over into Newchurch too, but they are no less valid than the Anglican "priests."
Any new "indult" for the Modernized Mass of 1962 is still a fable, but those who keep pushing for it are now beginning to admit that even if Newvatican should implement such a ruse, it would be in conjunction with the signing of documents that would accept married presbyters and Anglican Protestants. Such a pairing would be similar to that in which a Newchurch bishop on the East Coast implemented an "Indult" Mass and altar girls simultaneously.
Dom Paolo Farinella, of Genoa, has stunned Italy by issuing a challenge to Benedict-Ratzinger in an Open Letter not to abandon Vatican II with a new "indult" for the Modernized Mass of 1962. Farinella says that this would be a return to "xenophobic and anachronistic mediaevalism" and would spurn Newpope's predecessors John XXIII and Paul VI.
Dom Farinella lays it on the line, agreeing with the French Newchurch bishops that requests for such a new "indult" represent a protest against the New Order religion of Vatican II and its use of vernacular tongues and turned-around altars. Such a protest rejects the authority of Vatican II, he says, and considers Vatican II "Satanic."
Dom Farinella calls up Benedict-Ratzinger to forget any "indult," but instead to demand an oath of "formal adhesion to Vatican II" from all "traditionalists," in accordance with the 1984 "indult" Quattuor abhinc annos. Farinella says that by December 2, 2006, he will send to Newpope 10,000,000 signatures of support against any new "indult," which will dwarf the SSPX's "million rosaries." [Source: Adista]
The TRADITIO Network has been informed that Fr. Lawrence Brey passed away on November 26, 2006. Fr. Brey left Newchurch and spent a number of years after Vatican II offering the Traditional Latin Mass independently. He most recently served at Holy Innocents School in St. Cloud, Minnesota.
In another display of ecclesiastical immorality in Newchurch, Benedict-Ratzinger's Newvatican premiered on November 26 Nativity Story, a film about the Nativity starring as Mary a teenager who is shacked up out of wedlock with an older man and carrying an illegitimate child. Newpope is present in Rome and did not stop the travesty, but he regretted that he could not personally attend because he is preparing for his trip to Turkey, where he will perpetrate yet another "oecumenical" shivaree.
In responding to criticisms of Newvatican's sponsorship of a film about the Blessed Virgin Mary starring an under-age fornicatrix, a member for the Papal Council for Culture said that the actress was "expected to play her part well, not be a saint." Newvatican has really given this immorality the royal treatment. The gala premiere will take place in the Vatican's Paul VI Hall, which is used for Sunday Messes (no surprise there!) [Source: BBC News]
It seems that it is no longer possible to find a young actress of the modern day to play the Blessed Virgin Mary, an actress who still treasures chastity and represents what Mary stands for in the traditional Catholic Faith. Not only that, but Newvatican sponsors and blesses a gala premiere of a religious film starring someone who publicly rejects by her acts what are supposed to be Newvatican's moral teachings.
The reality is that Newvatican is teaching a New Morality, which is soft on sin: soft on marital infidelity (as evidenced by 100,000 "annulments" a year in the United States alone), soft on homosexuality (as evidenced by Newpope's acceptance of "pink" seminaries), and soft on child rape (as evidenced by Newpope's support of its bishops and presbyters who are raping children). It is just another ploy of Newvatican and Newpope to implement change little by little so that Newchurchers will be converted to the New Order Religion, which was condemned by Newpope's predecessors going back to Pope Pius IX.
The Marian "apparition" cults are spreading like wildfire. Newchurchers are seeing Mary in omlettes, chocolate candy, and cooking grease. In Madrid, 29 people have vanished to join the cult of El Escorial, about 50 kilometres from Madrid, Spain, where an "apparition" was supposed to have occurred to a cleaning woman 25 years ago. Today the cleaning woman continues to deliver messages every month to hordes of tourists. The families of this people want Newchurch to investigate where they family members have been abducted to.
Here in Europe there is an animated debate going on about the validity of "ordinations" in the Novus Ordo rite of 1969. And the SSPX is right in the middle of it, since it is trying to straddle the fence between recognizing Newrome with its New Order and remaining "traditional."
The SSPX's past handling of this matter has been checkered. Sometimes it accepts Novus Ordo presbyters, sometimes it "reordains" them sub conditione, sometimes it reordains them de novo. In the presence of witnesses, SSPX Superior General Bernard Fellay said that the Novus Ordo ordinations in the vulgar tongues (English, French, German, Spanish, etc.) are doubtful or invalid. He said this to explain why sometimes the SSPX re-ordains sub conditione some (but not all) of the presbyters who join the Society.
But "conditional" administration of Sacraments is suspect. Sacraments are rarely administered sub conditione, absent very specific and exceptional circumstances in individual cases. It is not possible to administer a Sacrament wholesale in such a way as a kind of jury-rigged quickie "fix-it" without incurring grave sacrilege, and even invalidity. Fellay needs to make up his mind whether the Novus Ordo ordinations are valid or not. If they are, he must go New Order. If they are not, he must start from scratch with these Novus Ordo presbyters, retrain them in traditional Catholicism, and ordain as priests them from scratch.
The irony of this situation is that Fellay's liberalist administration has come out four square for the validity of bishops consecrated (Newchurch now calls it "ordained") with the New Ordinal of 1969, but not the validity of presbyters ordained in the New Ordinal of 1969. It seems that Fellay's SSPX has lost its reason in playing up to Newchurch!
This issue of whether the Novus Ordo ordinations are valid is a real fly in the ointment, which Fellay cannot resolve either way without losing major parts of the Society. As the saying goes, "He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't" -- caught in a sense between Caesar and God. We are waiting here in Europe to see how this drama with Fellay as Hamlet plays out.
Popes don't write books; at least they're not supposed to. That is the Catholic tradition, and there is a very sound reason for it: the authority of any such book would be confusing. Is the pope writing it as a private person? as an academic hypothesis? as doctrine? JPII first violated the rule with his Crossing the Threshold of Hope. Now Benedict-Ratzinger, 80, apparently thinking that his death is near and not knowing "how much time and how much strength" he has left, has announced that he will publish this spring ten chapters of a new book, Jesus of Nazareth. This would be the first book Benedict-Ratzinger has published as pope. [Source: Reuters]
His brother has frequently stated to the press that Benedict-Ratzinger is not in good health. The TRADITIO Network reported at the time of his election what very few other sources even mentioned, that Benedict-Ratzinger has suffered two strokes and one head trauma, when he fell and knocked his head against a radiator.
TABLE OF RECENT POPE'S DEATHS
POPE YEAR AGE CAUSE
OF DEATH AT DEATH OF DEATH
Pope St. Pius X 1914 79 natural causes
Pope Benedict XV 1922 67 pneumonia
Pope Pius XI 1937 81 natural causes or
(some say) assassination
Pope Pius XII 1958 82 kidney dysfunction
Pope John XXIII 1963 81 stomach cancer
Pope Paul VI 1978 80 heart attack
Pope John Paul I 1978 65 heart attack or
(some say) assassination
Pope John Paul II 2005 84 complications of Parkinson's
Dear Fathers:
I am a concerned Catholic who lives in England. Having read the TRADITIO Network, I now know that my Novus Ordo presbyter is heavily influenced by Protestant and pagan influence. He has guitar-playing and gives out the Novus Ordo cookie in the hand, with so many people clambering around the altar as "eucharistic ministers."
I thought that the state of the Church was a shift towards Protestantism, but I have always been curious and read many articles about the damage that Vatican II did and have always had a distaste for Newpopes JPII and Benedict-Ratzinger. How could they allow the Novus Ordo Messes to be anything but heresy? I looked at all the different disasters, and a cold chill ran down my spine as the faith and Church that I love and adore has been poisoned by diseased minds.
Is there any hope for the true Church, or are we watching the fall of the unmovable rock? Let us pray that Christ might return before we all fall completely into the abyss of the Novus Ordo!
The Fathers Reply.
More and more of the faithful are waking up to the fact that the radical changes since Vatican II are not just a matter of Latin vs. English, or the "translation" of pro multis into the vulgar tongues, or a spurious "indult" for presbyters to perform a hybridized Mess, evil and unCatholic as those are. No, it is clear now that the issue goes far beyond even the true Mass. The Newchurch of the New Order has essentially destroyed for itself not only the Mass, but the Sacraments, the Faith, and Catholic morality.
Is there hope? Oh, yes! It is dogma that Christ will remain with his Church to the end of time, the dogma of indefectibility. That dogma does not teach that popes will not fall into personal heresy (Vatican I said that some 40 did) or be excommunicated (as has happened). That dogma does not teach that the true Mass and Sacraments will not become scarcer and that the faithful will have to make more courageous efforts to find and attend them. That dogma does not teach that the morals of the pope and the clergy will not sink into an unCatholic abyss.
Rather, the faithful are challenged to, as St. Paul wrote: "stand fast: and hold the traditions that you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:14/DRV). It is not a time to sell out to or negotiate with the New Order. It is a time to identify the New Order for what it is: unCatholic. It is a time to find and support the true Faith, Mass, and Sacraments in the thousands of traditional sites around the world. If the faithful do that, we can have no fear that the light of Faith will survive, as it has in so many past times of persecution and crisis in the Church.
Dear Fathers:
I read in the TRADITIO Commentaries that Newchurch has one again fiddled around with the "translation" of pro multis in the Novus Ordo "consecration." By some people's reaction one would think that Newvatican had repented and come back to the traditional Roman Catholic faith. But, as traditional Catholics know, a little change in the "translation" in the vulgar tongues isn't going to make the Novus Ordo Protestant-Masonic-Pagan service valid. Really nothing has changed. The Novus Ordo service remains just as invalid as ever.
The Fathers Reply.
Exactly right, as has been documented here many times. See also FAQ05: What Traditional Catholic Books Do You Recommend? in the TRADITIO Network's Library of Files (FAQs & Traditional Apologetics) for Fr. Paul Trinchard's "New Mass" Conclusively Invalid: According to the Preponderence of Evidence. This book presents the theological evidence that the "New Mass" is conclusively invalid, using the principles from Apostolic Tradition reiterated in Apostolicae Curae by Pope Leo XIII declaring the Anglican "New Mass" invalid.
What other sources have missed is that even this little change is prospective, not retrospective. When, if ever, it will be implemented has not been indicated. The English "translation" of even the Third Edition (2002) of the Novus Ordo service book has still not appeared, and there are so many arguments about how to "translate" it that it is not expected to be released for several more years yet!
What other sources have also missed is that Newvatican has not admitted that even this little change has any real effect. Otherwise, it would be bound to direct that every Novus Ordo service held since 1969 be re-performed and to admit that all the services that have been attended since 1969 have been invalid and worthless. As you say, the Novus Ordo service remains invalid for many, many reasons. Moreover, Newchurch, in diddling with this impotent little linguistic change, is not changing its de facto teaching on Universal Salvation.
Dear Fathers:
It's clear why "conservative" Newchurchers are attacking the play The Pope and the Witch. This play isn't attacking anything in a blasphemous or sacrilegious way; it's merely making satirizing the unCatholic actions of particular modern popes. What I imagine is bothersome to the "conservatives" is that the scenario painted in the play isn't all that farfetched, judging from Benedict-Ratzinger's current reign.
But the issues like abortion, which Newchurch occasionally rallies against to make itself seem a little "traditional," make "conservative" and "indultarian" Newchurchers squeal that their New Order Church is turning itself around. Therefore, they have to protest this play, which satires the "conservative" facade that Newchurch on occasion puts up. The "conservatives" just don't want the truth exposed!
Martin Amos, installed on November 20, 2006, as Newchurch bishop of Davenport, Iowa, is quite familiar with rampant sex crime. A study by the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported in 2004 that in the Cleveland diocese where Amos has been bishop for the last five years, 117 presbyters and one deacon were involved in sex crimes. The Newchurch diocese paid $11,400,000 to settle claims of 285 people who were raped and molested, and another $3,000,000 went to legal fees. The bishop's treasurer has been indicted in U.S. federal court on 27 counts of mail fraud, money-laundering, and conspiracy in a financial kick-back scheme. [Source: Quad City Times]
In an initial interview, Amos implied that the eventual solution to the sex-crimes problem is a married clergy and priestesses. It appears that Amos is another one of Benedict-Ratzinger's Modernist appointments, like that of former San Francisco Newchurch archbishop William Levada, under subpoena in two federal courts for his role in sex crimes and one bankrupt diocese, as Sex Crimes Czar for Newpope. Anyone who thinks that Benedict-Ratzinger is "conservative" is simply deluding himself. The record proves that he is just as mired in filth as his subordinates -- whom he appoints!
Dear Fathers:
I suggest that the recent decision of Newcardinal Arinze to play once again with the "translation" of pro multis in the vulgar tongues, very much like the "proclamation" a few days ago to keep the NewChurch presbyterate celibate (except for Protestant ministers converting to the New Order, of course), is simply more smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that Newcardinal Ricard commanded Benedict-Ratzinger to back down over the trial balloon "new" indult. For Newpope to be commanded by the French bishops is nothing new, but the order of the day; for Newpope to be seen as commanded by the French bishops, however, is another matter entirely.
Newpope must at least appear to be the fellow in command; it will take a little time for him to be seen as the rubber stamp that Queen Elizabeth II is in England. That is the reality now, but not the appearance. Actually being in command is secondary, especially since the conciliar popes have publicly given up their authority over the local bishops long ago. Remember JPII's Ut unum sint of 1995 and Benedict-Ratzinger's Primum nuntium of 2004, in which the conciliar popes confirmed that fact in writing?
As one New Order presbyter told me: "The Pope is only the Bishop of Rome; here, we obey the Bishop of Victoria." That is the dogma of Newchurch.
It seems that Newvatican is once again playing around with "translations" of its Protestant-Masonic-Pagan Novus Ordo service, and touching once again the consecration formula, in the so-called "pro multis" controversy. So announced Newcardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of Novus Ordo Worship. Arinze has been exposed as a Modernist in the mindset of Hannibal Bugnini, the Chief Architect of the New Order. For further information, see ARINZE: Cardinal Arinze's Changing Church.
To the contrary, the Traditional Latin Mass was handed down to us in all its essentials from the Apostles, and was passed on by St. Peter, the first pope, to the Church. The Apostles themselves, according to St. Ambrose, worked at its elaboration. It reached its complete perfection with Popes St. Damasus (fourth century) and St. Gregory the Great (sixth century). As the great liturgical scholar, Fr. Adrian Fortescue, wrote, this Mass is "the most venerable in all Christendom, with a history of unbroken use far longer than that of any Eastern rite, there being no doubt that the essential parts of the Mass are of Apostolic origin."
When Pope Leo XIII declared the Anglican service invalid in 1896 -- which many at the time thought was valid, like the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgies--, he never mentioned anything about its consecration formula. He declared the Anglican liturgy invalid for the same reason that the Novus Ordo service is invalid: it lost its Catholic context. The Novus Ordo service has simply chucked away two-thirds of the content of the true Mass to make it a vernacularized bastard service to please Protestants, who are now using it.
The consecration formula for the New Order was changed from the Apostolic form in several ways, and yet another change in the vernacular isn't going to fix that. Moreover, the matter used in most dioceses is, even according to Newvatican, is invalid. Newvatican's statement on this point was never published by the U.S. bishops because the bishops' president didn't want to have the Newchurchers themselves realize that they were eating a mere cookie.
But Pope Leo's most important argument that the Anglican service is invalid is the fact that the Catholic and Apostolic intention had been broken. Catholics who have ever witnessed a High Anglican service know how "reverent" and "traditional" it is -- far more "reverent" and "traditional" than the Novus Ordo service. If the pope found the Anglican service invalid, how much more invalid is the Novus Ordo Protestant-Masonic-Pagan service!
For further information, see APOSTOLICAE CURAE: Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae [On the Nullity of Anglican Orders], Given by His Holiness Pope Leo XIII in the TRADITIO Network's Library of Files (FAQs & Traditional Apologetics). See also FAQ05: What Traditional Catholic Books Do You Recommend? in the TRADITIO Network's Library of Files (FAQs & Traditional Apologetics) for Fr. Paul Trinchard's "New Mass" Conclusively Invalid: According to the Preponderence of Evidence. This book presents the theological evidence that the "New Mass" is conclusively invalid, using the principles from Apostolic Tradition reiterated in Apostolicae Curae by Pope Leo XIII declaring the Anglican "New Mass" invalid.
Playing with a few words in "translations" in vulgar tongues does nothing to affect the invalidity of the Novus Ordo service. In fact, the Arinze, who now apparently claims be a psychic, even went so far as to reinterpret Our Lord's instruction when he said: "Indeed, the formula "for all" would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord's intention expressed in the text." So now Arinze is Jesus Christ's "channeler." This Newchurch is absurd. If it doesn't like Christ's teaching, Newchurch just makes up something else!
Even at that the new "translation" is not expected to be published in Novus Ordo liturgical books for several years. Obviously, Newvatican does not consider it of any significant importance. It still remains defective in form, matter, and intention, to the point of invalidity according to the criteria of Pope Leo XIII. Arinze is a Modernist who is simply playing games with gullible Newchurchers. Such actions are to be condemned as the sacrilege and hypocrisy that they are.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre held this position all along. He never concentrated on vernacularized "translations" of "many/all" issue, but rather claimed that the Novus Ordo service would eventually make Protestants of all who attended it, as it is a non-Catholic service that falls under Leo XIII's interdict.
The notion the Newchurch bishops are trying to perpetrate, that the Great Sex & Embezzlement Scandal is over, is a fraud. The New York Post has exposed Newchurch Cardinal Edward Egan, of New York, as threatening "excommunication" against any Newchurch layman or clergyman who discusses the case of Msgr. Charles Kavanagh, who is being tried in Erie, Pennsylvania, for sex crimes against a minor, Daniel Donahue. Egan moved the Newchurch trial out of New York and closed it to the public to minimize adverse publicity for Newchurch. Kavanagh's accusers want an open trial. It seems that a jury of presbyters will judge its own presbyter behind closed doors. How convenient!
"Obviously, it shows that the value of these church leaders is secrecy, it's not protecting children," accused Barbara Blaine, President of The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (sic). "What an irony, isn't it, if the punishment is more severe for telling about being abused than for actually committing the actual abuse?" You've sure got that right, Barbara!
The Erie Diocese lied, stating to the press that that there was no excommunication threat, but the Post was given a copy of the supposedly confidential document by one of the parties. So, Egan and Newchurch are once again caught in self-serving lies about their role in crimes against children. And where is the outcry from the Newchurchers? They are now so morally impaired from forty years of Vatican II immorality and conciliar popes who "just say yes" that the Newchurchers don't care any more. They just keep plunking their shekels into the Newchurch collection basket to support the crimes against children facilitated -- and sometimes participated in -- by their Newchurch bishops and popes. Newchurch is sick to the core, isn't it?
One thing that has come out of all the brouhaha about a fabled new "indult" for the Modernized Mass of 1962 is that the real issue has been exposed -- and it is not merely the Mass itself: it is the Roman Catholic Faith. You see, traditional Catholics have it, and Newchurch doesn't.
The French Bishops Conference made this fact clear in its November 9 statement issued after its meeting at Lourdes, at the same time that Newvatican declared that henceforth it would not recognize anything at Lourdes, the most venerable Marian site, as a "miracle," but only as an "unexplained occurrence." The French bishops declared that they "expect from these [traditional] faithful an unequivocal gesture of assent to the teachings of the Church's authentic magisterium." [Source: Catholic News Service]
Of course traditional Catholics assent to the teachings of the Church authentic magisterium. That is begging the question. The question is: what is the "Church's authentic magisterium"? It certainly cannot be anything from Vatican II, as much of that merely pastoral council contradicted Catholic doctrine decreed by 20 centuries of previous dogmatic councils. Yet Newchurchers falsely raise Vatican II to the level of a dogmatic council, at least in practice, and reject the dogmata of previous dogmatic councils. For further information, see FAQ08: What Is the Authority of Vatican II in the TRADITIO Network's Library of Files (FAQs & Traditional Apologetics).
Traditional Catholics would have to accept, among other things:
It is not simply a matter of dickering with the Mass. French Newchurch President Newcardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard made this clear when he stated that differences with traditional Catholics were "theological, not liturgical, and extended to the issues of religious freedom, ecumenism, and interreligious and political dialogue." He stated: "Diversity is possible, but it should be regulated." And there's the rub: to be regulated, the Newchurch bishops must have the final say: not traditional priests, not traditional societies, and certainly not New Order presbyters.
Yes, traditional Catholics know that Newchurch's "communion" is objectively nothing more than a cookie, but it is interesting to see these New Order bishops try to deal with the problem of Newchurch deserters from Catholic moral teaching, like Senators Kennedy and Kerry. The issue that the bishops dealt with in their recent meeting goes back to the Presidential election of 2004. They have been pussyfooting with it for all this time. On November 14, 2006, they finally issued a "statement," entitled Happy Are They Who Are Called to His Supper. (You see how the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has become for these Newchurchers a mere "supper"? "Are you free for supper tonight?" "No, sorry, I'm busy.") [Source: U.S. Conference of Catholic (sic) Bishops]
The salient fact in the "statement" is that it does not direct the bishops to do anything in such cases. Instead, it continues to leave up to the same Newchurchers who have deserted Catholic moral teaching to make the determination themselves whether they should munch the cookie! Naturally, their answer is yes; it always has been.
This is just another patent "cop-out" on the part of the pusillanimous Newchurch bishops, who since Vatican II can no longer be called Catholic bishops, since they too have deserted the traditional Faith and are now committed to imposing a Protestant-Masonic-Pagan New Order in the Mass, Sacraments, Faith, and morals. So Kennedy, Kerry, and the rest will continue to thumb their noses in the face of Catholic morality, and the Newchurch bishops will continue to encourage it.
Even Benedict-Ratzinger, who is supposed to be Bishop of Rome, after all, has done nothing to prevent those Roman politicians who have deserted from Catholic morality from receiving the Novus Ordo cookie either. So, once again, it is demonstrated that Newchurch rots from the head.
Dear Fathers:
A blasphemous play at the University of Minnesota insults the Faith. At least three bishops have urged the school to cancel the play. Protest now!
The Fathers Reply.
We don't agree. The play involved, The Pope and the Witch, has been the subject of a previous TRADITIO Network Commentary, which you should have read first. The play doesn't insult the Faith -- well, maybe the New Order Faith, but certainly not the Catholic Faith. Rather, it rightly chastises in satire Newpope and his Newchurch hierarchy, who are out of control and who are so far from the Catholic Faith that they sit back and wash their hands like Pontius Pilate while they allow children to be raped by their own presbyters!
The Catholic Church has a tradition of satire against errant popes and hierarchs. Dante Alighieri, praised by several popes as a theologian in verse, pillories several popes in his Divina Commedia [Divine Comedy]. St. Thomas More wrote biting satire against errant popes and clerics of his time. The Venerable Erasmus of Rotterdam wrote Moriae Encomium [In Praise of Folly], chastising similar departures from the practice of the Catholic Faith by the hierarchs.
Rational argument hasn't moved these immoral New Order hierarchs from Newpope on down. Maybe biting satire will. True Catholics are not Philistines. On with the play!
Scott Hahn, once a Fundamentalist Protestant minister of the "pope is the whore of Babylon" persuasion, supposedly converted to Newchurch some years ago. That "conversion" allowed him to recycle his Protestant books for a new audience and opened to him the door of the Charismatic EWTN cable network, which has been consistently called unCatholic by the TRADITIO Network and is now the subject of a recent book exposing just how unCatholic its innards are. To whatever degree EWTN's founder, Mother Angelica, was New Order, it is clear that since her strokes a few years ago, the network has passed out of her hands into the control of the Charismatics.
With the Charismatic takeover, the High Priest of Charismaticism, Scott Hahn, has become more prominent and has now outed himself as a member of the Opus Dei cult in Ordinary Work: Extraordinary Grace: My Spiritual Journey in Opus Dei. There is increasing evidence that Opus Dei, which functions much like the Freemasons, has ushered its disciple, Hahn, into a position of prominence in Newchurch. Hahn is an outspoken critic of traditional Catholicism and is a strong adherent of Modernism and the New Order.
Jose Maria Escriva de Balaguer, the founder of Opus Dei, anticipated and developed 30 years before Vatican II a revolutionary, new, secular theology of the laity, based upon the principles of pluralism and indifferentism, and embraced Novus Ordo Seclorum, a New Order of the Ages. In 1982 JPII created this group as a "personal prelature." Suspiciously, this act occurred in the same year that the wealthy sect allegedly had transferred almost $1,000,000,000 into the Vatican Bank, bailing it out of an embarrassing bankruptcy. In a second maneuver that raised eyebrows, JPII placed the founder of Opus Dei on the "fast track" for New Order sainthood, accelerating an often centuries-long waiting-period for canonization to a mere twenty years.
Opus Deistas are part of the New Order Church. Opus Dei is a chameleon organization, being liberal or conservative, whichever benefits its agenda. Juan Estruch in his book Saints and Schemers described this as "dual ethics." Michael Walsh, in his book, Opus Dei: An Investigation Into the Secret Society Struggling For Power Within the Roman Catholic Church, has also written in detail about the inner workings of Opus Dei.
For further information about Charismaticism and Opus Dei, see FAQ10: How Do You Explain These Traditional Catholic Beliefs in the TRADITIO Network's Library of Files (FAQs & Traditional Apologetics) in the sections "Charismatic Movement" and "Opus Dei."
Newvatican has announced that it now rejects miracles at Lourdes, the most venerable site of Marian devotion in the present day. Henceforth only "inexplicable occurrences" will take place there. Mention of the appearance of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Lourdes in the traditional Collect of February 11 has been eliminated from the Novus Ordo service. [Source: BBC World Television. It is interesting to note that it is being downplayed in European broadcasts, especially with the French Bishops meeting in Lourdes, but it was covered more heavily in non-European broadcasts. One of the TRADITIO Network's correspondent pool in India provided us with the information.]
Isn't Newvatican shooting itself in the foot? If it doesn't recognize miracles, how is it going to make its poster boy JPII the Less a Newchurch saint?!
Mother Angelica said many years ago that with any validly-ordained Roman Catholic priest who says the words of consecration correctly, you have a valid Host of Our Lord. There is enough disrespect for Our Lord already without adding to it.
The Fathers Reply.
There is no "disrespect" when one refuses to genuflect to a cookie. In fact, to do so is a grave sin of idolatry.
By Mother Angelica's own statement, the Novus Ordo objects are cookies, not the Corpus Christi. The vast majority in Newchurch are not ordained Roman Catholic priests; they are New Order presbyters. And even the others, if they are "obedient" to Newchurch authorities, must use an invalid consecration formula, which was specifically rejected by the dogmatic Council of Trent, not to speak of much earlier Apostolic Tradition.
But, more than that, Mother Angelica's statement is in conflict with the constant teaching of Catholic Sacramental Theology, specifically Pope Leo XIII's Apostolic Bull on this topic. The invalidity of the Novus Ordo cookie has been explained here many times, and has been confirmed more and more in recent years.
For further information, see APOSTOLICAE CURAE: Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae [On the Nullity of Anglican Orders], Given by His Holiness Pope Leo XIII in the TRADITIO Network's Library of Files (FAQs & Traditional Apologetics). See also FAQ05: What Traditional Catholic Books Do You Recommend? in the TRADITIO Network's Library of Files (FAQs & Traditional Apologetics).
Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, was one of the lights of the English Church during the time of the dogmatic First Vatican Council. Pope Pius IX put him on the Council's De Fide Committee, to which in March, 1870, was referred the question of papal infallibility, and which the Council adopted on July 18 of that year. Yet this cardinal saw clearly an troubled future for the papacy. He had written in 1861:
The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts so new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatise from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism.... Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church. (The Present Crisis of the Holy See, [London: Burns and Lambert, 1861], pp. 88-90)
These are certainly not the ravings of a madman, but the considered thought of one of the most respected cardinals of the Council, appointed several times by Pope Pius IX to positions of respect and authority. His prophetic words deserve to be heeded.
It is interesting that Cardinal Manning's prophecy from the middle of the 19th century parallels that of another prominent Catholic prelate, Archbishop Fulton Sheen (1895-1979), in the middle of the 20th century:
He will set up a counterchurch which will be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the Antichrist that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ. But the twentieth century will join the counterchurch because it claims to be infallible when its visible head speaks ex cathedra. (Communism and the Conscience of the West [Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill], 1948, pp. 24-25)
It seems that Sheen is speaking here of what later came to known as the error of papolatry, or pope-worship. He seems to be referring to Catholics ignorant of the actual doctrine on the papacy as decreed at Vatican I, who would go along with what Sheen calls the "counterchurch of Satan" because the Catholics of the 20th century would ascribe to the pope authority that dogmatically he does not have in the Catholic Church.
A question that more and more Newchurchers are asking themselves today is: "Why do I need Newchurch?" Protestants four centuries ago decided that they were gods enough themselves to reach religious truth by reading their Bible. Affiliation to Newchurch is optional, more a social than a religious matter.
Today Newchurchers are asking themselves the same question. Why bother going to "Mess" when you can play golf on Sunday? Why worry about Catholic marriage when you can live in sin and then marry before a civil official? Why worry about the truth about God and themselves when they can find any lector or eucharistic ministress or presbyter to tell you just what they want to hear?
Newchurchers may be comforted to know that Benedict-Ratzinger is asking the same question. In fact, he knows that Newchurch is useless. Writing just after Vatican II, as the New Order was being rolled out to parishes, he wrote an article entitled "Necessità della missione della Chiesa nel mondo," in which he stated:
In this state of things, one should no longer be concerned with the salvation of "the others," who for some time now have become "our brothers." Above all, the central question is to have an intuition of the Church's position and mission in history under a positive new point-of-view.... What concerns us is no longer how "the others" will be saved.... The point that does concern us is principally this: Why, despite the wider possibility of salvation, is the Church still necessary? Why should faith and life still continue to come through her? (apud La Fine della Chiesa come Societa Perfetta [Verona: Mondatori, 1968], pp. 69-70)
Actually, for once, Benedict-Ratzinger seems to have asked a relevant question. And the answer that he gives by his acts and by his words is that Newchurch is no longer necessary. He has taught that Protestants are part of the true Church of Christ, just as Newchurchers are. He has taught that the Jews do not need Jesus Christ; they can look for another Messias. He has taught the "universal offer of the grace of salvation." So why is Newchurch necessary?
If you listen to Benedict-Ratzinger carefully, he seems to describe religion as a "cultural," not a religious obligation. Catholics observe Christmas, just as Jews observe Passover, or Mohammedans observe Ramadan. Each follows his own culture. This is the Vatican II error of "inculturation," that there is no universal, objective truth. Everything is culture based. This error comes right out of Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors.
Benedict-Ratzinger clearly saw the future of Newchurch when he wrote: "The numeric triumph of Catholicism over other religions, which today can still be admitted, probably will not continue." He wrote that in 1968, and already the number of Mohammedans in the world outstrips the number of Newchurchers. So, why does one need Newchurch, in the opinion of Benedict-Ratzinger?
Primarily, he seems to teach that it is all a matter of association with others in a club. Newchurch Baptism has become the Rite of Initiation, like a fraternity. Membership -- the term the Modernists like to use is "be in communion with" -- is a matter of paying your association dues, not a matter of adhering to any particular principles. As is said of the Anglicans, "a belief in God is nice, but not necessary." But God help you if you stand up for principles that have been traditionally Catholic. You will be "excommunicated," that is, thrown out of the club.
Let's face it. Most now would rather worship at the altar of Sport on Sunday than the altar of God. The conciliar popes were kind enough to change the Lord's Day, as prescribed in the New Testament, back to the Jewish Sabbath, at least optionally, so that Sunday "Mess" would not interfere with golfing and football on Sunday. Most now don't have the vaguest notion of Catholic teaching; forty years of New Order "catechism" has eradicated that. (If you don't believe us, just read the ignorant "blogs" that claim to be "Catholic.") Most now won't make any attempt to think about questions of goodness, truth, and beauty that even the pagans tackled. Rather, they will silently walk out of Newchurch -- as they have been doing now for forty years.
Benedict-Ratzinger knew the truth already in 1968. Newchurch is useless.
Should traditional Catholics genuflect in front of the tabernacle in "conservative" Novus Ordo churches?
The Fathers Reply.
Given the invalidity of the New Order service, there are only cookies in the tabernacle (if there even is a tabernacle), so no genuflection is appropriate. New Order is New Order. It doesn't matter whether it's "conservative" or "liberal,", any more than the difference between Methodists and Presbyterians is significant. Even the Newchurchers don't genuflect; why should you?
Dear Fathers:
I want to thank you for your recent Commentaries on Mel Gibson. This past weekend my family traveled from our home in Texas and spent the weekend with relatives in Southern California. On Saturday afternoon we went to the movies in Century City, California. Before our movie there was a promotion for Gibson's upcoming new film, Apocalypto. Our family was startled that there was a large chorus of boos that went up from a majority of the crowd.
After we got out of the theatre, my relatives explained that Century City is a largely Jewish neighborhood, and that probably explained why there was such a negative reaction. However, it was still very disturbing. It reminded me of the TRADITIO Network's Commentary and why it is so important for those of us in the Traditional Catholic Movement to support this unabashed traditional Catholic producer-director at this time. I truly believe that there are people who would like to destroy Mel Gibson's career if they could because he is an outspoken traditional Catholic.
Curial officials will have the opportunity to express their opposition once again to any new "indult, as they already did on February 13, 2006, at a meeting of the Curia on November 16. This meeting will focus on the case of Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo, who, although he has been excommunicated for marrying a woman of the Moonie cult, has put pressure on Newvatican to rescind traditional priestly celibacy. Benedict-Ratzinger called the meeting to examine requests for dispensation made by priests wishing to marry and requests for readmission made by clergy who had "married" in recent years. Could the result be an "indult" for married priests, starting with former Anglican/Episcopalians, who already have their own "rite" in Newchurch?
It is interesting that this topic comes up just as a prominent Fundamentalist minister, Ted Haggard, was recently expelled from his sect for consorting with homosexual prostitutes, even though Haggard was married and has five children. Once again Modernist Newchurch is behind the times!
Just like the New Mess, a married clergy in Newchurch will bring in far more problems. What's next after a married clergy in Newchurch? "Gay" presbyters and bishops consorting publicly with their paramours? Lesbian priestesses? Don't laugh: the Episcopalians already have them, and we all know that where the Episcopalians have gone, Newchurch eventually follows. For further information, see FAQ10: How Do You Explain These Traditional Catholic Beliefs in the TRADITIO Network's Library of Files (FAQs & Traditional Apologetics) in the section "Clerical Celibacy."
Newchurch archbishops Andre Lecrampe, of Besanson, and Joseph Dore, of Strasbourg, and bishop Pierre Raffin, of Metz, have sent a joint message to Benedict-Ratzinger, protesting any new "indult" for the Modernized Mass of 1962. The bishops openly warned the pope that any appearance of backing down from modernizations of Vatican II would lead to a rebellion by Newchurch presbyters and congregations.
These (arch)bishops echoed the warnings of Newcardinals Jean-Pierre Ricard, of Bordeaux, President of the French Bishops Conference; Andre Vingt-Trois, of Paris; Jean-Marie Lustiger, late of Paris; Godfried Danneels of Belgium; and bishops from Newpope's native Germany. Newchurch cardinals and bishops patently reject Catholicism as traditionally understood and embrace a Modernist New Order in its place. The Newcardinal of Paris spoke out in no undertain terms on this point:
One has witnessed a radical criticism of Vatican Council II, a pure and simple rejection of some of its declarations, under the pretext of mobilization in defense of a form of the liturgy. The rejection of validly-promulgated liturgical books was followed by public insults against the popes, and crowned by acts of violence such as the forcible seizure of a parish church in Paris.... None of the protagonists of these uprisings either believed or stated that the problem was primarily, much less exclusively, liturgical. It was, and remains, an ecclesiological problem. It clearly poses the question of the meaning of ecclesial unity in communion with the see of Peter [sic]. It clearly poses the question of the authority of an ecumenical council.
This is an honest, heartfelt, and sincere statement from a Vatican II Modernist of the New Order sect. It elevates a merely pastoral council to the level of dogma, a common Modernist heresy. It makes crystal clear why the Newchurch of the New Order will never accept the Traditional Latin Mass, or even the bastardized "Indult" Mass, much less Catholic Doctrine and Morality. Whatever games are played with the "indult," Newchurch will remain fully committed to Vatican II, and the indultarians will continue to worship the false god of Modernism in New Order temples. For further information, see FAQ08: What Is the Authority of Vatican II in the TRADITIO Network's Library of Files (FAQs & Traditional Apologetics).
Newcardinal-President Ricard, a member of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, addressed plenary sessions of the French Bishops Conference on November 4 and 9, 2006, and gave them Newpope's response to the protest. Benedict-Ratzinger:
Dear Fathers:
I am learning to say the Divine Office from the traditional Breviarium Romanum (Breviary), but I am having trouble understanding some of the terms because the Modernized Mass of 1962 and the New Order have changed or done away with many of the traditional usages. Is there somewhere that I could find out the meaning of these terms?
The Fathers Reply.
Yes. Our volunteer Scott, of Ohio, has recently provided A Brief Dictionary of Terms for Reference from Fr. Bernard Hausmann's Learning the Breviary (Benziger, 1932). This dictionary includes common liturgical terms that pertain to both the Divine Office and Holy Mass. For further information, see GLOSSARY: Learning the Breviary: A Brief Dictionary of Terms for Reference in the TRADITIO Network's Traditional Divine Office, Mass, & Sacraments department.
What the indultarians aren't telling you, in the middle of their fantasies about a fabled new "indult" is that -- right now -- existing "Indult" Masses are being canceled by Newchurch at a significant rate. If one compares the Eleventh Edition (2006) of The Official Traditional Catholic Directory with the recently-released Twelfth Edition (2007), one sees that "Indult" Masses experienced a net decline over the year of 3%. In that figure were approximately two dozen "Indult" Masses canceled and their replacement at a net shortfall. So, when you read a lot of hoopla about some new "Indult" Mass, remember that one already has been, or will be, taken away.
What the press and the latter-day indultarian "blogs" won't tell you is that there has been a sea change in the approach to the Traditional Latin Mass in Newchurch since Vatican II. Originally, groups like Una Voce then were demanding the complete restoration of the true Mass as their right and openly criticizing the invalid New Order service. Now such groups have gone "indultarian." No longer do they demand the true, valid Mass. They simply ask for a secondary place at the Newchurch table in the name of "diversity."
Meanwhile the clueless and press and "blogs" have postponed the fabled "indult" yet again! Now it's not Easter 2006 or November 2006, but between Christmas and Easter. This is a hare that won't ever be caught!
Even Michael Davies, who wrote a three-volume series entitled Liturgical Revolution 1976-1980 and documented in it the deceitful imposition of the invalid Novus Ordo service fabricated by the Mason Hannibal Bugnini, fell into the error himself when he became chairman of Una Voce in 1992. He went hat in hand to Newrome, only to be bamboozled for years by Newcardinals Ratzinger and Hoyos. In the end, a broken man facing his end, Davies wrote a public letter to the members of Una Voce, stating that as he looked back on his work with Newrome, he had been fooled. He had won nothing from Newrome except for pretty words devoid of practical consequence.
One indultarian presbyter recently stated that it is "a question of how to recognize a complementary diversity within the Catholic Church. If complementary diversity is recognized, the unity of the Church will only be strengthened. If there is a legitimate diversity, the particularities have to be recognized by juridical structures that will strengthen the symphonic unity of the Church." Hannibal Bugnini, the Masonic architect of the New Order liturgy, would have been proud of a statement like that, as the "indult" presbyter has bought hook, line, and sinker the Modernist line of "diversity" condemned by Pope Pius IX in his encyclical Quanta cura, and the Syllabus of Errors, condemning the errors of the heresy of Modernism.
A case in point. The "Indult" Mass has been canceled in the Newchurch diocese of Cleveland, Ohio. As one of his final acts, Newchurch bishop Anthony Pilla appointed a new pastor to St. Rose of Lima Newparish, whose first official act was to end the "Indult" Mass there. The new bishop of Cleveland, Richard Lennon, refused permission for another site, stating that the "Indult" Mass is "too divisive," thus echoing the criticism of the European bishops presented personally to Benedict-Ratzinger. The indultarians need to watch out. In the words of Our Lord: "from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him" (Luke 19:26/DRV).
This "indult" presbyter echoes much of the "wishful thinking" that is now going on among the indultarians. He does not display analytical thinking, based on fact, but complete support of the same pope who has exhibited the New Morality of the New Order, by which thousands of Newchurch children have been raped and abused under his rule, while he stands by doing nothing. No, Newchurch is sick to its core, as it is not founded upon Catholic belief or practice. The best thing that traditional Catholics can do is to stay away from it entirely in order to avoid catching its deadly infection.
Fresh back from his meeting with Benedict-Ratzinger, Newcardinal Jean Pierre Ricard and his French Bishops Conference on November 9, 2006, gave traditional Catholics their marching orders: "rebel traditionalists ... are to show full loyalty to the 1960's Vatican reforms if they want to return to the Roman fold and celebrate the old Latin mass with papal approval." The message gave official support to a protest of Newchurch clergy spreading across Europe and the United States against Benedict-Ratzinger's fabled desire to get the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) back to the New Order without requiring the Society's support for Vatican II.
The Newchurch bishops and cardinals stated that they "shared with Pope Benedict an attachment to 'the riches of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.'" The bishops further stated: "The liturgical question is not the only source of difficulties. The bishops expect from these faithful a gesture of unequivocal assent to the teaching of the authentic magisterium of the Church." Let's be clear about this. By magisterium they were referring to the Modernist unCatholic beliefs and practices that were imposed during and after the pastoral Second Vatican Council. They were not referring to the beliefs and practices of the Catholic magisterium as decreed by the dogmatic Council of Trent.
Ricard, just back from Newrome, told the French Bishops Conference concerning any new "indult" that Benedict-Ratzinger "had not yet made any decision and was open to hearing the French Newchurch's views." He said, quoting Newpope, that Vatican II remained "the compass that guides our march." [Source: Reuters]
Newcardinal Ricard has hit the nail on the head. He is well aware that Newchurch's real problem with traditional Catholicism is not the Mass, but the Catholic Faith. The Newchurch of the New Order has always been willing to throw the indultarians a bone. Sure, they can worship once in a while at a Novus-Ordoized version of the Modernized Mass of 1962, but in return they must swear allegiance to the New Theology and the New Morality. If the indultarians have learned anything during the past year, they should have learned that, in the end, the best that they'll get from Newchurch is a bone, for which they will have to swear allegiance to a false Faith, receive invalid sacraments, and fund with their collections the rape of Newchurch children.
I am working on a project and need to get an estimate on the number of U.S. citizens who attend the Traditional "Tridentine" Rite Mass with regularity. I can get an overview of the churches, chapels, oratories, and shrines where the Traditional Latin Mass is celebrated, but I have no way of knowing what kind of attendance each of these has. Are there any figures available? Is there any way we could establish a rough estimate? Any help you can offer in this area would be greatly appreciated.
The Fathers Reply.
The TRADITIO Network forwarded your message to the National Registry of Traditional Latin Masses, which publishes the Official Traditional Catholic Directory, for a reply. The Registry provides to the TRADITIO Network the Official Traditional Catholic Directory page. For further information see the Official Traditional Catholic Directory department. The Registry has allowed us publish its answer to you, because it will be of general interest to our readers.
First of all, we don't use the term "Tridentine," which implies that the Traditional Latin Mass was composed by the Council of Trent, in the way that Hannibal Bugnini and his commission composed the New Order service, sometimes called "The Mass of Paul V," as if each pope composed his own Mass. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Rather, the Traditional Latin Mass in all its essentials was passed on by St. Peter, the first pope, to the Church. The Apostles themselves, according to St. Ambrose, worked at its elaboration. It reached its complete perfection with Popes St. Damasus (fourth century) and St. Gregory the Great (sixth century). As the great liturgical scholar, Fr. Adrian Fortescue, wrote, this Mass is "the most venerable in all Christendom, with a history of unbroken use far longer than that of any Eastern rite, there being no doubt that the essential parts of the Mass are of Apostolic origin." For further information, see MASSTRAD: Traditional Roman Catholic Latin Mass in the TRADITIO Network's Library of Files (FAQs & Traditional Apologetics).
That having been said, there have been various estimates of the number of traditional Catholics in the United States, depending upon definition, just as the number of New Order Catholics varies, according to the definition of the pollster, from 15,000,000 to 65,000,000.
U.S. News & World Report has mentioned a figure of up to 15,000,000 Catholics in the United States "who are traditionally oriented in their Faith." The Christian Coalition has made an estimate of 10,000,000-15,000,000. This would put the number of traditional Catholics about equal to that of the Southern Baptists, the largest single Protestant congregation, and about three times the number of Jews. The Catholic Traditionalist Movement (CTM), of Westbury, New York, the nation's oldest traditional organization, founded in 1964, has estimated that traditional Catholics number about 20,000,000.
How many of these traditional Catholics in the United States are able to attend the Traditional Latin Mass regularly would be difficult to say. Figures for the New Order indicate that about 15% attend the New Order service regularly. The number for traditional Catholics would probably be closer to 80%, the figure reported by the Gallup polls before Vatican II. Taking a figure of 15,000,000 traditional Catholics, that would translate to some 12,000,000. However, because of the lack of availability of the Traditional Latin Mass in all locales across the country, the number would probably be closer to 2,500,000 (15%) -- and growing, according to a New York Times article in 2003.
It seems now that with the confrontation of Benedict-Ratzinger by five Newcardinals from Belgium, France, and Germany, any new "indult" has gone back to the drawing board. Of course, there are drafts of all kinds of things floating around Newvatican, but most of them never see the light of day. Most of them are like the ill-advised letter that you draft and then throw into the wastebasket, unsent.
Since Newcardinal Hoyos has been dismissed as Prefect of the Clergy, Benedict-Ratzinger has commissioned Newcardinal Ricard, of Bordeaux, whom he appointed earlier this year to be a formal member of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, to dump a purported draft by Hoyos and work on a "feel-good" text that will praise the "Indult" Mass, but give it no further legal standing. This will satisfy some of the indultarians, while at the same time pleasing the Newchurch bishops, whose power to control their dioceses will never be tampered with by Newpope as a matter of policy. Local episcopal control is always the prime directive for Newchurch and has been sworn to by Newpope in his Primum Nuntium delivered immediately after his election.
No time limit has been imposed on Ricard. The clueless press and blogs have been led on yet another wild-goose chase. Time is in favor of Newchurch because, as Newcardinal Ratzinger had previously remarked, few indultarians can distinguish between the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Protestant-Masonic-Pagan service concealed in Latin. In the intervening years since he said that, the Newchurchers have become "dumberer and dumberer."
As one commentator pointed out, what point can there be in continuing to support an organization (Newchurch) that cannot even prevent a presbyter who was once a male prostitute from running for a seat in the Canadian Parliament so that he can support abortion and "gay" marriage? Truly, Newchurch under Benedict-Ratzinger is too effete to do anything Catholic.
There have already been calls for the SSPX to reject even the Modernized Mass of 1962 and return, as Archbishop Lefebvre actually preferred, to a version at least before the Bugnini modernizations of 1960-1962.
Actor Tom Cruise, once Catholic, now "divorced" and embracing the religious sect known as Scientology, wants to be married on November 17 in Italy in a "Catholic" ceremony to a woman 17 years his junior. Cruise, who was recently dumped by Paramount Studios, is hankering to restore his "image." The next day he plans publicly to spurn the "Catholic" wedding by being "married," in a second service, by a minister of Scientology. Traditionally, a Catholic presuming to marry before a minister is excommunicated.
But Newvatican doesn't have the guts to deny him the "Catholic" bells and whistles. In its usual duplicitous way, a Newvatican representative stated: "If the priest [sic] conducting the ceremony thought Catholic [sic] rites would be beneficial, he could overlook the fact that there would be a Scientology ceremony the next day." [Source: UK Times]
In other words, the sacraments are just a big game for the Newchurch of the New Order. There is no truth in them. No wonder so many voices are being raised these days to claim that New Order "sacraments" are simply invalid.
On November 7, 2006, in an audience with Swiss Newchurch bishops, Benedict-Ratzinger publicly admitted to a drop in attendance at the Novus Ordo service. He admitted further than Newchurch seemed powerless to turn around "the crisis of marriage and the family, the increase in divorce and abortions, and unions between people of the same sex." [Source: Vatican Information Service]
Satire is the only literary form invented by the Romans; every other form they borrowed from the Greeks. The TRADITIO Network's often biting satirical commentary models itself after the Roman Juvenal. And satire is increasingly used these days to draw out the truth about Newchurch and the conciliar popes, when "documents" and "facts" are used to obscure the truth rather than to reveal it.
The Pope and the Witch is a satire depicting the conciliar popes as addled and Newvatican as corrupt. Apparently, this satire hits too close to home for Newchurch officials like Harry Flynn, the notorious bishop of Minneapolis-St. Paul, who allows "gay" Messes and celebrations to go on in his New Order temples. The satire has also offended William Donahue, the cheerleader for the New Order officials with his Catholic [sic] League for Religious and Civil Rights, who didn't seem to have any problem when an SSPX chapel in New York was vandalized and the contents of its tabernacle desecrated. "They're not Catholic," he said at first. It was only when the TRADITIO Network conducted a campaign against Donohue and the network's readers lowered the boom on the hypocritical Donahue that he finally recanted.
Flynn calls his position "standing for the Faith." Of course, we know that the Faith he stands for is the Protestant-Masonic-Pagan New Order sect. Moreover, he apparently doesn't think that Newchurch lays itself open to satire -- at the least -- when its presbyters, bishops, and pope rape its children by the thousands, or aid and abet the same. Flynn and Benedict-Ratzinger should thank their gods that they aren't living in first-century Rome. Juvenal's biting wit would have torn them to shreds!
At 04:55 Eastern Standard Time (12:55 UTC) on November 7, 2006, Fr. James Wathen, an independent traditional Catholic priest, died of kidney failure as a consequence of the lymphatic cancer that he had been battling for the last several years. The previous day he had celebrated his 74th birthday.
Fr. Wathen never performed the Novus Ordo service. After reading P.H. Omlor's 1968 blockbuster, Questioning the Validity of the Masses Using the New, All-English Canon, which demonstrated the invalidity of the Novus Ordo service, Fr. Wathen discerned that the Novus Ordo service was not only a total departure from the Catholic Faith, but that to attend the Novus Ordo was in total defiance of the First Commandment of God. As a result of his discernment, he wrote in 1971 one of the seminal works of the Traditional Catholic Movement, entitled The Great Sacrilege, which supported Omlor's work in demonstrating the invalidity of the New Order service.
When asked why so many who were once Catholics had failed to grasp this concept, Fr. Wathen used always to reply. "Because the people do not realize how evil is the Novus Ordo." Fr. Wathen was of the firm belief that the Novus Ordo service is the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy about the "abomination of desolation": "When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand" (St. Matthew 24:15).
For further information on The Great Sacrilege, see FAQ05: What Traditional Catholic Books Do You Recommend? in the TRADITIO Network's Library of Files (FAQs & Traditional Apologetics).
I am trying to counter the way society now uses Xmas instead of Christmas spelled out. I want to be able to say how this practice began. I have a feeling that it was started by those who hate Christianity and who want Christ to be removed (thus the X) from society, but I don't know for certain who began this or why.
The Fathers Reply.
Actually you are wrong on all counts; these are very common misconceptions. Actually, the term Xmas has religious origins. It is not some kind of X-ing out of Christ. In fact, the X is not a Roman X at all, but the Greek letter chi, which looks something like the Latin X.
Chi and rho are the two letters in ancient Greek that begin the name Christos. The chi-rho was used on the standards of Constantine's Roman army when he defeated Maxentius and brought Christianity into the Roman Empire as its official religion in the early fourth century. It is frequently used in the orphrey of traditional vestments.
So, Xmas is actually a more ancient form, in a way, recalling to our minds the origins of our Faith, in which Greek, as well, as Latin, is paramount in Tradition.
For further information on the facts and traditions relating to Christmas, see FAQ11: How Do You Explain These Traditional Catholic Practices in the TRADITIO Network's Library of Files (FAQs & Traditional Apologetics).
It seems these days that Protestant Fundamentalists are more Christian than the pope! While Benedict-Ratzinger's Newchurch bishops and presbyters sink deeper and deeper into an abyss of immorality, with Newpope, like Pontius Pilate, washing his hands of the filth in his own papacy, the Fundamentalist Protestants have given him an example of how to deal with such cases that is both Christian and effective.
In the recent case of minister Ted Haggard, who was accused of sexual and drug improprieties, this is how the Fundamentalist Christians handled the matter. First, they summoned the minister before his board to answer the charges then and there. When Haggard admitted to his board that at least some of the charges were true, the board immediately accepted his resignation from the ministry. The following Sunday Haggard publicly apologized to his congregation for his personal sins, which had scandalized his sect. Fellow sect members said that since the requirements of justice had been fulfilled, they could now offer support and prayers to his family. Impeccable handling. Both justice and mercy were satisfied, and the scandal was addressed and corrected within a matter of 24 hours.
Now let's look at how JPII and Benedict-Ratzinger have handled such cases. First of all, they never confront the charges or the accused directly. The accused is allowed to protract the case, often using legalistic ploys, so that the sin and scandal are never directly addressed. Secondly, they don't take swift and decisive action against the guilty party. Rather, they cover up the crimes and let the guilty party commit more crimes while he plays the pope for a fool. Third, the guilty parties never directly confront the charges and publicly apologize for their scandal-causing sins to their congregations. Justice is never satisfied; "forgiveness" is shown without the guilty party having repented. And the victims of the crimes must continue to demand justice, which they never get. The scandal simply deepens and is prolonged over years and even decades.
As Our Lord Jesus Christ would say, "Which of these, in thy opinion, did the Christian thing?" Forget "documents." Our Lord condemned the Pharisees for not carrying their "documents" into acts. As the old adage teaches us, "Actions speak louder than words." And the Protestant Fundamentalists, in this case at least, are speaking loudly the Christian message of both justice and mercy, while the conciliar popes ape the duplicitous Pontius Pilate. Once again Newchurch officials have failed basic Catholic theology: "It is better that the truth be known than the scandal be covered up" (St. Augustine).
I've been trying to tell my Newchurch friends about the dismaying things going on at Newvatican, how the Faith has been watered down since Vatican II, the problems with the New Mess, etc., and the stock answer I get is: "I have confidence that Our Lord has not and will not abandon His Church. I trust our priests. There have been scandals before. The gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church."
The last statement that the gates of Hell will not prevail is the one I have particular trouble responding to. I counter with telling them that Our Lord depends on the Church (us, not the Vatican) to stand up to the forces of Hell within the Church, i.e., to expose the errors and to protest against the heresy so that the gates of Hell will not prevail, but my words fall on deaf ears.
The Fathers Reply.
But which Church is it that Our Lord will not abandon? In the Protestant-Masonic-Pagan New Order, or traditional Roman Catholicism? And are the New Order priests that they trust so much really even priests, or merely presbyters, presiders over the "communal meal"?
Certainly there have been scandals before, but the Catholic Saints and faithful in past crises left the heretical Churches. This is certainly what happened during the Arian heresy and the Protestant heresy. Tell these people: "If you really believe what you are telling me, why don't you go to the Methodist church down the street? They're nice, Christian people. By your own principle you should go and let Christ take care of any problems there." Of course, they will be horrified at the suggestion, but the New Order is just as heretical as the Arian churches and the Protestant churches.
You've got it exactly right. God gave the Newchurchers free-will and will hold them responsible for their sloth in failing to defend His true Church. He depends upon us to stand up for the true Church and the forces of Hell that have pervaded it, as Pope Paul VI said. We must expose the errors and protest against the heresy so that the gates of hell will not prevail.
If, instead, the Newchurchers persist in suborning sex crimes, aiding and abetting theft from their churches and the poor, and supporting false doctrine, morality, and sacraments, they will have a lot to answer for. They can't use the phony excuse: "God made me do it." The have the free-will to reject these evils. They are being tested, and they are failing the test. That is why their New Order churches are dying. Just wait until the diocese closes their church building and sells it to the Mohammedans to pay off sex crimes, and they'll squeal like pigs caught by the tail -- too little, too late.
I have read that Newvatican is speaking out against the death sentence handed out to that convicted and despicable murderer, Saddam Hussein. I am outraged at this decision. I remember when the Church stood for justice. Now it seems that Newchurch is defending criminals, illegal aliens, and leftists. What is the teaching of the Church on the death penalty?
The Fathers Reply.
The explanation is that the New Order sectarians have taken over what you are calling the "Church." The New Order is no more Catholic than the National Council of Churches in Geneva. For further information on the traditional Catholic teaching, see FAQ10: How Do You Explain These Traditional Catholic Beliefs in the TRADITIO Network's Library of Files (FAQs & Traditional Apologetics) in the section "Capital Punishment/Death Penalty."
I work on the fringe of the film industry and am also an independent traditional Catholic. I am an admirer of Mel Gibson and what he has been able to do in his career, while also staying true to the traditional Catholic faith. Mr. Gibson has been generally well liked, and even beloved, in the movie business for the last two decades and more.
However, it may not be known to many of your readers that there have been some in the film industry that have merely tolerated Mr. Gibson because of his traditional stand on social issues. This all came to a head with Mr. Gibson's directing, producing, and co-writing The Passion of the Christ. Liberals, atheists, and others in show business and the media will never forgive Mel for making The Passion, and hate him even more because the film was such an enormous success.
This brings me to Mr. Gibson's unfortunate DUI case this past summer. Many in show business are now trying to make sure that Mel never works again. They would tell you it is because of the remarks he made during the arrest. However, I don't for a second believe that to be true. I know for a fact, because I have heard it with my own ears, that they find anyone so deeply committed to their faith, and especially the traditional Catholic faith, to be intolerable. They are merely using the DUI as an excuse to get him shunned and blackballed from the business.
On December 8th, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, Mr. Gibson's latest film, Apocalypto, will be released. As you know, Mel produced, directed, and co-wrote the film. The few reviews that have come in so far have been outstanding. Apparently, it is an exciting action-adventure movie with a real message for our time. There are already two big holiday movies scheduled to open the same day. Last week Warner Brothers moved up its Leonardo DiCaprio action-adventure to go head to head with Apocalypto. Warner Brothers publicly admitted that it believes "with Mr. Gibson's recent problems, Apocalypto will not be much competition."
Personally, I believe that this is a critical time in Mr. Gibson's career. He needs this movie to be a box-office success. It will not be a critical success; the majority of the critics will be unkind. Mr. Gibson needs this movie to do well with the grassroots movie-goers. Mr. Gibson needs support at this time in his life. Like all of us, Mel Gibson is an imperfect person. But, overall I think that he has been a good advocate for traditional Catholicism. Perhaps by all us going to the movies and seeing Apocalypto on the weekend of December 8th, we can send the mainstream media, and the traditional Catholic haters, a message.
Jean-Pierre Ricard, President of the Conference of French Bishops, returned from his meeting with Benedict-Ratzinger to report to his Conference on November 4, 2006, at Lourdes. Ricard, together with Newcardinals Jean-Marie Lustiger and Andre Vingt-Trois of France, Godfried Danneels of Belgium, and others, flew to Rome during the week of October 30 to express to Newpope and his Curia their opposition to any new "indult" for the Modernized Mass of 1962. Ricard is an official member of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, who was personally confirmed by Benedict-Ratzinger, so his opinion carries great weight.
According to information released by the Conférence d'évêques de France, Benedict-Ratzinger has made no decision on the question of continuing the "indult." Nothing has been signed. The Newchurch hierarchy will have ample time for "consultations" with Newrome, to express their "fears and desires" concerning any new "indult." Newpope confirmed to the cardinals that "the liturgical books composed and promulgated following Vatican II" (the Novus Ordo service) remains the standard for Newchurch. There is to be no criticism or reform of the "Missal of Paul VI." Newpope's concern is "communion" with the New Order that has taken possession of Rome since Vatican II. Those who have problems with the Novus Ordo service or the New Theology and Morality imposed since Vatican II are not welcome.
Newcardinal Ricard relayed Benedict-Ratzinger's actual position to the Conference. He stated that contrary to the intentions which some ascribe to him, Benedict-Ratzinger is an committed and enthusiastic supporter of Vatican II and does not wish to turn back from the course which the Second Vatican Council gave. Rather, he is solemnly pledged to it, viewing it as his "compass." Ricard quotes Newpope as saying:
I am convinced that it will long be granted to the new generations to draw from the treasures that this 20th-century Council has lavished upon us. Thus, as I prepare myself for the service that is proper to the Successor of Peter, I also wish to confirm my determination to continue to put the Second Vatican Council into practice, following in the footsteps of my predecessors and in faithful continuity with the 2,000-year tradition of the Church.... Forty years after the Council, we can show that the positive is far greater and livelier than it appeared to be in the turbulent years around 1968. Today, we see that although the good seed developed slowly, it is nonetheless growing; and our deep gratitude for the work done by the Council is likewise growing. [Source: Conférence d'évêques de France]
Ricard's official trip report to his bishops corresponds closely to the remarks made by William Skylstad, President of the U.S. Bishops Conference, previously reported by the TRADITIO Network. It is beginning to look more and more as if any new "indult" from Benedict-Ratzinger is more a product of wishful thinking by "conservatives" who will readily sell out to Newchurch to get a few Latin phrases in the midst of their New Order temples and services.
Newcardinal Ricard & Co. have punished Hoyos for daring to push an "indult" document that Benedict-Ratzinger never wanted. They have managed to get Hoyos fired and replaced by a Marxist from Brazil. What about the former report from Newcardinal Zen of Hong Kong that a new "indult" document was already signed? I guess that a gust of wind must have blown it out the window while Newpope was playing Mozart. Opening those windows after Vatican II has had all sorts of deleterious effects!
Of course, some "indult" may still be forthcoming, but according to Ricard, the whole matter is under "consultation." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what that means. Who knows, if there ever is any new "indult," the altered document might order the Ecclesia Dei "communities" to switch to the Novus Ordo service in Latin. After all, that's where they're heading anyway, as the TRADITIO Network has previously reported. Remember the saga of the recent seminary document? It was said to be a good document, and then Newcardinal George of Chicago packed his bags and headed for Newrome. By the time he returned, the document was much worse than the one it replaced.
Seeing the smile on Ricard's face, some traditional Catholics might despair. That would be a mistake! These are the pyrrhic victories of losers. The battle for the Traditional Latin Mass has already been won. Only a few elderly women attend the Novus Ordo service in France, and they hate every minute that they have to be there. At the present rate of decline, there is absolutely no future for the Novus Ordo Mess and NewChurch. Let the Newchurchers have their little parties as they blow themselves out of the water. They are simply cutting a cake on the deck of the Titanic!
The TRADITIO Network has consistently maintained that to understand Benedict-Ratzinger, one must look at the kind of people he surrounds himself with. His first important appointment was that of William Levada, former Newchurch archbishop of San Francisco, who was (and is) under subpoena in two federal courts in the United States for his role in sex crimes in two dioceses, one of which went bankrupt. To what office did Benedict-Ratzinger appoint him? Prefect of Sex Crimes, of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, of course. So, Newpope made Levada the fox in the henhouse!
On Halloween 2006, Newvatican announced the replacement for Newcardinal Hoyos in the Congregation for the Clergy -- and he is a Marxist! -- Claudio Hummes, Newchurch Cardinal of Sao Paulo. Hummes is well known to be attached to "Liberation Theology," the political philosophy that became popular at the time of Vatican II, under which Jesuits in Latin American joined Marxist groups and gunned down conservatives in the government in a new form of "political activism." Hummes was described by the Newchurch National Catholic Reporter as "a man long identified as one of liberation theology's friends in the Latin American hierarchy" and a "close personal friend" of Brazil's leftist president, Lula da Silva.
In a statement made in February 2002 while preaching at a Lenten retreat for JPII and senior officials of the Roman curia, Hummes told the pope: "We are not the owners of the Gospel," seemingly denying the Church's dogmatic role in handing down the Sacred Scriptures. Hummes is also a radical oecumenist, standing four-square behind the Vatican II error of "inculturation," that is, the notion that the Catholic Mass, Sacraments, Faith, and Morals must be modified to satisfy non-Christian religions and cultures. [Source: Reuters]
The notion frequently found in the press and conservative "blogs" that Benedict-Ratzinger is "conservative," let alone traditional, is pure poppycock, shoveled out to keep the "conservative" Newchurchers in line and paying their tithes to the corrupt and unCatholic New Order.
Dear Fathers:
As the TRADITIO Network has correctly pointed out in recent Commentaries, the creation of more "indult" groups is yet another ploy by Newvatican to weaken the Traditional Catholic Movement. However, given the complete bankruptcy of the New Religion, what could possibly entice a priest of the Society of St. Pius X to join this ship of fools?
Simply put, Newchurch clergy have more fun. The Great Sex and Embezzlement Scandal that has been so carefully chronicled on the TRADITIO Network is not really a scandal at all; it is the dominant aspect of the culture of the New Order. Since the 1960s the New Religion can be accurately described not as a religion, but as a fancy welfare system for immoral Newchurch clergy posing as "priests."
Given this grim reality, one cannot possibly claim that a former SSPX priest who "longs for full communion with the Church (sic)" is ignorant of what he is joining. What he really wants is to sashay over to Newchurch and "get down with his bad self," as the street slang would put it. The question to ask is this: How did the SSPX admit the likes of these in the first place?
The TRADITIO Network has commented before on how many "indult" presbyters are motivated not by the Roman Catholic Faith, but by a psychological need for "human respect." No clearer a statement of this sad condition could have been provided than the recent statement of one of the "indult" presbyters in the Good Shepherd Institute of Bordeaux, composed of five SSPX priests expelled from the Society because they were advocates of the New Order.
Read very carefully his statement and consider its meaning: "It was not possible to remain suspended for great a period of time. A Catholic heart cannot stand it too long." Yet, being "suspended" from a false Faith certainly didn't phase Sts. Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Martin, and those other courageous bishops and priests who refused to associate with the Arian heretics that took over the institutional Church in that critical earlier period. Even the courageous modern bishop, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, took his "excommunication" from the Newchurch of the New Order to be a badge of honor and a confirmation that he was truly Catholic.
A true Catholic suffers such things for Christ. He worries about how Christ views him, not how men view him. Holy Mother Church reminds us of this fact in the recent Holy Gospel of the Feast of All Saints:
Blessed are ye when they shall revile you and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. (Matthew 5:11-12/DRV)
Further, this "indult" presbyter let slip out the fact that he was duped by Newcardinal Hoyos because of his "diplomatic" skills. This "indult" presbyter apparently does not understand that there is a true Faith and a false Faith, and no amount of "diplomacy" can change that fact, much as the Newchurch of the New Order would like to do so. Already, it seems, the indultarians are swallowing the "We All Worship the Same God" error of the New Order.
In yet another revealing statement, concerning the Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) being a "decontamination chamber" to "transition" the indultarians to the New Order Church, this "indult" presbyter implicitly threw down the gauntlet of what will undoubtedly be increasing battles between these little "indult" groups -- and don't you think Newrome knows exactly what it is doing by creating them?! In fact, the question has been buzzing around "indult" circles since September 8, 2006, why the five ex-SSPX were not simply referred to the FSSP, whose headquarters are right across the border in Germany. So, not only are the "indult" groups battling each other; they are battling the SSPX, let alone the hundreds of other fully traditional Roman Catholic sites that do obeisance neither to Newrome not to Menzigen.
The answer is that Newrome is deliberately trying to fragment the Traditional Catholic Movement, so that Newrome retains control as the puppeteer. Remember the old Roman adage: Divide et impera. Newrome has certainly learned that lesson well! There are now no fewer than thirteen small groups that answer to Newcardinal Hoyos as Master Puppeteer. This includes the Good Shepherd Institute, consisting of five ex-SSPX priests who hankered for the human respect of going over to the New Order.
This "indult" presbyter admitted that ultimately these groups are under the authority of the New Order bishops, who will determine to what degree, if at all, the groups can operate in the dioceses. He admits that there is "deliberate hostility" from these bishops. And where does the power in Newchurch reside? Certainly not in Newpope, who has publicly stated that the bishops are in charge and that he must work collegially with them.
Traditional Catholics must remember, with all the confused and even nonsensical information bombarding them these days about "indults," that the Traditional Latin Mass is only one part of what the Traditional Catholic Movement stands for (and, at that, the bastardized Mass of 1962 is hardly the fully Traditional Latin Mass). The Newchurch of the New Order boasts not only an invalid service (the "New Mess"), but many Sacraments of dubious validity at best, a New Theology that would deny Our Lord Jesus Christ as the Messias (taken from the pen of Benedict-Ratzinger himself), and a New Morality, which has degraded its clergy, from Benedict-Ratzinger on down, to a moral sewer, either by personal immoral acts or by aiding and abetting the immoral acts of others in what has been called by the U.S. Bishops' Chief Investigator, "not the Catholic Church, but a Mafia."
We traditional Catholics must remember that "human respect" and being friends with a false New Order Faith is not what Christ calls upon us to do. Rather, in the words of St. Athanasius, Defender of the Faith:
What saddens you ... is the fact that others [the Arian heretics] have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises -- but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously.... No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, Beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.... Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.
Given how they act, you have probably wondered whether Newchurchers even believe in God. A new Breithart poll of 2010 U.S. adults reveals that 36% of Newchurchers are not absolutely certain that God exists. Only 24% of Protestants and 7% of Fundamentalists had doubts. The only group having more doubts than Newchurchers were Jews. 70% of them were not certain. Perhaps that explains why such groups as B'nai B'rith, which has recently been extremely hostile to traditional Catholicism, are not religious, but political.
Just as the TRADITIO Network predicted, Newchurch leaders in Belgium and Germany have joined the French cardinals and bishops in vetoing any new "indult" for the Modernized Mass of 1962. They join some fifty French presbyters and ten bishops, who have already publicly stated their opposition. They expressed their fears that if the "Indult" Mass became any more available, traditional Catholics would "use it as a wedge to smuggle more divisive issues" into the Newchurch of the New Order. "The rite is only the locomotive -- the issue is the carriages that are pulled behind it," said Newchurch Cardinal Godfried Danneels, of Brussels. "Behind this locomotive are carriages that I don't want."
It is becoming clear that if any further "indult" is given, Benedict-Ratzinger will alienate many of his Newchurch supporters. "We risk creating a front of sadness, discouragement, and disappointment with the Holy See," said Newchurch Archbishop Robert Le Gall, of Tolouse. "The liturgy is just the tip of the iceberg." [Source: Reuters]
Make no mistake about it. The Newchurch hierarchy knows exactly what is at stake: their New Order itself. That is why it will never stand for the "Indult" Mass to gain any ground and is working to suppress whatever vestiges of it are left. In any case, for traditional Catholics, the "Indult" Mass is no solution to the problems in the Newchurch of the New Order, as the indultarians have to swear publicly to the New Theology, New Morality, and the invalid Novus Ordo service every time they set foot in a Newchurch temple.
Already two years over the mandatory retirement age, Benedict-Ratzinger accepted the resignation of Newcardinal Dario Castrillon-Hoyos as Prefect of the Congregation for [Newchurch] Clergy. Hoyos, as President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, has been Newpope's hit-man against traditional Catholicism, with a portfolio to try to entice traditional Catholics into New Order "indult" groups. He will remain in the latter position for a few more months "for appearance' sake," with his power base undercut. But if in fact there are no "negotiations" going on with Bernard Fellay of the SSPX claims, why bother? Yet another contradiction, which hints at the true story.
Hoyos had been coming under increasing criticism for the failure of negotiations with the SSPX, when word of an SSPX sellout to Newrome trickled down to SSPX clergy and members, significant numbers of whom vehemently objected to the Fellay administration. Moreover, Hoyos was Newpope's point-man to get indultarians to admit publicly their belief in the Novus Ordo and the New Ordinal of 1969, under which Ratzinger was consecrated a bishop. Rather than stifling the controversy, Hoyos failed to get a public admission from the SSPX, and certain traditional Catholic theologians have been getting more and more public notice for their position that the New Ordinal is defective.
In recent years, the Commission has begun to include as its members opponents of the "Indult" Mass, such as Newchurch Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard, of Bordeaux and President of the French [Newchurch] Bishops Conference. Ricard was personally appointed by Newpope on August 8, 2006. So ticked off is Ricard about a fabled new "indult" that he flew to Rome during the week of October 22, 2006, to meet with Newvatican officials and with Benedict-Ratzinger in a private audience on October 26. He had already published in his archdiocesan newspaper his opposition to any new "indult" and objected to the establishment in his archdiocese of a little "indult" group, composed of five priests expelled from the Society of St. Pius X for Modernist activities.
Will Hoyos be used as the scapegoat to explain why no new "indult" will be issued? Time will tell. Meanwhile, one story circulating around Newrome is that the Ecclesia Dei Commission will shortly be kaput and that Newvatican's desire to get rid of this thorn in its side, already revealed by Newcardinal Innocenti, the former Commission President, will become a fait-accompli. It just goes to show that one can never read new stories and Newvatican press releases at a surface level. There is always a subtext, which must be understood properly in its historical and ecclesiastical context. [Source: La Repubblica, La Stampa and independent sources.]
Dear Fathers:
How should the faithful respond to those traditional priests who prefer Low Mass and dislike sung Masses? I had a brief conversation with an SSPX priest recently and was disappointed to find out that he shared this attitude. What's more, on the few occasions when he does celebrate a High Mass, he told me that he prefers poor-quality amateur choirs to hired non-Catholic professionals because the latter do not sing "from the heart." The disrespect exhibited toward the Church's musical treasury saddens me. The most sublime music ever composed was written specifically for the Traditional Latin Mass. How is it that so many traditional priests squander it? Also, the priests at my SSPX church have no respect for Bach whatsoever. They bemoan the idea of Protestant music being performed in a Catholic church and indeed the idea of a "Protestant" writing a Catholic Mass setting.
The Fathers Reply.
He has a point about the "professional" choirs. Holy Mass is not a concert; foremost must be the worship. Frankly, not many "professional" choirs are knowledgeable in chant or the usable liturgical repertoire. That having been said, this is not an either/or situation. Why not develop an in-house schola (small men's choir) to render the music? Gregorian chant is not that difficult to bring to a passable competency. Just consider all those who have gone into the Church from all backgrounds and have sung the Divine Office every day. Nor is any specific musical background needed on the part of the singers. The full chant of the Propers, particularly the Gradual/Alleluia, may be too difficult for many, but the Propers can always be rendered in psalmody, or even recto tono (in a monotone).
We suspect that many priests are not all that trained or competent in music and that, therefore, a Missa Cantata seems difficult to them. That is understandable, but usually there is someone in the congregation competent enough musically to handle a schola and develop it to a point suitable for chanting a Missa Cantata.
As an example of what can be done by the average traditional church or chapel in this regard, we recommend the St. John Schola for Gregorian Chant series: A Traditional Chapel Sings Gregorian Chant. Although there are many recordings made in recording studios, or sometimes in larger churches or monasteries with professional or dedicated choirs, there are few, if any, recordings made by the average small lay choir, chanting what can actually be attempted in the smaller churches, chapels, and oratories, to which the Sacred Chant can be a great addition in the traditional Roman liturgy, not as mere secular performance, but in the actual religious setting for which it was composed, the Traditional Latin Mass and Divine Office of the classical Roman Rite. The St. John Schola has also produced supporting music sheets and booklets, which can be downloaded free of charge, to accompany the recordings and aid small choirs in using Gregorian chant for the traditional liturgy.
Such a crippled view of Bach simply shows an ignorance of musical training. Bach is not "Protestant" music. It is universal and has been embraced by the Catholic Church for its sublimity and religious expression. This pertains particularly to the instrumental music, particularly that for the organ, for which there has been no greater composer. There are in addition some partial Mass settings and one complete Mass setting.
Bach may well have been an interior Catholic, who, to feed his 21 children had to take employment where he could get it, in the Protestant area of Germany, where he lived. He did try to get a position with the Catholic Prince Augustus the Strong von Sachsen (Saxony). For this position, Bach wrote arguably the most sublime piece of Catholic religious music ever written, the High Mass in B Minor. Unfortunately, Bach didn't get the position, so the possibility of his service in a Catholic setting was cut off. But even in the choral music that Bach wrote for the High Lutheran service of his time (the Cantatas), many have found very Catholic strains. One thinks, for example, of his setting O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden, based upon a hymn attributed to St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Salve, caput cruentatum.
In a general sense, you are right that even among the traditional clergy, there is all too often sad lack of Roman Catholic culture. To them, the traditional faith amounts to a set of dry rules and deprivations. That is more characteristic of the Pharisees, who were sharply criticized by Our Lord and St. Paul. To the contrary, the Church, from ancient times, has seen in music a special religious spirit, which it has consistently encouraged, as it uses words and the human voice, reflecting the very image of God, the human mind (soul). One needs to look only to Sacred Scripture to see how integral music has been to the Church and to the Faith. And we must pay heed to the great Doctor of the Church, St. Augustine, when he said, "Qui bene cantat, bis orat" [He who sings well, prays twice.]
The Roman Catholic Church has been the greatest cultural institution that has existed on the face of the earth, stimulating the best art, architecture, music, and literature ever created by the mind of man. So powerful has been the cultural impetus of the Church that even non-Catholic composers have written their best works for the Catholic Church -- and have been converted by them.
I was discussing with a Newchurcher the force of the Solemn Papal Bull Quo Primum, issuing from the Dogmatic Council of Trent, which declared the Traditional Latin Mass licit and obligatory in perpetuity. The Newchurcher tried to maintain that since the Mass is not a matter of faith and morals, the pope's decree is not binding.
The Fathers Reply.
Once again the New Order has it exactly backwards. What involves faith and morals more than the Holy Sacrifice of Mass! The principle, going back at least to Pope Celestine I (422), is "Legem credendi, lex statuit supplicandi" [The law of praying established the law of believing], not the other way around. Traditionally, the Mass is the teacher of the faith par excellence. The New Order is backwards; it manipulates its "service" to teach its new religion.
Statements like that Newchurcher's would never be found in theological discussions of the Holy Mass for the entire period before Modernism. Modernism wishes to change worship, doctrine, and morals to fit its own tenets; it does not wish to follow those of Christ and the Catholic Church handed down from generation to generation in Sacred Tradition. This heresy of Modernism arose around the mid 19th century and was condemned by popes from Pius IX through John XXIII.
As if the principle needed any proof, look at what is happening today in Newchurch. The New Order has manipulated its New "Mess" to a state of invalidity and is, as a direct consequence, gripped by such unCatholic doctrines as that Our Lord Jesus Christ is not the Messias for the Jews, only the Gentiles (taught by Benedict-Ratzinger himself). In the area of morals, it is obvious that the New Order has become again the moral sewer that Dante Alighieri described in his Divine Comedy, called by Pope Benedict XV "Aquinas in verse."
For further information on this topic of Quo Primum, see the new 12th Edition (2007) of the Official Traditional Catholic Directory and QUOPRIM: The Bull Quo Primum with Commentary and the Decree De Defectibus [On Defects Occurring in the Celebration of Masses], Given by His Holiness Pope St. Pius V.
Pope Formosus, who reigned from 891 to 896, had been excommunicated in 872. Although he was later restored, his acts as pope were so detested that his successor but one, Pope Stephen VI (VII), who reigned from 896 to 897, had the body of his predecessor pope exhumed, vested in papal vestments, seated on a throne, and formally placed on trial before the Roman Synod (sometimes called the Cadaver Synod) for having invalidly usurped the papal throne. When he was found guilty, Formosus was stripped, and the three fingers of his right hand -- the fingers with which he conferred blessings -- were cut off and cast away contemptuously. Formosus' body was then thrown into the Tiber.
Pope Stephen deposed the dead pope, annulled all his decrees, and pronounced all the ordinations conferred by him invalid. Although several of Stephen's successors rehabilitated Formosus, Pope Sergius III (904-911) upheld the Stephen's actions. Boniface VI (896), Stephen's immediate predecessor, was an excommunicated priest.
This is just one of several interesting Church precedents for retroactively declaring the acts of an heretical pope or council invalid. For further information, see POPELIM: The Limitations of Papal Authority to Change Sacred Tradition, From the Writings of Roman Catholic Popes, Councils, Saints, and Theologians in the TRADITIO Network's Library of Files (FAQs & Traditional Apologetics).
Remember the TRADITIO Network's report about the "gay" presbyter who wanted to run for the Canadian parliament? Now Newchurch Presbyter Raymond Gravel, 57, has received permission from Benedict-Ratzinger to run for the Canadian parliament in the pending November 27 by-election in Quebec on a pro "gay" platform. He had to get special permission from the pope to run in the federal by-election because Newchurch canon law prevents a cleric from running for secular office. He has already been nominated as the candidate for the Bloc Quebecois party, which won the seat by a 60% majority in the previous election.
For six years Gravel worked as a male prostitute in gay leather bars. He gave up his trade only when he was hospitalized from being severely beaten up by a "trick." Gravel's Newchurch bishop, Giles Lussier, allowed him to function as pastor of St-Joachim-de-la-Plaine New Order temple in La Plaine, east of Montreal, in spite of the fact that Gravel publicly advocates "gay" marriage and the ordination of "gay" presbyters for Newchurch and plans to support that programme in parliament. In an interview in 2005 for Fugues, a homosexual magazine, he estimates that half of the Newchurch presbyters in Quebec's Newchurch are "gay."
Can you imagine that anyone who calls himself "Catholic" could support the Newchurch of the New Order, whose pope and bishops support such an individual for parliament? You thought Benedict-Ratzinger and Newchurch were against the "gay" lifestyle, "gay" presbyters, and "gay" marriage? Think again, Newchurchers. These clerics, from Newpope on down, speak their unCatholic beliefs loudly by their actions; their words are simply propaganda to bamboozle the Newchurchers into attending the New Mess and plunking their shekels into the Newchurch collection plate to support the New Order, which, as part of its Modernist agenda, embraces homosexuality. Get out while you can!
The good news is that the Novus Ordo Mess will no longer be performed at Our Lady Help of Christians. The bad news is that the church will become a mosque. So saith Adam Maida, Newchurch Cardinal-Archbishop of Detroit. The church, originally dedicated to Our Lady, will now be rededicated to the Mohammed, as well as five adjoining buildings to be used for a Mohammedan center and school. Maida already sold off another property to the Mohammedans, but refuses to state where, to avoid community resistance.
The irony is that the Feast of Our Lady Help of Christians, known to traditional Catholics as Auxilium Christianorum, was placed in the Roman Calendar by Pope St. Pius V specifically to commemorate the Christian defeat of the Mohammedans attempting to invade Europe at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571.
Crucifixes, icons, and other Catholic symbols will be removed, and "they are going to destroy the place," said one Newchurcher, angry at Maida. [Source: Detroit News]
In an interview with the New Order National Catholic Reporter on October 18, 2006, the President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic [sic] Bishops stated that he hadn't "picked up anything" about another "indult" for the Modernized Mass of 1962. He stated that it had never come up at his Newvatican meetings. He minimized rumors, saying "we've heard rumours like this several times in the past."
When asked his own thoughts about allowing wider use of the pre-Vatican II Mass, the representative of the U.S. 300 Newchurch bishops stated:
We're a church of unity and of common worship. The thrust of Vatican II calls for more active participation on the part of the faithful in the liturgy itself, and from my standpoint trying to move further in that direction would be most helpful.
Agreeing with statements from the TRADITIO Network that the same diocesan bishop would be in charge of any new "indult," Skylstad had this comment on the impact of the fabled "indult":
It depends on what part of the country you're in, but in any event the numbers are relatively small. The bishop has to decide when and where it will be pastorally effective. It's very important that the bishop have this responsibility. I would hope that somehow there would be this encouragement or directive that the local bishop is able to make decisions about the liturgical life of his diocese.
Under the current "indult" of 1988, diocesan bishops have full power now to have an "Indult" Mass in every Newparish in the diocese. After almost twenty years, barely half of the Newchurch dioceses in the United States have even a single "Indult" Mass. The Modernist fox is in charge of the episcopal henhouses.
The meeting between Newchurch Cardinal Ricard and Newpope on October 26, 2006, was preceded by a meeting between infamous Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger and Newpope on October 23. Both cardinals are opposing any "indult." Apparently, Lustiger's hand-picked successor, Archbishop Andre Vingt-Trois, is also in Rome to oppose the fabled move. Lustiger had previously flown to Rome when he was still Newchurch Archbishop of Paris to demand that no "traditionalist" jurisdiction be given to "indult"-supporters -- and none was, except for a tiny piece of Brazil reputed to be one of the hottest spots in South America.
Is this a circus orchestrated by Newvatican itself to kill any concessions to the "Indult" Mass? Remember the seminary document, how it was going to clean out the trash at the Newchurch seminaries, known disparagingly as "pink palaces"? Then Newcardinal George of Chicago flew to Rome in a huff, and the result was far worse than it would have been if no document had been issued at all! The pinking of the seminaries is now official policy. So much for Benedict-Ratzinger's "conservatism."
Newchurch is finished. The tragedy is that its mafia-esque bishops will cash in for their retirements and sell off all the beautiful old churches that were built by the pennies of the poor who were real Catholics. The money, except, of course, for the customary administrative fees sent to offshore accounts in the Grand Caymans, will go to pay off victims of child rape. The buyers will take the lovely old buildings (only the best get sold first) and turn them into parking garages.
The TRADITIO Network has been consistently maintaining that Newchurch is not a religion, but a political organization. Here is just further evidence of that fact.
Newpope's Permanent Observer to the United Nations The Apostolic Nuncio to the United Nations has called for "ecological conversion." He criticised the tendency of national policy makers to view ecological issues as "external or marginal" to economic considerations. "In a word, the world needs an ecological conversion so as to examine critically current models of thought, as well as those of production and consumption," Archbishop Celestino Migliore said. [Source: Catholic News]
Wow! Migliore has down pat the liberalist political verbiage, doesn't he?! Since Newchurch ecclesiastics are now merely politicians, to paraphrase the High Priest Caiphas: "What further need have we of Newchurch 'priests'?"
The TRADITIO Network sometimes get communications from former Roman Catholics who think that they can hide out in the Eastern rites. Actually, a traditional Eastern rite is harder to find than a Traditional Latin Mass of the Roman rite. It is rare to find an Eastern rite that has not been Novus Ordo-ized or vernacularized from its true Apostolic form. The following report, for example, came recently from one correspondent:
At my local Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic Church, the new priest, who we thought was orthodox in many ways (but, as I am learning, is really an old conservative), will nevertheless invite two nuns to take over the sermon at Mass this coming Sunday, even though he knows that this is not allowed. The former priest was a very good man, truly and fully orthodox, now a rarity even in the Ukrainian Byzantine Church.
For further information, see FAQ10: How Do You Explain These Traditional Catholic Beliefs in the TRADITIO Network's Library of Files (FAQs & Traditional Apologetics) in the section "The Eastern Rite 'Option.'"
Return to Commentaries from the Mailbox.