"Nota Bene"
(to be understood before reading any of my "works")
In reading my books and articles, or hearing my publications, note well the following points:
1) I assume as well as speak and write in or into an ecclesial atmosphere of respectful dialogue. I expect and demand the right to do so from any and all "churchy" authorities (especially, "fellow theologians" and alleged "trad-cultic-experts").
2) I communicate as a "licensed theologian" licensed according to the official beliefs and teaching of the "old and discarded" Roman Catholic Church. If I come to be condemned for doing so, along with my heroine, St. Joan of Arc, I ask: "Why do you condemn me for following God [and His visible church institution as defined or as defining itself "existentially" or in actual beliefs and practices from Pentecost until the revolting sixties (1960s)]? Why? Why? Why?
Furthermore, we need ask: Who is not a Catholic? For example, was St. Joan the Catholic or was the bishop not Catholic who condemned her (turned her over to civil authorities to be burned to death)? (I vote for the saint and not for the bishop whose very name makes him one syllable "different from" "a pig.")
Who is not a Catholic "of and in the Latin Rite Patriarchate:" me or a Novus Ordo (Newchurch) believing apostate who stands apart from the church of two millennia in his adamant opposition to, and effective rejection of, the semper ubique binding Quo Primum and thereby of the doctrinally binding Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy? Yes, this Mass Liturgy was, is and will always be canonized by the sensus et praxis fidelium from Pentecost until the end of time. Also, this Latin Rite Liturgy is de facto canonized "word for word" by specific dogmatic decree of the Pope/Patriarch of the Latin Rite Mass Liturgy, Pope St. Pius V in Quo Primum (1570).
3) In this Newchurch-atmosphere of respectful dialogue and communication each must honestly and urgently inquire as to who officially and truthfully holds the Christ-given, Apostolically taught and practiced liturgical truth which is necessary to hold and/or "do" in order to be saved from Hell. Which liturgy Christ's Divine Liturgy or Bugnini's is from Christ? Which alleged "Mass liturgy" was Apostolically "taught and done" as well as Apostolically-mandated?
[Today, most or all Newchurch theologians (or episcopal "mouthpieces"), in effect, hold that the Apostles taught as salutarily necessary that one must believe that each bishop or some or all bishops have the same charisma as the Apostles. According to this "theology," each such bishop or group of bishops can redefine the Catholic Church in line with the spirit or whims of his/their own time and place. Does not such a position "unravel so as to reject" Apostolic Tradition? Does not such a popular position defocus us from WHAT one must believe/do to be saved, and thereby "the WHOM" one must follow in any particular time/space? Does not such a position reject the Church as being semper ubique, One in faith and morals? Does not such a popular theological opinion (preached or presented as "presently binding dogma") ipso facto change one's church (as so defined) from being Apostolic (holding fast to that which Christ taught, coming to us directly from Christ through His Apostles themselves) to being episcopal (governed according to the personal whim or apostasy of the bishops of the day) and, thereby APOSTATE? Lastly, does not such a church which still claims to be "Christian" redefine or recreate "Christ" Whom it claims to follow according to the likings and imaginings of each bishop or group of bishops in his/their own time and space?]
Even as regards "non-liturgical issues," can one who himself questions (so as to doubt or deny) and no longer "forcefully," firmly and clearly professes (for examples): THE EXISTENCE OF ETERNAL HELL; CHRIST, AS THE ONE AND ONLY SAVIOUR; AND, "EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS" be Catholic or be a Catholic bishop or pope (or even layman or priest)? Does believing the same as such an "anti-Catholic or non-Catholic" not make one a "non-Catholic or anti-Catholic?"
4) I write as a theologian. If you disagree with me as such, do so as a theologian (with all the time-honored privileges and restrictions given such criticisms).
5) Since I speak as a theologian who gives THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS, I do not speak ex cathedra. I speak as Pope John Paul II expressly stated (even for his "official reflections"): to give out my firmly and logically held positions for your "conscienced" or conscientious consideration.
My Prayer for You
May God always bless you, reader or hearer. May God lead you to perceive and then salutarily hold and/or "do" Christ-given salutarily-necessary Apostolic faith and morals (especially, liturgical morals). What I, (or any other priest, even bishop, pope or theologian) hold or believe is only to be held or believed (as Vatican One dogmatically decreed) IF it is part of (or already contained within) Apostolic Tradition, (which ceased and desisted at the death of the last Apostle).
Newchurch was born from and is nourished by the very worst bishops in the history of the Latin Rite Patriarchate. Wake up! Last year, all of Ireland (once the "motherlode" of priests) did not "ordain" but rather, commissioned, merely ten presiders, formerly known as and still referred to as "priests". What's happened to "the existential church in the 'West'?" Let's explore the spirit which conceived, birthed and continues to nourish the presently adolescent Newchurch.
De facto, I know very little about these Newchurch Apostates. I haven't the foggiest idea as to why these men decided to get "ordained." What's wrong with them? Do they ambition being facilitators or presiders at "community worship?" If so, I suggest they become Anglicans. Or, do they expect to be able to sacrilegiously simulate saying a Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy? If such be the case, my prayer for them is: "May God be merciful to such souls!"]
For quite some time, I've wondered what the following words of Sr. Lucia of Fatima meant: "The clergy are under a diabolic disorientation." Now I know. In some instances, the prevailing disorientation is so far surpassing diabolic as to be labeled "insane!"
Newchurch is defined by the reigning clergy. What they presently teach/do/allow to be taught/done determine the ever-mutating elements of the set of characteristics which, at present, constitute the wickedly adolescent (rebellious, "close-minded,") "Newchurch."
The upper clergy which constitutes the governing, policy-setting body are the heart and mind of Newchurch. This heart and mind informs and directs lesser organs. The upper clergy determine what drone clergy and laymen hold/do.
Of course, as seen elsewhere, the upper clergy, especially bishops, hold, teach and do that which the presently "reigning revered experts" tell them to teach, hold and do. These revered "experts" defined Newchurch into being and developed it to its adolescence. These episcopally revered "experts," as it were, constitute the "higher mind" of Newchurch.
In this essay we explore how Satan has conceived, birthed and nourishes his own adolescent militant Newchurch. How or why has he succeeded so easily?
Spirit of Newchurch
We now expose the "act of spiritual intercourse" which conceived (and still nourishes) Newchurch. What basic diabolic disorientation did Satan exploit, instill and cultivate or nourish? What basic motivational buttons does Satan push to make bishops begin to do and continue to do his will on earth as in Hell? Why and how do bishops and lesser clergy do Satan's will or have Intercourse with Satan?
Indeed, as some are thinking, Pope "Saint" (in my estimation, at least) Leo XIII, in effect, predicted this Satanic Intercourse would occur and possibly give birth to some "new type of Satanic ecclesial being." This great pope was ecstatically entranced after saying his Patriarchate's " Latin Mass." He saw Our Lord giving Satan a century of great freedom to destroy Christ's existential church namely, the church as defined by and as run by bishops of the Latin Rite.
Satan's "Rosemary-baby" was conceived and born within less than seventy-five years. Now, we suffer from and within an adolescent episcopalian apostate Newchurch which came into "liturgical being" through what we refer to as the "Great Episcopal Liturgical Revolt of the 1960s."
Satanic Rape!
Newchurch's reigning episcopally revered "experts" along with Newchurch bishops had and continue to have Satanic intercourse. In fact, all authentic members of Newchurch fundamentally are conceived and kept in demonic being through Satanic intercourse.
More specifically, Satan uses biased "Rogerian-directed" tactics. He employs simple satanically-manipulated "Rogerian-styled questions." How do you feel about God's command? Did not God really mean .? Don't you feel He really meant? "Therefore, why not.?" (Sounds like the serpent in the Garden of Eden!)
Satan leads the unwary to intercourse with him to question God's Revelation so as to deny and doubt God's Revelations or Commands and to reject them. Consequently, they disobey and defy His Revealed Will.
Satan's Initial Success
Imagine the scene. Eve had just come "full-grown" from Adam. She was nave and Adam was captivated by her physical beauty. Satan, the wisest of animals approached Eve. Let's listen to the ensuing dialogue:
Satan: "Did God really tell you not to eat of the fruit of this beautiful garden?"
Eve: We can eat of all of the trees in the garden but one. God said we shouldn't even touch this tree [a bold lie]. If we do, we will die according to what Adam told me God told him.
Satan: Adam got God all wrong. Such a God would be a "big meanie." God really wants you to be like Him. "You won't die," I assure you. Instead, you will live on a much higher plane. ["Question and doubt God's Word in order to deny it and to disobey God" that's my tactic," said Satan to himself.]
Eve: I can't refute you. You must be right. I'll eat and entice "my doink husband," Adam to do the same.
Since the Garden-scene, Satan hasn't changed his tactics. Man intercourses with Satan. Satan leads man to question and doubt God's Word. Consequently, men deny, disobey and reject God. Satan exploits fallen man's innate disloyalty to God or lack of faith as well as each one's "Satanic-like" pride. Satan then instills more pride, distrust of God and lack of faith. Original Sin and our own sins make us willing victims for "Satanic rape" or Satanic intercourse.
Offensive and Defensive Tactics
How can we thwart Satan's plan for our destination to be his home?
(1) Be so close to God (by obedience, knowledge, meditation, prayer and penance) that you are not tempted to have intercourse or union (in thought, will or deed) with anyone other than God. In other words, obey and live the "Schema-prayer:" love God totally and exclusively (Mt. 12:29).
Be satisfied with God, then relate to or care for all other things only as inspired or directed by God; and then, only as enabled by God, know and believe in God's Revealed Will.(2) Refuse to question or doubt God's Word or God's Will. Be like the saints.
(3) Refuse to read or listen to anyone who leads you to question or deny God's Will. Give a deaf ear to "nearly all of the reigning or self-proclaimed experts" who question God's Will in order to doubt or disobey it. Avoid reading or listening to Newchurch.
The Father of This Newchurch Millennium
The world and the flesh are subject to Satan. The whole world (especially, proud and faithless Newchurch bishops) lies in his lap (1 John 5:19). Satan or Lucifer is the Prince or King of this world (John 14:30). He's lover and daddy to each person in the vast army of wicked people.
The Orthodox Catholic Church perceives and acknowledges Satan and his successes. Newchurch "denies or plays down" Satan and his successes. In denying evil, Newchurch is most vulnerable to damnation.
The reigning apostate clergy who claim to be so vigilant against "the enemy" should ponder Pogo's words: "We have found the enemy, and the enemy is us." Newchurchers are, by definition, Satan's own.
[We demonstrate how evil Newchurchers are. For example, the bishops of Newchurch didn't admit and confess their own Satanically-proportioned guilt in the recent paedophile-clergy exposure. Instead, they preeminently blamed and punished priests instead of punishing themselves. Such bishops should confess their "grosser sinfulness," resign, make restitution, and do public penance the rest of their lives on earth.]
Satan speaks and Newchurch people (especially, alleged experts and their episcopal pawns) listen. Why? They live in a state of ever-degenerating diabolic disorientation and possession ("the two have become one Satanic 'flesh'").
Satan's pawns, reigning experts, upper and lower clergy and the vast army of Newchurch's "sheepel people" question Christ-given and church-held basics of the true faith. They question these "with the mind and heart of Satan" under his direction and control. Such Satanic intercourse will bring them to live with their Daddy and his devils eternally in Hell.
Question In Order to Doubt, Deny and Reject the Canonized Christ-given Latin Mass Liturgy
Satan's greatest victory in the history of "Western Catholicism" is his repression of the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy and his most successful imposition of an apostate mock-mass sacrilegious service; and, consequently, his nullifying and thereby demonizing the "priesthood in the West." Why? The very worst change is substantial liturgical change. Such change in the Latin Rite has always aptly been condemned as being liturgical novelty. Such novelty is gravely sinful (because it is against Christ's own Divine Liturgy). Therefore, it is substantial and gravely sacrilegious and brings one into apostasy.
Novus Ordo Liturgy is gravely sinful. How did sinfully-motivated skillfully-employed "directed-questioning" lead two generations of "Latin Rite Catholics " to doubt and deny the faith so as to "justify" basic liturgical change and thereby become apostates? Specifically, what questions were skillfully employed to lead "sheepel people" (both clerical and non-clerical) to question and, consequently, doubt and deny God's greatest gift and sinful man's salutary necessity the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy? A few such questions are:
(1) "Did Christ really institute the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy?"
(2) "Is not this liturgy to be made and re-made by the bishops?" "Is not all authority in Heaven and on earth in episcopal hands?"
(3) "Why can't (as I, Satan, direct them) bishops change the liturgy?"
(4) "Why not make 'the Latin Mass' understandable by allegedly translating it; and de facto by sacrileging it?"
(5) "In doing so, why not 'update' this liturgy?" "Why not make improvements on God's Liturgy so people will find it more interesting?" "Why not make the new liturgy more compatible with Protestantism change liturgy so that Protestant heretics won't be offended by the Novus Ordo (New Age) Liturgy?"
(6) "Try doing so." "As with Adam and Eve, God really wants you to do so." "Start with adding St. Joseph." "Drop the Last Gospel." "Drop the 'Second Confiteor'!" "See what happens."
(7) "You've done it." "Therefore it can be done!" "Now, keep it up, keep these most-needed episcopally mandated changes 'coming.'"
(8) "Meanwhile, reorient and thereby disorient religion itself." "The cult of man (as Pope Paul VI bragged about his church having) will replace worship of and obedience to God."
(9) "God is dead!" "The COMMUNITY lives." "We live for 'the community.'" "We live for this world!" "Rejoice, unto Satan and his demonic pawn, a child is born, Newchurch is born."
(10) "Love of God is reducible to love of one's neighbor." "Thereby Newchurch's great Millennium becomes Satan's greatest historical victory." "This is Satan's hour." "Will he give up easily?" "Will he allow Newchurch of the 'West' to become once again the Latin Rite Patriarchate?"
Recognize and Reinstate Basic Christ-given and Christ-graced Attitudes!
Far more so than in Wonderland, Newchurchers have to run as fast as they "can" to stay where they are and not to go deeper into Satan's kingdom on earth. With exceptionally good motivation and God's very special graces, one can begin to make the long and hard trip back to where one must be in order to be saved from Satan and from going to his eternal home, Hell. "Depart ye cursed into Satan and his angels' home." (Mt. 26:41) By God's special graces and your graced cooperation you can come back to Orthodox Catholicism that religion outside of which nulla salus.
It's past-due time to return to God the Father's House, the House you should be in because of your Baptism into Orthodox Catholicism (presuming, of course, your Baptism was valid).
Meditate, pray and examine your conscience and your life. Discover your own gross diabolic disorientations. Then, resolve, pray and by God's graces and your graced cooperation, come back to having basic attitudes which will no longer prevent you from going to Heaven and which are now leading you to Hell.
In a special way, turn the tables on Satan and his episcopal pawns. Question so as to doubt and deny Newchurch's teachings and liturgical services. Use Satan's techniques to destroy his hold on "you and yours."
Very briefly stated, at least cultivate the following anti-Satanic thinking and attitudes. As "graced-time" goes on, you'll add more to this meager and woefully inadequate list:
(1) Study, learn and "gracedly" commit yourself to authentically Catholic "works," thoughts and attitudes.
(2) Eliminate the negative by identifying it! Read MAETA'S and other books. Agree with God's diagnosis of the existential church.
(3) See your sins. Confess them to God, resolving to reform your life by His grace and your graced cooperation.
(4) Accentuate or cultivate the Positive. Especially, get to know, love, pray and live the Canonized Mass. "It's the Canonized Mass Liturgy that matters!"
(5) By grace, cultivate your own (Orthodox Catholic oriented and not selfishly and satanically charismatic) intimacy with the Divine. Let God lead you to identify Satan's doings and to embrace and do God's Will.
(6) Recognize and employ the basic antidote to diabolic disorientation. Seek, love, reverence, live and profess God's Revelations (as in the pre-revolutionary or pre-sixties Catholic Church). Refuse to question so as to doubt or deny God's Revelations. Instead, reverence such Revelations (especially, the "living one" Divine Liturgy). Treat Divine Liturgy honestly. It is God's greatest gift and sinful man's only necessity.
(7) Worship God as the God-faithful church of the first one and a half millennia did (until its first episcopal liturgical revolution happened in the sixteenth century).
(8) Identify, denounce and renounce the episcopally imposed Newchurch.
[N.B. We use the words "priests, bishops and clergy" without implying that those referred to are validly ordained or validly consecrated as bishops. As we uncover and explore in other articles, the "Latin Rite Wing" of what was formerly the Orthodox-Catholic (which is now Newchurch) can now "safely" welcome the "Latin Rite Liturgy" since most of its clergy are de facto, merely at best lay-presiders or lay-facilitators of "Luther-inspired" community-prayer; and, Newchurch "episcopal" collaborators (Newchurch's "middle-management"). Why not allow such "degenerate laymen" to (sacrilegiously and invalidly) "say or simulate a Latin Mass liturgy?"
Nearly all victims of Newchurch are such because they fail to realize "what or who" must be obeyed. The following pair of essays will help God-graced "sincere seekers" to discover how they have been lied to; and, what they should have believed or done in order to be saved from Hell and sanctified.
Part 1
"WHO" IS NOT "THE ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM!"
I remember when the subject of "Ordinary Magisterium" came up in graduate theology seminary class. The ultra-liberal Newchurch teacher, in effect, contended that WHAT popes and bishops allow priests and people to believe/do ipso facto becomes WHAT one must believe/do.
Thereby, he took our allegiances away from Christ to the "presently reigning ecclesial bureaucrats." Thereby, he took our allegiances away from perennial salutary faith and morals to presently expedient church politics (internal and/or ad extram).
Today, even some "trads" (Newchurch-trads and independent trads as well) contend: WHAT the Ordinary Magisterium (as they define it to be) presently tolerates or presents as faith and morals is to be held as being such because they say so. Again, a subtle but damnable shift has been made from Christ to reigning ecclesia/dictators or bureaucrats and their army of "implementers."
Dedicated Newchurchers contend that since the ordinary magisterium (as defined above) sponsors "the New Mass" and "in effect" condemns the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy, the Latin Mass is not canonized, and, the various Novus Ordo Mass-like Services in effect are canonized and "validated" or become VALID through (their perverted notion of) the Magisterium.
Anyone who holds the "Novus Ordo Mock-mass Services" are valid and canonical, implicitly (and inevitably, explicitly) holds that our ancestors in the faith were wrong or even damned for holding the opposite (presuming, of course, that truth is independent of time/place). Anyone who holds that the Novus Ordo is valid and thereby canonical must hold, in effect, that the "Latin Mass" is "at best" an emotional preference. Such an apostate does not and cannot profess salutary belief in Christ and cannot profess salutary belief in an APOSTOLIC church. Such a one must believe in an Episcopal (ever changing or open to change) church. The religion of such people damns. It doesn't save!
I believe in an APOSTOLIC church (as the creed says), I believe the liturgy I say daily comes from Christ and was and remains essential and salutarily necessary for one to "believe in and attend or say (if humanly possible)" in order to be saved from Hell and sanctified.
I believe in the Holy Bible and Christ-instituted; Apostolically believed and practiced; sensus et praxis fidelium and Quo Primum canonized Latin Mass Liturgy. I believe in this and the other canonized APOSTOLIC Liturgies (of "the East").
We have seen that defining "Ordinary Magisterium" as WHAT popes and bishops tolerate or even promote in any one period of history is to hold the absurd and to shift one's fiducial allegiance from Christ to mere men. Such an individual's "Ordinary Magisterium" is self-contradictory as well as the basis for APOSTASY. Newchurch's operational definition of "ordinary magisterium" is both illogical (since it is "time and place" dependent) and brings about apostasy.
A Papier-Maiche Pope
Do we now suffer from (and are damned to Hell by) the above-described "papal or ecclesial idolatry?" Yes, however, things are now far worse than ever before in the history of the existential church.
We now suffer from and will be damned to eternal Hell by responsibly worshiping "a PAPIER-MAICHE pope" a "pope" created or "imaged" by reigning and adored theologians and experts and implemented or imposed through their duped or cooperative bishops and then further modified by those who (correctly or wrongly) speak and command in the name of the bishop(s) (or, at times, in the name of the papier-maiche pope).
Many in our times are damned to Hell for following one of these "apostates fabricated or created" WHOs; instead of or contrary to, following/doing WHAT Christ demands through His Apostles and His properly functioning Church.
Back to Basics
What's religion all about? It's about what one has to believe and/or do (especially liturgically) in order to be saved and sanctified.
What's the one and only true religion of Orthodox Catholicism all about? Orthodox Catholicism is "Orthodox" it teaches and/or does the Christ-given, Apostles' taught and/or Apostles' done salutarily necessary faith and morals. Orthodox Catholicism is "Catholic" it believes in and does Divine Liturgy as given by Christ to His Apostles. Outside of Orthodox Catholicism, nulla salus (no salvation)!
The "Greatest What" Is "Who!"
"THE LIVING WHO"
Christ, most lovingly, gave us the Final and Finalizing What Divine Liturgy. Divine Liturgy is "THE LIVING WHO" the Sacred Heart Salutarily Active and Alive among us. Divine Liturgy brings among us God's Saving Will Realized truly and fully in the mystical/sacramental Way. Divine Liturgy, as defined by Christ, given to the Apostles and "fixedly" canonized by the sensus et praxis fidelium from Pentecost to the end of time is the Sacred Heart Salutarily Active and Alive among us in the "mystical-sacramental Way;" and, thereby and therefore the Immaculate Heart of Mary, salutarily active and living (in and through Her Son) in Divine Liturgy.
Since the revolting 1960s this salutarily necessary "final and finalizing DIVINE WHAT" has been trashed and destroyed by bishops (in the Latin Rite Patriarchate). By their ongoing Episcopal Liturgical Revolt these bishops and their "hench-people" have made a strong claim to being the very worst perverts and sadistic-murderers in the history of mankind.
How can one avoid being "episcopally raped and murdered?" A simple first step is to defocus from "WHOs" and focus on "WHATs." Otherwise, you'll continue to let the worst of perverts and murderers have their way with "you and yours." Then, become salutarily informed. Read MAETA's books, etc. Be informed and make informed and salutary decisions.
Of utmost salutary importance, come to know, love, pray and live "God's Greatest Gift" and "sinful man's only necessity," Divine Liturgy. MAETA's material will help you to do so.
Ultimately and fundamentally there exists "only one WHO" who can bind us under penalty of damnation for disobedience. This WHO is Jesus, the Lord and Saviour. This Who comes among us in Divine Liturgy. "How can anyone who distorts or even neglects SO GREAT SALVATION be saved?" (Heb. 2:3)
Through His Apostolic Church etc. (as expressed elsewhere), Jesus obliges us to pray, attend or say only a Canonized Divine Liturgy. To do otherwise or to do nothing in this regard is to bring eternal damnation upon one's immortal soul and one's "eternalized body."
Part 2
WHAT "MASS"?
IN THE NAME OF "WHOM"?
By God's Special "Loving kindness" or "grace and mercy," I am one of the last men who were "Holy Orders ordained." I was ordained to say Divine Liturgy specifically, the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy. My first Mass was a concelebrated Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy. Since 1990 or so, I returned to saying the Mass I was ordained to say "Deo gratias!"
Every morning, my celebration of Divine Liturgy (not the "community's prayer") now begins: "In the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Amen" (in Latin, of course). I explicitly act or "do" as one who was validly "Holy Orders' ordained:" "to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for the living and the dead"
In celebrating my Latin Rite Canonized Divine Liturgy, I don't function as an episcopally commissioned presider or facilitator of the community's prayer. I act in the name of the Blessed Trinity, I act ex officio in persona Christi, "In the name of each member of the Blessed Trinity" or "with unique awesome God-given Power" I bring into mystical/sacramental being "the Realization of God's Saving Will" in the same way and "to the same extent" as Jesus Christ Himself did on the pridie (first part of the day Good Friday since the Jewish day begins at sunset.) [Of course, my Mass is not even as "salutarily impressive upon me" as it was on holy priests such as Fr. Pio who celebrated only the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy.]
My "Holy Ordered priestly Doing" however, is so "God-awfully powerful" as to bring into my here and now the Sacred Heart of Jesus Salutarily Active and Alive (in the mystical/sacramental and "most real" way or dimension).
Ex officio in persona Christi by and through the Holy Ghost's "Divine Salutary Doing" (gratias agens) speaking "as Christ" (dicens) in obedience to and with fitting praise of (as well as in Realization of God the Father's Salutary Will), bene-dixit God's Saving Will is Realized. Salvation is accomplished into Christ's Memory. Thereby, the Mystery of Faith is presented anew (a fitting layman's response to this Greatest Mystery of our faith is a silent, and sincere: "My Lord and my God!").
To say Novus Ordo Services, one does not need nor does one receive "Holy Orders Ordination." The Novus Ordo Commissioning ceremony allows a thus-commissioned lay person or non-ordained cleric to act as presider to or facilitator of community prayer and to be an episcopal collaborator nothing more, nothing less.
No longer is the ordinand "Holy Orders ordained" to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. In fact, as Michael Davies proves, all references to such a possibility happening have been purposely deleted from the Novus Ordo "Ordinal."
Also, as Michael Davies proves (in The Order of Melchisedek) the "Holy Ordered power" to forgive sins is glaringly and purposely omitted. It's as clear as day, one is not "Holy Orders ordained" in Newchurch. He is merely commissioned.
Such a person's Novus Ordo presiding is done as a glorified layman (so far, laywomen haven't been thereby commissioned) or as a "non-Holy Orders ordained" cleric.
Therefore, any merely Novus Ordo commissioned person doesn't and can't say Mass "in the name of the Blessed Trinity." At "best", he presides over a Mass-like Service "in the name of the bishop." At "worst," he sacrileges Divine Liturgy by blasphemously simulating the Most Sacred Divine Liturgy.
I was ordained on the seventh day
of the sixth month of 1966 (
I was robbed of my sacramental right by bishops. They "raped me into" presiding over community celebrations. If effect, they "murdered" my "Holy Orders identity" (until I converted in the 1990s).
I now take you back to how I functioned from the day after my "Holy Ordered Ordination" until my retirement in the 1990s.
Newchurch Propagandist and Presider
I was one of the pioneering shakers, doers and movers of Newchurch. We young Jesuits were the New Breed. From us would be born the great new church. Through the "New Christ" we would recreate and renew the world. The world wouldn't be able to resist our New and Improved Catholicism and our toothless all-loving and totally irresistably lovable "New Christ."
Vatican II (as we affectionately called it) opened the church's windows. The old, musty mildew from relics, statues, devotionals, rituals and even the Latin Mass Liturgy of the past were decreed by Newchurch to be obnoxious and outmoded; and thereby, in critical need of being modified, trashed or recreated in accord with "the spirit of Vatican II." That spirit would come through us to renew the church and in doing so to usher in the glorious new Third Reich (excuse me, I meant to write "great new church millennium").
We were the privileged few. We were the "change agents." Our simple logon was: "CHANGE." Our sales pitch was carefully formulated and skillfully employed: "How do you FEEL about?"
After convincing the unwary of "the horrors of the pre-sixties," we gave them hope for a great new millennium. If they didn't feel comfortable with our PROGRAM FOR CHANGE, then we assured them: "the pope" and "the Conciliar Church" demand this or that CHANGE to be made!
Contrary to our basic convictions, we invoked our own anathemas. "Conform or leave!" "Believe or be damned!" "Thereby, we freed Catholics from Catholic beliefs and practices especially, those which annoyed them."
We Newchurch propogandists conditioned or brainwashed the people to the way my cousins had been brainwashed in Nazi Germany: "Obey, because I say so. Heil, Hitler!" We substituted: "Obey, because Newchurch says so. Heil, Pope; Heil, Vatican II!" In the seventies, we added, "Heil, bishop!"
The "freed from Catholicism" people became "sheepel-people" blindly (and often damnably, I must now add) obeying us as church authority. The dumbed-down "sheepel-people" were conditioned (like unto my German ancestors) to follow "the leaders" blindly or unquestioningly, dedicatedly and with full commitment.
We wound up creating a faith-less, superficially devotional and "deep-down" disgruntled lot. They had completely missed the point of the last dogmatic Council in their Latin Patriarchate, "Vatican I". They wrongly thought and were convinced (by us and other change-agents) that this council dogmatically decreed that "the Pope must be followed in all he commands us to believe or do!"
Au contraire, through "Vatican I" God providentially assured us that the pope is ordinarily fallible EXCEPT UNDER VERY RARE CONDITIONS. He is only infallible when he "underlines" for the whole church what is already salutarily binding in (and integral to) Apostolic Tradition [what the Apostles, not necessarily the bishops of any age or place, taught as being salutarily necessary faith and morals (especially, Liturgical Morals or the Canonized Apostolic Mass Liturgies as said, as now said and as will be said by the Apostles and/or all properly functioning "Holy Ordered priests" -- not Novus Ordo commissioned facilitators -- from Pentecost until the end of time)].
Read Vatican I One carefully that's what it says. Also, the object of "Vatican I" is primarily WHAT AND HOW, not WHO. After all, popes have held/practiced heresy/Protestantism in the history of the Latin Rite Patriarchate soon after St. Peter was designated or made pope; he denied that Christ had to die, or, in effect he denied the necessity of Divine Liturgy (Mt. 16:17-23).
We were and still are in a world which believes in man as god even as it seeks "a man-god" to be the "top-dog" among us. This mega-heretical or apostate tendency (now made a "compulsion") was forewarned against in papal condemnations of Modernism as well as of Nazism (Mit Brennender Surge).
What "man-god" among us will rule us who reject Christ? "We have no king but Caesar" (John 19:15). We now seek our "neo-Caesar." Why? We no longer live for Heaven, we live for this world!
The beat is so strong, it reverberates or "goes on and on" in lesser expressions. Now, de facto, each bishop is king in his diocese. Worse than that, enthusiastic and bold diocesan bureaucrats and "no brainers" speak and command "in the name of the pope" or even "in the name of the local bishop."
"Who are you 'trads' to believe in the Apostolic Canonized Divine Liturgy and to oppose 'Bugnini's liturgy?'" "Who are you to judge the "worse than Protestant Novus Ordo Liturgies" to be scandalous and heretical?"
"Who are you, parents, to run 'our' schools?" Who are you, parents, to tell us who are "heavenly bureaucrats" what or how to teach "our" children? The "religious educator" and the principal spoke in the name of "the papier-maiche pope" the pope created or drawn according to Newchurch specs. "The Catholic School System fell from the wall and broke neither horses or men can put it back together again as it once so gloriously stood."
Contemporary Catholics have been "conned" by their bishops. In the name of Vatican II and in the name of "their papier-maiche pope," bishops demanded conformity to their Episcopal Liturgical Revolt of the 1960s.
Now, nearly all alleged Catholics de facto are in an Episcopal Church. Like unto its Anglican and Lutheran sister-churches Newchurch is built upon a mock-mass liturgy most appropriately created by a fellow bishop. The Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Anglicans have Bishop Cramner-instituted liturgy replacing Divine Liturgy; Newchurchers have Bishop Bugnini-instituted liturgy replacing Divine Liturgy.
"WHAT," Not "WHO" Is Infallible
Newchurch apostates have a rather simple cure at hand. They must return to the "old and true" semper ubique idem Christ-given Religion of Salvation or be damned to Hell extra ecclesiam nulla salus!
The Christ-given religion focused on WHATs what one must believe/do to be saved and sanctified. The minute the church establishment questioned (so as to doubt or deny) any of these "WHATs" (especially, liturgical ones) was the minute the "Catholic establishment" fell into Apostasy. Until recent times (the revolting 1960s), church government was faithful to Christ in its teachings, "liturgical doings" as well as in its "governing." As Bishop Malachi Martin observed: if a priest said or preached heresy, he was called in the next day; and, if a bishop spoke or taught heresy, he was removed within a few weeks.
The properly functioning Church Body was "monolithic and pyramidical." Now, the tails wag the dog while the dog grows more and more tails.
"WHATs" Unite; "WHOs" Divide
Why was the "Pre-revolutionary (before the Bishops' Liturgical Revolt of the 1960s)" church establishment the best governing body in history? Its members were faithful to the Bible, to Apostolic Tradition and to the church as defined by dogmas; and, especially, by Apostolic Canonized Divine Liturgy. Each "governing clergyman" believed in and/or did "Catholic Credenda." Therefore, excellence in governing ensued.
The pre-revolution church emphasized "WHATs." Newchurch focuses on and salutes "WHOs." However, only "whats" can be infallible. No "who" (except for God, Christ and the saints in Heaven) is per se INFALLIBLE not even if he is a "pope-who."
I was an ardent Newchurcher priest ("priest" since I was really ordained in 1966 for the Canonized Latin Mass). However, I didn't convert to Catholicism until my retirement in the 1990s.
As an ardent "New Breed leader," I gave many talks with the logon flag flying high. The logon was "CHANGE." We must CHANGE. I was ordered HOW to change. Then I would convince others that they too had to change in the WAY I had been "brainwashed." We were good "useful idiots" (as Marx would call us). We stood for and ardently spread the PARTY LIE.
Our main vehicle of indoctrination into Newchurch and its Religion was, and remains, the Novus Ordo Service. Without this, we could not evangelize.
A "physically blind" psychiatrist attended his first Newchurch "Mass." He assured his wife that it was a NEW RELIGION a religion which rejected the Orthodox (right believing and teaching) Catholic (right liturgizing) Religion.
Through its liturgy, Newchurch taught an apostate religion a religion which "radically and conclusively" was not even "Christian." Why? The "Christian religion" believes in Christ as Saviour from sin.
Newchurch "radically (at or in its roots) and conclusively (when its teachings and premises are developed unto or into logical conclusions)" denies sin and man's radical need to believe in Christ as his only Saviour from sin and Hell.
Newchurch's liturgies, for example, celebrate the capital sin of presumption. They celebrate "the Christ man" as He is in each, as He is in all (presumptively, of course). There now follows a more detailed list of how Newchurch has rejected Orthodox Catholicism and replaced it with a most appealing New Age/Protestant mindset. Let the following list help initiate your own evaluation of Newchurch and its Novus Ordo Liturgy. Meditate and pray. Then, go where God leads you to go.
"Eli, Eli, llama sabacthani" (mistranslated as "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me") in the Aramaic-Semitic context means: "My God, my God, what thou hast called me to do, I have done and I now rest in peace." This is said by dying just men in the mid-east.
At present, I cannot appraise my apostolate in this manner. I "feel" there is more to be done. What good has been accomplished, has been accomplished by God's graces overwhelming my natural deficiencies. However, for some time I experienced the "Jeremiah-Lament." Thank God I was never as "down" as the ("cry-baby") prophet was:
"Woe is my mother. Why have you borne a man of strife and contention, a troublemaker? All curse me. " (Jer. 15:10)
"Cursed be the man that brought the tidings to my father, saying: A man child is born to thee. Let that man be as the cities which the Lord hath overthrown, let him hear cries in the morning and howling at noontide. Cursed be those who slew me not from the wombWhy came I out of the womb to be so sorrowful and confused?"(Jer. 20:15-18).
By God's special graces, both Jeremiah and I "turned the corner." God's comfort was given to us. We experienced the "Jeremiah-Blessing."
God's Special Blessing
"I found thy words. I finally understood their meaning. They were joy and gladness to my heart. I have come to realize how I and others are ordained to be 'other Christs.' " (Jer. 15:16, slightly paraphrased so as to be applicable to me)
"Thus saith the Lord: When thou art converted, you will really be converted. Thou shalt speak in My name so as to separate the precious from the trash. Thou shalt speak for Me. They will listen and you will not dialogue with them unto your ruin." (Jer. 15:19 very slightly paraphrased)
"Thou shalt say unto them [my "people"]: Your fathers [Protestant bishops and poor liturgy-teaching bishops since then] forsook me and went after strange gods. They distorted Divine Liturgy. They imposed their distortions upon My people thereby, they forsook Me; they neither understood or taught My authentic liturgical Will, the Legacy in My Blood . You [bishops] have done far, far worse than your predecessors. Behold, each of you walks according to the peculiar perverseness of his own wicked and satanic heart. You will not hear Me [or My prophets]. I will cause you to be subject to your own false gods, they will not bring peace to your souls Soon will come a time when these pastors will not be able to say 'the Lord lives among us' [in the Eucharist]" (Jer. 16: 11-15, only slightly paraphrased as to be applicable to me.)
"I will make of thee A BRASS WALL TO THE PEOPLE" (Jer. 15:20)
My own turning point, that which made of me God's "convinced and certain" prophet and a "brass wall" to the people, was my coming to understand and more fittingly respond to God's greatest gift and each one's only salutary necessity the Divine Liturgy as given by Christ and canonized by the sensus et praxis fidelium from Pentecost on.
"People" Are the Prophets' Problem
A long time ago, I took out for dinner a certain alleged "Fr. K." an alleged "independent traditionalist priest." Three times he went out of his way to tell me he was ordained in Rome and that he was still a member of the Diocese of Rome. Rome, no less!
Rome? Really? Pick out some other place, "dummy" (understating my evaluation of this individual's "Jesuitical ability.")! Rome? That's too easy.
Therefore, as any of his many blindly dedicated followers could have done, I wrote to the Apostolic Delegate. He replied: "negative" to both of my inquiries about the alleged "Fr. K." This happened years ago. "Fr. K." was Mr. K neither a member of the diocese of Rome nor a priest ordained in Rome (as he insisted on telling me).
Of course, we realize that no matter where Mr. K was ordained in the "West," IF he was ordained after 1970 "in" the New Ordinal, he was ordained "unto" the Novus Ordo Service. He remains a layman, even though he is a specially commissioned layman.
I was ineffective. I spent time giving out this information to some of Mr. K's devoted followers. What happened? I lost friends. I made enemies. Lastly, I made converts for Mr. K. Why? Very few CAN HANDLE ADULT FREEDOM RESPONSIBLY. Very few accept Christ, the Light. They "turn Him off" and cling to a comforting security blanket. They even use it to cover their eyes lest light comes into their little world through the "lightning truths of prophetic utterances."
They are like kids I knew who hid under a blanket, lest they see the light coming from the lightning. However, my lightning is like unto darkness compared to Christ's Sun as each one of us will inevitably experience at his/her "final and finalizing" judgment.
Of course, even more typical examples of my prophetic frustration with "the people" can be cited. Newchurchers reject the possibility that what is, is. Translated: this means that the "New Mass" which is conclusively invalid is invalid--"null and void.". (Read "New Mass" Is Conclusively Invalid, MAETA.)
Also, "Newchurch-trads" won't change. They're convinced "the church" can't err. They're convinced that if bishops and/or the pope says black is white, then black is white. {They forget that the whole understanding of what "the Church" stands for is that "the Church never changes." It is the same eternally, yesterday, today and tomorrow, forever in eternity.
For example, once, for some time, they held "multis" meant "all" because "the church" once, for some time, said so. I remember when "early on," I broke the news to them that (only recently) the current pope wanted "multis" to be translated as "many." At first, until their "present-day church" confirmed the "new party line," I was condemned as a "pope basher."
Most "Catholics" refuse to believe what is evidently true, especially as regards the "New Mass" as being invalid. Most "Catholics" are so loyal to "the church" that they "believe" black is white since churchmen say it is.
"People" are the prophets' problem. "People" were Christ's problem:
"He came unto the world and the world knew Him not He came unto His own and they refused to listen to Him" (John 1).
The vast majority of "people" rejected (and still reject) Christ. Indeed, there are very few "QUOTQUOT" (see Jn 1 in the Latin). Quotquot are those who receive Christ the Light as He is and then try to live out their lives in graced conformity to "the Truth."
Obviously, many alleged "trads" are not "quotquot." Many reject Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life. They, like unto other evil people, create Christ in their own image and unto their own likings.
How many QUOTQUOT are there? There are very few, and, most certainly far fewer than an ordinary optimistic trad would think; and quite likely, not including that "sincerely deceived" trad, himself.
The light comes and they reject it. They prefer darkness to the light. Then, the inevitable God-given tests of this life come and they fail God. Why? Fundamentally, they have succumbed to the spirit of these times, to our prevailing zeitgeist. "I can't believe in a God who" "God couldn't" "God must" (since I believe He must). "God wouldn't let this group, society or alleged priest deceive me"
"And the beat goes on and on and on." Many trads are "irresponsible emotionalists." For example, quite a number of trads accept Newchurch Ordinals as valid. Why? "Their church" can't be as it is dysfunctional. However, regardless of what anyone says: any allegedly ordained Newchurch presider, (establishment ordained person after 1969) is not a Holy Ordered Priest even though he be accepted "as he is" (namely, with his "Newchurch Ordination") into a (pro forma excommunicated) specific "self-assured" or "self-dogmatizing" society or group of "priests."
Why do such societies or groups of "allegedly trad priests" accept men with "Newchurch ordinations" and refuse to demand that they be "truly and safely" ordained? Perhaps, because some of these groups yearn for "reinstatement with Newchurch" [even as they, at times, claim they are not excommunicated (it's a weird "trad world" out there, isn't it?)].
Read Order of Melchisedek by Michael Davies for evidence of the invalidity of Newchurch's Orders which all too many trad groups accept as valid. Davies proves the "New Ordinal" purposely rejects " ordaining" anyone "to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for the living and the dead" (as I was ordained in 1966 by Archbishop Phillip Matthew Hannan).
For easily fooled childish trads, I also note that another telltale and "certainly-producing" sign of a sacrilegious and blasphemous, invalid and null ordination is found in "What service did that alleged priest concelebrate with the 'ordaining prelate?'" I concelebrated the Canonized Latin Mass as my first (very first) Mass (and my Masses since my conversion in 1990 or so). The first Mass I said made it clear and certain that I was ordained to celebrate the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy.
Argumentum Ad Hominem
"Oh but" here comes "the trads' big but!" "But I don't believe as you do I don't believe the Novus Ordo is invalid. I just don't like it. I like Latin. I like nostalgia and feeling the mysterious. I hate and reject behaving like a responsible adult.(or) I refuse to embrace nostalgia and feeling the mysterious. I hate and reject behaving like a responsible adult(or) I refuse to embrace not going to the establishment for its "Masses." If, as you feel or "believe," Novus Ordo Services are true Masses, then you're dealing with God's greatest gift--your only salutary necessity; therefore, you must accept the establishment church since it is (according to your wrong thinking) as God demands it be. (You must, at least, be logical in your error).
You'd better return and buckle down. Your peculiar (wrong) beliefs do not in se justify your disobedience to "church authorities." In my opinion, you do not qualify under canon 844 of the New Code of Canon Law for "receiving the Eucharist" outside of the establishment church.
Act like an adult. Refocus yourself. You say you're obedient to Christ. You (wrongly) believe the "Mass" provided by His appointed authorities is valid. Therefore, then get in line, straighten out. You're (wrongly) convinced that the "New Mass" is the infinitely valuable Mass. Act according to your (wrong) convictions: bow your knee. Submit to "the church" (outside of which, nulla salus).
"I don't want to go there. I don't want ADULT responsibility. I want to see, feel and smell the church of old, the church of my childhood. I'm nostalgic!" Indeed, you're both nostalgic and damned!
Your Labels Will Not Hurt Me
Since my conversion in the 1990s, I have no group to call "home." (I'm exaggerating, of course). "Trads" despise me. "Novus Ordoites" write me off as crazy. Yes, "crazy!"
I was still a Jesuit in the 1960s. In fact, God providentially let me "be with the great believer in the church's liturgy, Fr. Schell." We both taught at Jesuit High School in New Orleans. Fr. Schell rejected the "New Mass," the sacrilegious creation of Bugnini and his Protestant cohorts. Fr. Schell was put off limits by reigning Jesuit superiors. They used the simplest and most effective way to do so. They demanded that we believe: "Fr. Schell is CRAZY!"
"That took care of him." What sane person wants to talk to a crazy person? Really! So we avoided Fr. Schell like the establishment's "clergy" now avoid me. For example, most establishment priests not only consider me to be crazy, but they specify the type of insanity I suffer from: "He believes what he says is right to such an extent that others are wrong!"
"Crucify him," they say. They try to do this as best they can: "He's crazy. He won't acknowledge that the pope is God!" "He dares to claim our (obviously dysfunctional) church is wrong!"
Newchurchers must believe I'm crazy. Otherwise, that makes them apostates who are damned to eternal Hell. What sane person would choose to think Fr. T. is sane and they're damned to Hell?
My Special Blessing
"May God bless those of you who agree with the establishment and say I'm crazy. May you be led to doubt the party lie. May the doubt persist. 'What if he isn't CRAZY?' 'What if our leaders are WRONG?' May 'what if' bring you to seek Christ and to embrace the Truth the Truth which even now condemns this wicked world's church" (1 John 5:19).
"All Others" Reject Christ Active and Alive in Our Midst
In general, today we have the "easily-fooled trads" and "the others." "The others" are not even in the Christian ballpark!
Liberal protestants and Newchurchers (those who believe in the Novus Ordo "Mass" and consequent religion) are satanically deceived into accepting a false or truncated Christ briefly stated, the Sacred Heart not active and alive in Divine Liturgy (as was believed for a millennium and a half by all Christians in the "West").
Why do "the others" celebrate or have fake Masses? Pope John Paul II reaffirmed this in his inaugural encyclical: "In Christ all men are saved" Redemptor Hominis). Also, they come together to worship a false God, a false Christ, an anti-Christ. They gather to celebrate COMMUNITY, to celebrate "being together" as "Christs to Christs." "Lub, lub, lub" experience yourself and others "positively."
Fundamentalists are "the best of 'the others.'" Fundamentalists at least believe and pray as they believe that they are sinners in need of Christ the Savior from sin. However, they reject the solution Christ's Salutary Dispensation as liturgically done by all true believers during the first and half of the second millennia (up to 1550 or so). Fundamentalists reject the Bible!
Fr. Trinchard believes and proves that one must believe in and pray Divine Liturgy if he believes in the Bible. By rejecting Divine Liturgy, ipso facto Protestants and Newchurchers reject the Holy Bible and are thereby damned.
My Jeremiah-Blessing
At least, by God's special and loving providence and graces I now believe salutarily. I "truly and fully" believe God's Word. Therefore, I believe in the Canonized Mass Liturgy. I am a Catholic as Catholics in "the West" were until the 1960s and as the semper ubique idem Church of Salvation demanded, demands and will always demand.
As regards my being rejected, like unto Jeremiah, I have been specially blessed by God. God has made me "a brass wall to the people." (Jer 15:20) What a tremendous blessing! Thank You, O God! Thank You! Thank You! Thank You!
"Condemn Them" OR Be Condemned
"Crazy trads" and "the others" can no longer get to me. I can't get to them. The "brass wall" is most effective. However, I must tell them God-given prophecy (the relevant salutary truth) even though it's most often to no effect:
"Son of man, I have made thee my watchman thou shalt hear the word out of my mouth and shall tell it to them from Me. If when I say to the wicked, 'Thou shalt surely die' and thou declare it not I will hold thee accountable. But if thou warn the wicked and he is not converted from his evil way, he shall die in his sins but thou hast delivered thy soul." (Ez 3:17-19)
"I will make of thee A BRASS WALL TO THE PEOPLE." (Jer 15:20) Amen!
Where is a "truly and fully" orthodox Christian to go? Where is one who determines to faithfully follow Christ [to follow Him as all Christians in the West did for one and a half millennia; and, as Christians of the East have always done and continue to do (except in those "branches" which emulate the New Order Anti-salutary Dispensation)] to go?
Before we get to the answer, we need to define our relatively new term: "Orthodox Catholic." First of all, the Orthodox Catholic Church [no matter how it labels itself e.g. the Catholic Church before 1966] is the one and only Church of Salvation. Outside of that Church, there is no salvation. As the pre-1966 Orthodox Catholic Church in the "West" dogmatized: "Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus."
How is Christ's one and only Church of salvation "Orthodox?" What makes one "orthodox?"
"Orthodox" means "holding and doing the right things (to be saved from Hell and to truly follow Christ)." An orthodox church or person holds all that is salutarily necessary as Christ, through Apostolic Tradition, taught.
More specifically, the Christ-given salutarily necessary set of faith (beliefs) and morals (human and especially liturgical "doings") defines "orthodox." Hold in order to believe and do this set and you're Orthodox as well as (automatically) Catholic.
What then is "Catholic?" "Catholic," as Pope Benedict XVI decreed (two months after he was made pope), means having Christ-given Divine Liturgy. Such Liturgy is "fallen man's only salutary prayer."
Divine Liturgy is the Mystery of Faith among us. As such, Divine Liturgy is the foundation upon which salutary hope must be built (Heb 2:3). Without Divine Liturgy one despairs or one sinfully presumes (as most alleged "religious people" do in our day.
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for" (Heb 2:3). "The substance" means "that upon which salutary or true Hope must be built."
The Mystery of Faith--Divine Liturgy--also empowers. Divine Liturgy makes evident the "unseen salutarily necessary spiritual dimension." "Faith makes evident the unseen." (Heb 2:3)
Therefore, one is a Catholic (as in Orthodox Catholic) when he believes in and prays (as much as is "humanly possible" for him) a Christ-given, (Apostolically taught and done, sensus et praxis fidelium (believed and practiced by the truly faithful to Christ in all ages and times) canonized Divine Liturgy (an authentic and classical Eastern Rite Divine Liturgy or the one and only canonized Latin Rite Divine Liturgy).
Obviously, "we" are totally depended upon a truly Holy Ordered Priesthood in order "to practice" or "to do" our Catholicism (our actual praying of a Christ-initiated Divine Liturgy). Truly "Holy Orders ordained" priests are our most needed servants. They "serve us" the Sacred Heart active and alive among us in our space/time.
Today, most (not all) Orthodox Catholics find themselves dwelling within the aftermath of the Second Episcopal Liturgical Revolt in the "Western church" (that part of the Orthodox Catholic Church which is under the Patriarch of the Canonized Latin Rite Divine Liturgy, a.k.a. "the Patriarch of the West"). In the "West" unlike the first episcopal liturgical revolt, the second episcopal liturgical revolt remained "intra-ecclesial" inside the "West's" church body or structure. The Episcopal Liturgical Revolt of the 1960s has conquered the church structure or body in the "West."
[We realize that in January, 2006, the patriarch of the Latin Rite renounced the title of "Patriarch of the West" for logical reasons. However, he has not yet boldly claimed his is "Patriarch of the Canonized Latin Divine Liturgy." We wait for him to do so. In the meantime, in this article for our purposes we still refer to him as "Patriarch of the West."]
In spite of our agreement with the great historian who observed that what we learn from history is that people do not learn from history, we cite and claim as our own (for the Novus Ordo Counter-revolution) the logon of the Protestant counter-revolution: "IT'S THE CANONIZED MASS THAT MATTERS." Where is such to be found?
In sixteenth century England and Ireland as in all of the West in the twentieth century the same "Catholic" churches existed, similarly looking clergy existed, similar but vernacularized liturgy existed; but, the devil replaced Christ the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy and Holy Ordered priesthood were episcopally trashed and sacrileged. In place of "other Christs" giving the "Holy Supper Sacrifice," the bishops imposed and today impose "sacrileges committing sacrileges." The grossly unholy stands in the place of the Most Holy (Apoc. 13).
What are we who are victims of the very worst perverts in the history of mankind (the episcopal perverters of souls who are divinely entitled to Christ's Salutary Economy)? We need to be convinced "IT'S THE CANONIZED MASS THAT MATTERS."
Then, we can discover how to cope with the greatest episcopal spiritual raping of all times. Our greatest contemporary salutary need is to find the way to cope with and not be victimized by the Episcopal Liturgical Revolt of the 1960s.
For simplicity's sake, we'll now divide the Orthodox Catholic's contemporary choices into three categories: "the good, the bad and the ugly." Who are good priests? Who are bad priests? Who are ugly priests?
I(A). "The Good Who Fade Away"
Let's first consider the "old-time" good priest within the "priests who have faded away or who are rapidly fading away. They're "Holy Ordered priests." (guys like me) who were ordained in the properly functioning (non-dysfunctional) Latin Rite church before 1970. We are truly ordained. However, we're quickly disappearing. We're fading away.
Most of the great priests such as the following are no longer here to be "servants of the people of God" (they come from an era in which the pope considered himself their servant he signed himself off as "the servant of the servants of the People of God").
A few names of such priests (alive or deceased) are: Fr. Schell in L.A. (a "brother" Jesuit Holy Ordered ordained "priest"); Fr. Wickens in New Jersey who was pushed out by the infamous Bishop Gerety; Monsignor Donahue who founded two chapels in L.A.; Fr. de Pauw, a pioneer leader who founded the Catholic Traditionalist Movement; Fr. Keane who staffed chapels in the N.E.; Fr. Bonnet who founded three chapels in Florida; Fr. Wathen who wrote The Great Sacrilege; Fr. Le Blanc who built Our Lady of the Sun in Phoenix; Fr. Giardina, a Benedictine in Alabama; Fr. Karl Pulvermacher who pioneered the old-time Angelus and later staffed three chapels in Florida; and Bishop McKenna in Connecticut.
I(B). Possibly Good Societies
Can we rule out "alternate West liturgical solutions?" At best, we can give them a "yellow light" or add "Warning Signs." We don't mention names in order to avoid useless argumentation "if the shoes fit wear them; if not, why are you so upset?").
One society of priests is known for its double-talk and its insistence on strict conformity to its contemporary positions. For example, when it is negotiating for union with "the Roman Catholic Church," it demands a lifting of its excommunication; and, when such an outlook is bleak, it insists it isn't excommunicated. Make up your mind, please!
The major caution flag around this group of priests is that it reportedly takes in Novus Ordo "priests" (as long as such are satisfied with their "ordinations.") What happened to "for the good of the people," and, "we must take the safest and surest courses as regards Divine Liturgy and the sacraments" (e.g. one can't use beer to baptize when water is readily available)? Why not "conditionally reordain" or "really ordain" those who are probably or even possibly "not really Holy Orders ordained?"
Does this group have valid bishops to do this? Why doesn't it major on the majors? Why take chances with a man who may really not be ordained?
I(C). Other Possibly Good Societies
Other societies of priests with apparently valid bishops "too lightly lay on hands" as they even ordain men who are probably homosexual or theologically and pastorally grossly incompetent.
I(D). Other Possibly Very Good Societies
Still other societies or groups with apparently valid bishops are tempted to dogmatize the papally undogmatized, namely, that "this or that pope" isn't or wasn't pope. Certainly, this is a "viable theological opinion" or credible stand. However, is "sede vacantism" a salutary dogma? Must it be believed in order to be saved from eternal Hell? If so, who can "apply" it dogmatically?
The acid test for considering "joining" groups who appear to be sede-vacantist is: do they definitively exclude from their ranks and from receiving their priestly services those who are in agreement with them but are "non-dogmatic?" These don't hold "sede-vacantism as a dogma." Instead, they hold it as "most likely" or as "possibly true," or, even as "if not true than 'things' are far worse than we thought."
Why deprive such souls of the good they can attain or even of their sacramental rights as Orthodox Catholic truly baptized laymen? What justifies a "very hard line stand?" Something to think about!
Of course, I'm not being specific (as stated in the beginning). From what little I know, none of the "sede-vacantist labeled groups" in practice exclude "non-dogmatists" (as defined above) from their parishes or chapels. Indeed, I recommend such groups, since they seem to have not only valid priests but also good and dedicated priests.
However, my practical knowledge is not comprehensive. It doesn't include each and every such pastor of souls. Therefore, I merely throw out "cautions" as "things to think about" before one identifies with any allegedly "sede-vacantist" pastor or group.
Inquire. Remember that in these emergency times one has to "rethink" his conditioned criteria or "what he was taught." For example, a good "parishioner" of mine was accused of being "more Catholic than the pope." He brilliantly replied: "I certainly hope I am!"
I(E). Lux et Oriens LIGHT Comes from the East
Although born into the Latin Rite Patriarchate, many who are convinced that "it's the Canonized Mass that matters" are attracted to the "rising light in the East," to "Orthodoxy."
Of course, they have to avoid corrupted or "Novus Ordoized" Orthodox Ritual (as exists in some "uniate" churches). They also have to avoid "uniate priests" who are bad or null and void priests since they were ordained in the Novus Ordo Rite (or "ordained in the West" after 1970 by the New Roman Catholic Ritual).
Otherwise, "Roman Catholics" have to realize that Orthodox churches are no longer schismatic the mutual (political) excommunication of west and east patriarchs de facto was lifted or abolished in the 1960s.
"Orthodox" is Orthodox Catholic. Obviously, "Catholic" is no longer Orthodox Catholic.
What about what "we were taught?" We were taught that "they" reject the "Trinitarian processions." How can "they" do so when "they" hold what the Orthodox Catholic Church held and made into a creed for the first thousand years? Obviously, we were "lied to!"
What about "their" denial of the Immaculate Conception? How can "they" be accused of doing this when "they" pray twice in their canonized liturgy to "the ever pure and immaculate Virgin Mary?" If anything, are we who don't do so ("in the West") by this very fact suspect of rejecting the Immaculate Conception?
To "comfortably" fit into "the Eastern prayer life," a "Westerner" must build up his convictions: he is a "rotten sinner" whose only need is Divine Liturgy as prayer, as to be lived and as the source of "grace, mercy and forgiveness of sins." Also, practically speaking, such a "Westerner" must come to pray and "enjoy" Divine Liturgy and abandon the commonly held Western view of liturgy as a necessary and boring burden (expressed by looking for the shortest and "least annoying" celebrant or service).
Once one converts in spirit and in truth to Orthodoxy which is Orthodox Catholic, he will experience and pray Divine Liturgy as it was meant to be experienced and prayed. Why? "Orthodox" not only possess Divine Liturgy, but center their lives on authentic Divine Liturgy.
II. The Bad
Bad priests are null and void priests. They are not "Holy Orders Ordained." They are "Novus Ordo Commissioned."
They are bad or evil in se in the very essence of the feigned priesthood. One can read MAETA's material for "conclusive proofs" of what is here stated.
III. The UGLY
The ugly may be apparently attractive. Essentially, they are "uglies."
They are apparently truly ordained priests. Essentially, they are not ordained.
Then again, an "ugly" may be really ordained, but he is ugly because he leads his flocks to damnation. Avoid the "uglies."
To avoid the "uglies" one must abandon his naivet. Look beyond the surface.
Excelsior. Raise up your hearts and minds above the superficial to the essentials. Then, test and discern. Is this alleged priest Holy Orders ordained? If he is a true priest is he leading me to Hell by what he teaches or fails to teach? Discern the uglies! Avoid the uglies!
Fr. John Muddy who was ordained in 1990 called me the other day pointing out that he agreed with me that the newer bishops who themselves were ordained priests after 1970 aren’t bishops since they aren’t priests. With this in mind he claimed he was really ordained, and Fr. Charles Trenchy, who was ordained in 2005 wasn’t ordained since Charles was ordained by Bishop Bill Beady who himself was ordained a priest in 1972.
"Fr." John is "doubly wrong." He is "Mr." John. His self-justifying argumentation is erroneous. Why? Throughout church history, "matter and form" determine validity. If the matter or form is "wrong," then the sacrament is not confected, even if a pope does it. [I know a man "ordained priest" by the pope himself (after 1980) who decided he should be (conditionally) ordained or really ordained – that’s how much he believed in the core teachings of Catholicism.]
Therefore, anyone, including Mr. Muddy, who was "ordained" in the "Roman Catholic Novus Ordo Rite" after 1970 (or so) is still a layman. A layman even when episcopally commissioned to preside over or facilitate "non-Masses" (Novus Ordo Community Celebrations) and to be an episcopal collaborator is and remains a layman. He is not a Holy Ordered Catholic Priest.
Novus Ordo Rite of "Commissioning" Validates Our Contention
Here is how the alleged Office of the Priesthood is formally explained by the Bishop according to the 1978 rite (which finalized for the time being the 1970 changes). Here is the address to be given by the "bishop" – the address which discloses what he is about to do:
My son, you are now to advance to the order of the presbyterate. You must apply your energies to the duty of teaching in the name of Christ, the chief Teacher. Share with mankind the word of God you have received with joy. Meditate on the law of God, believe what you read, teach what you believe, and put into practice what you teach … In the memorial of the Lord’s death and resurrection, make every effort to die to sin and to walk in the new life of Christ.
Study this official statement of intent. It is evident from this statement of intent that everyone "ordained" after 1970 (or so) was commissioned or reminded to be a good catechist, a good religion teacher, a good contemporary episcopal policy-enforcer; a good "share-care-bear;" a good meditator; and, (as a final resort, to be holy) "a good guy" (one who tries to die to sin and to imitate Christ). Read over the "Novus Ordo Ordinal Introduction" as already cited. This official text proves our point. Also, read The Order of Melchizedek by Michael Davies for citations or conclusive proof texts.
One caution must be given. You should disregard Davies’ ridiculous theology. In effect, he contends [as in the translation of "multis" (which recently has been changed to mean "many" by Pope Benedict XVI)] that black is not black or that the evidence doesn’t lead to its logical conclusion since (then as in recent times) the "Church" said black is white and the "Church" can’t err. However, it remains clearly logical and conclusive that you weren’t ordained to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for the living and the dead as I was in 1966. Otherwise, black can be white by episcopal or papal decree!
Truly Catholic Ordination Deliberately Excluded
All Newchurch Novus Ordo presiders, liturgical facilitators and episcopal collaborators (wrongly referred to as "priests") were made so in such a way as to deliberately exclude the conferral of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Why do I say so? Their (Newchurch’s) ordinal goes out of its way "to say so."
"Every prayer in the traditional rite which stated specifically the essential role of a priest as a man ordained to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead has been removed" (from the ordinal). The Order of Melchizedek, Michael Davies
With "invalidating and malicious intent," prayers such as the following were deleted for only one reason – to insure that the Revolting Bishops’ "New Mass" presiders and collaborators would not receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders:
"Theirs be the task to change with blessing undefiled, for the service of thy people, bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Thy Son." (Abolished)
"Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Mass, both for the living and the dead, in the name of the Lord." (Abolished)
"The blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost come down upon you, and make you blessed in the priestly Order, enabling you to offer propitiatory sacrifices for the sins of the people to Almighty God." (Abolished)
Obviously, the "Bishops’" collaborators, presiders or facilitators are not ordained as Holy Ordered Priests. The "bishop" has explicitly said so in his official opening address. Therefore we agree with Cardinal Gasquet:
"Today we find men of intelligence and good faith claiming to have the same Christ-given sacrifice and the same sacrificing priests as the Catholic Church, while they are using a new man-made liturgy from which, of set purpose, every notion of Oblation and Sacrifice has been ruthlessly removed, and their ministers are ordained by an Ordinal, which designedly was composed to express the rejection of the sacrificial character of the Catholic priest. The prayer for Christian Unity must go up from every heart, but if it is to be something more than sentiment, facts must be faced and resolved honestly." - Cardinal Gasquet, 4th Advent Sermon, at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, New York, in 1913, Chairman of Commission which composed Apostolicae Curae (which officially decreed the "far less apostate" Anglican Ordinal and Service to be "null and void" or invalid.)
See The Abbot and Me on Liturgy. Also, read "New Mass" Is Conclusively Invalid, both from Maeta, @ 1-888-577-4428.
Cardinal Gasquet composed the dogmatic Apostolicae Curae for Pope Leo XIII (the encyclical which dogmatically condemns the Anglican and Protestant liturgies). He, along with Pope Leo XIII employed a simple yet dogmatically binding principle: Ordinal defines Service; and Service defines Ordinal. This principle is "self-evident" as well as dogmatic. Therefore, if either Ordinal or Service substantially or "religion-wise" is incongruous with the Church’s Ordinal or Service, then both Ordinal and Service are invalid.
Pope Leo XIII in a formal way dogmatically condemned Episcopalian services and ordinals. Newchurch’s Services as well as Newchurch (Novus Ordo) Ordinals are far, far worse than or more heretical than the Episcopalian services (see New Mass is Conclusively Invalid for irrefutable "line by line" or detailed proof of such a statement). Therefore, a fortiori we must conclude that the Novus Ordo Ordinals and Services are invalid; and ipso facto sacrilegious.
Acid Test
"Fr. John, what was your first ‘Mass?’" It was concelebrated (hint, hint). What Service did you first pray after being "ordained?"
Was it a canonized and Apostolic Mass or was it one of the set of episcopal-Bugnini devised or implemented Services? Don’t be deceived -- Newchurch’s alleged "Roman Canon" is fake, fake, fake! – so it is no more a Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy than a dog is a monkey-wrench. This "canon" is a misnomer for one of the Novus Ordo Services inflicted upon the church by the Episcopal Liturgical Revolt of the 1960s.
Yes, you, Mr. John, just as "Mr." Charles, are not ordained. Both of you said a Novus Ordo Service at "ordination" or at your commissioning. Both of you are glorified laymen.
You both were commissioned presiders or facilitators for community celebration (as well as episcopal collaborators). Your first such community celebration, according to dogmatically established principles was not a Mass. What did your "bishop" commission you to be or to do? Obviously and primarily, he commissioned you to preside at "community celebrations" (usually, of the community’s sinfully presumed "Christ-ed-ness").
"Holy Ordered" Ordination
What is the immutable and sine qua non essence of Holy Ordered Priesthood? Why is a man made a priest in the Catholic Church?
Answer: Primarily, "uniquely" and essentially, a man receives Holy Orders to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and administer the priest-depended sacraments. The traditional Rite of Ordination explains this clearly and makes it crystal clear that this is what it accomplishes.
In the Church-given words of the Bishop to the ordinand, the office of the priesthood (before 1970) was explained according to the traditional understanding of what a priest should be. The ordaining bishop had a "validating intention" before 1970, before the canonized Latin Rite Ordinal (read Quo Primum) was most sinfully discarded, "trashed" and sacrileged by episcopal decrees in the revolting 1960s. Here are the words of Holy Orders used before 1970 to clearly "ordain" the ordinand:
"Dearly beloved son, as you are now about to be consecrated to the office of the Priesthood, endeavor to receive it worthily, and when you have received it, fulfill its duties blamelessly. The Priest is ordained to offer Sacrifice, to bless, to guide, to preach and to baptize. With great awe should one advance to so high a state…"
(At the end of the Catholic Ordinal, the ordinand is explicitly given the power to forgive sins sacramentally – this power is not given to Newchurch commissioned "fake priests").
Most significantly, I and all others who were ordained in the Latin Rite Patriarchate (to say Canonized Latin Rite Mass Liturgies) were explicitly ordained "TO OFFER THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS FOR THE LIVING AND THE DEAD…"
My final and abiding "Holy Orders" challenge – after I was ordained was to come to know more and more what I do (agnosce quod agis) [ever strive to understand more deeply the Divine Liturgy]; and, to ever strive to imitate Him Whom I bring among us and handle. Imitate Quem tractas – imitate Him Whom you "bring from Heaven to earth."
Awesome Conclusion
"In brief, it is impossible for any unbiased mind to compare the ancient Canon of the Holy Mass with the New Liturgy, without seeing that both in spirit and substance it was conceived (like the Bishops’ New Mass) with the desire of getting rid of the Catholic Mass altogether." - (Abbot Gasquet)
We agree with the composer of Apostolicae Curae. Do you?
We are led to conclude that alleged Novus Ordo "priests," are "fake, fake, fake!" By conveying the impression they are saying Mass they seriously violate the first three Commandments of God’s Law. They become sacrileges who commit sacrilege. If you are such, wake up, see the awesome truth, confess your sins and repent.
(A "Novus Ordo fake priest" might contend that my argumentation is too simplistic. All the more does it condemn him as "fake priest!" If one rejects this simplistic and irrefutable argumentation – what good would it do to get any more complex, with the "pharisaical likes of such dissenters?")
May Almighty God bless you. May the Holy Ghost agitate you to be dissatisfied with your Newchurch Ordinal/Services. May God direct your inquiries to remove your dissatisfactions. Among other things, may God lead you to honestly compare Newchurch services with the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy (as is done in New Mass Is Conclusively Invalid, Maeta). Finally, may God grace and inspire you to renounce being a sacrilege committing sacrileges.
Radical Solutions
Radical, fundamental or essential problems of such "infinite magnitude" require radical solutions. Simply stated, anyone of sane mind and "decent conscience" will either abandon the Novus Ordo Farce OR he will seek true orders.
The first solution is self-explanatory. The second solution can be attained by contacting a valid "extra-ecclesially ordained" priest who was made a bishop. To obtain or reinforce proper convictions, I suggest one read my books, books such as Latin Mass Prayers Explained; Apocalypse of the Mass; My Basic Missal; The Mass that Made Padre Pio; etc. (MAETA 1-888-577-4428)
"Because they rejected God in their hearts, God gave them up to do evil, to praise evil as being good and to force others to do the same" – the Romans One Curse (Rom 1: 15-2:05). Because Newchurch bishops reject God, God gives them up to insanity (e.g. to believe "multis" means "all" and thereby to eternal damnation). [A certain sign of one’s damnation is one’s insanity as perceived in one’s believing in—or, professing belief in – the obviously illogical (obviously, even from an objective study of the objectively established religious postulates or tenets of that particular religion).]
Episcopal perverts hate God. One sign of such perversion is their dedication to cultic-induced insanity. Pray for them. Pray for their victims.
Pray that all Newchurch cultists return to sanity. Sanity is just one small but necessary step to admitting they have been cursed to freely embrace and impose a New Age, ultra-protestant and anti-logical cult upon their unwary fellow-travelers.
Pope, Please More Strongly Pope!
The pope recently decreed "multis" must be translated in all new missals as "many." Dear pope, why not boldly admit that you and all other Newchurch bishops are naked? Why not demand that all of you immediately admit the truth? "Multis" means "many!" Speak up boldly! Really, you’d be right.
Just as one of your liberal predecessors demanded "St. Joseph" be immediately added to every missal in the Latin Rite Patriarchate, so must you imitate him! Demand sanity as he demanded and obtained disobedience to church dogma (i.e. Quo Primum).
The truth is "at stake." If a liberal pope can enforce disobedience to Quo Primum why should you not enforce a return to sanity and consequently a return to Catholicism?
Immediately! That’s the least you must do, that’s only the beginning of a total return to sanity which is necessary before returning to Catholicism.
Will the Naked Emperors Say: We’re Naked?
When I still said the Novus Ordo fake-mass, I gave a sermon in Pearl River, Louisiana. One of the points I made was that "they" purposely and obviously mistranslated "multis" as in "pro multis effundetur." "This is my blood which is shed for you and for all," the naked emperors demanded. All, except a few who retained sanity said, "Naked episcopal emperors, you’ve got nice clothes on." The naked episcopal emperors became quite accustomed to the fine compliments given to them as regards their choice of clothing which didn’t really exist. Thus, they became raving mad lunatics.
Sane critics were scoffed at. "How dare you say the naked emperors are naked or that the pope is wrong?" "Multis" means "all" as any modern Catholic scholar can tell you.
Ask the ruling scholars if the naked emperors are naked. The intelligent ones say "no!" So much for liberal scholarship.
Along my path back to Catholicism, at Pearl River after this "Mass," I confronted a bright-looking twelve-year old in front of his parents. "Does ‘mul – tis ... mull … tis mean man—y’ or all? (I strongly emphasized the "m-ness" of multis, all to no avail.)
Obviously, the child was a better Newchurcher than I was. He didn’t hesitate: "Multis means all!" Why? His insane religion taught him a bit of insanity.
"The naked emperor is not naked." A cult is born. "See naked as clothed" is one of the cult’s logons.
A Protestant Cult
It’s rather simple. Newchurch is anti-Catholic (and anti-logical). "Multis" being translated as "all" proves my statement. "Multis" being implemented (their favorite word) as meaning "all" proves my point. "Multis" being believed as meaning "all" proves my point.
What’s the fuss? Why not return to sanity? This is impossible when sanity destroys one’s protestant cultic belief system. (And they have the nerve to claim that they are rational animals!)
Note the bishops’ reaction to Pope Benedict XVI’s plea for sanity? Many ("multis," not "omnia" – unless you believe "multis" means "omnia") believe that ‘naked’ is clothed. We will not change! "We will not allow ‘multis’ to be translated as ‘many’."
Why? Their religion is more cultic and insane (or illogical) than any other religion on the face of the earth. Period. Proved beyond any shadow of a doubt – unless, of course, one believes in bishops so much that if they say "black is white" then black is white!
If you so believe and implement, may you both rot in Hell for all eternity, insanely screaming: "This is Heaven!" Why? You have led many into perdition by "implementing" a Novus Ordo religion based on insanity, and, ultimately based on hatred of God.
"You (church leaders) are of your father, the devil." (Jn. 8:44)
In his rules for spiritual discernment, Saint Ignatius gave us a tell-tale clue to discern the devil’s works: his tail always shows. However, most of today’s Newchurchers can’t discern his "tail." Maybe (although, unlikely) a few of the sheepel-people will be able to spot his tail, his tail of lies which emanate from their bishops who are wolves in shepherds’ clothing.
Some Newchurchers may be able to break through their episcopally-induced and self-perpetuated euphoric blindness. Let us pray. Let us witness.
Since the revolting sixties, Newchurch is under the bishops (as opposed to being "pope-ish" or "under the pope") just as surely as England’s churches were under the bishops during and after the English Bishops’ Protestant Revolt. These "fooled again and again" episcopal sheepel-people (both clerical and lay) attended the same parish churches. They had only slightly smaller communities. Their clergy assured them that "change was the order of the day." The people were told that "they now understand the Mass." It was in English. Newchurch Bishops went even farther. Altars were turned around; priests faced the people. "Communion in the hand" made them equal with their priests. Bishops gained complete control.
As in our Bishops' Liturgical Revolt (starting in the 1960s) under the logon "change," bishops gave the people Newchurch, the church "of, for and from" the bishops. "We have Apostolic authority. We are the Apostles alive and well among you…" So decreed the revolting bishops, both during the time of Bishop Cranmer in England and during our times.
In today’s internal Bishops’ Revolt, a far greater number believe such lies and Satanic similar lies and reject Christ and His true Apostolic (as well as One, Holy, and Catholic) Church. Why? More than ever before, people trust their bishops! They actually prefer to believe satanic propaganda.
Are you still not convinced that we’re in the Bishops’ Revolt? Pope Paul VI wanted to be identified with the episcopal Newchurch so much that he gave up speaking as pope at Vatican II. There, he signed himself off as "Bishop of Rome." This man no longer claimed to be Pope. He prided himself as being a fellow bishop, one of the "boys." As such, he "rubber-stamped" (October, 1969) the fait-accompli, which had in fact been in effect for over three years, even before Pope Paul VI gave it his "Bishop of Rome" seal of approval.
"Living Tradition" or "Living Apostles"
The boldest satanically-inspired and s