MAETA  -  Archives

(The following articles were previously featured in our " In The News" section.)

    


"Nota Bene"
(to be understood before reading any of my "works")


Adolescent Newchurch: The Offspring of Satanic Intercourse

"Whats" not "Whos!"

Change for the Worst: A New Religion

Jeremiah-Lament & Jeremiah-Blessing

What Is an "Orthodox" Catholic to Do in Our Apocalyptic Times?

??? Am I a Priest ???

Reject God and Be Damned to Hell via Insanity

Daddy Dearest....

Liturgical War Games (Part I)

Liturgical War Games (Part II)

Liturgical War Games (Part III)

Traditionalists Give Traditionalists a Bad Name

The Best of Times & The Worst of Times

Mit Brennender Sorge (With the Greatest Sorrow)

Read the Contract, Read the Fine Print

Dodging the Bullet: "Tertium Datur"

Simple Solution: Sede-Vacantists versus Pope-Cultists Squabble

The New Pope and The Old Liturgy

The Pope We Pray We'll Have

Lucia and Fatima Are Dead

Be Subject to Authority (Rom 13:1)

Believe and Be Damned

Bankrupt Bishops

In the Name of Community

Paradigm Shift

Chaste Spouses

Catholics Have Only Begun to Bash the Bishops!

Olim, Stat, Olam

The Church Should Apologize to Fr. Galileo

The "Unbelievable" Corollary

The Worst Church Scandal

New Human Morality

Episcopal Perverts

Pro Bono Publico - "Mea Culpa"

Pedophilia and the Novus Ordo




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

"NOTA BENE"
(to be understood before reading any of my "works")

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © March 2007 MAETA

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).




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

Adolescent Newchurch:
The Offspring of Satanic Intercourse

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © March 2007 MAETA

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?"




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

"WHATs" NOT "WHOs!"

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © March 2007 MAETA

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 (7-6-66 in European numeration). I was trained to be a "Newchurch propagandist."

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."




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

CHANGE FOR THE WORST: A NEW RELIGION

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © March 2007 MAETA

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.

 




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

JEREMIAH-LAMENT & JEREMIAH-BLESSING

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © March 2007 MAETA

"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!




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

WHAT IS AN "ORTHODOX" CATHOLIC TO DO IN OUR APOCALYPTIC TIMES?
Choosing Among "the Good, the Bad and the Ugly"

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © March 2007 MAETA

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. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

??? AM I A PRIEST ???
(a theological treatise to be given to Novus Ordo priests)

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © February 2007 MAETA

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)




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

Reject God and Be Damned to Hell via Insanity

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © December 2006 MAETA

"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.




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

"Daddy Dearest...."
(signed) Newchurch Bishops

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © November 2006 MAETA

"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 satanically-sustained episcopally-pedaled lie is: "We bishops have Apostolic authority in such a way that we, as present-day living successors of the Apostles, have their Apostolic charisma." But by what they say and do, Newchurch bishops "undo" Apostolic Divine Liturgical Tradition. They who have authority to determine or define a Newchurch liturgy claim to be Apostolic in that they perceive themselves as actually being "present day ‘Living Apostles.’" But they use this feigned authority or "divine right" to redefine the Deposit of Faith (especially, to redefine Divine Liturgical morals.)

A Contemporary Outstanding Satanic Victory

Somewhat as an aside, we spotlight one of Satan’s greatest victories. Today, alleged "traditionalists" (e.g. even within certain "traditionalist" organizations) readily accept laymen as priests (of course, only as long as they wear cassocks and feign piety). Even when these "impostors" are honest and state that they are actually of "Novus Ordo origin" (meaning they were ordained in the New Rite to be facilitators and collaborators with the bishop and, therefore, are not Holy Ordered priests ordained "to say Mass for the living and the dead") they are accepted and respected by "traditionalists" as if they were genuinely (validly) ordained to be "Holy-Ordered priests." Apparently, some "traditionalists" want a pious show at any price! It is irrelevant to such "traditionalists" whether or not they have a valid Divine Liturgy by a validly ordained Holy Ordered priest, as instituted by Christ and as believed in and practiced in the simper ubique idem Catholic Church!

Also, at present, many "extra-ecclesial trad bishops" (who believe that "New Mass" is valid) seek union with their Newchurch brother bishops. Their "common Daddy" calls out to them to unite. These bishops are worse than Newchurch bishops since they are betraying those who came to them in order to have true Masses and true sacraments.

What’s inevitable? If the deal’s "sweet enough," these "trad-leaders" will join Newchurch. Will traditional Catholics then have hope only in the Orthodox Churches within which only validly ordained priests celebrate authentic Divine Liturgies? Time will tell! Will this Arnold Toynbee quote become more relevant? "Russia under the hammer and sickle as under the cross is still Holy Russia, and Moscow, the third Rome." [Recall, Putin was "installed" by the patriarch of Moscow – a thing unheard of in the West since the so-called Dark Ages].

Will the churches of the Roman or Latin Rite Patriarchate atrophy, or become extinct? Is the Latin Rite Patriarchate already dead? Has not Patriarch Benedict XVI (quite honestly, I must confess) renounced his title as Patriarch of the Latin Rite, or of Rome?

Which patriarchates are left? Presuming "it’s the Canonized Mass that counts," will "the third Rome" be used by God to revive "the first Rome?"




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

LITURGICAL WAR GAMES(Part I)
Let the Games Begin

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © October 2006 MAETA

"Be ye as wise as serpents..." (Matthew 10:16)

Hank was my best friend and study partner in college. We majored in physics with a minor in mathematics. After graduation, during the prolonged years of the "Cold War," Hank eventually wound up working for Sperry-Rand playing war games: "What if the Russians did this? What if we responded this-wise or that-wise? What would be the results? What would be the best response?"

The Game Room Is Open

Is Newchurch playing liturgical war games? It seems like it. What if the "trads" keep increasing? What if Newchurch leaders (the establishment) are "forced to" let in the SSPX priests? What if Newchurch allows "the Latin Mass" universally? Can it do so without giving up "its baby," novus ordo Services? If Newchurch bishops "welcome" trad-priests, should they establish separate and independent rights for such priests? OR, should they keep these "new priests" subservient to and dependent upon themselves?

Also, has Newchurch been so strongly established that it can withstand an onslaught of trads? What do you think? What percentage of Newchurch facilitators and what percentage of "trad priests" will be willing to "peacefully live with the enemy?" Think. Imagine. Decide. Is compromise possible? Is internal liturgical ecumenism desirable? Where and how much are most trad priests and Newchurch facilitators willing to peacefully abide side by side in "new and improved Newchurch?"

A Probable Scenario

For the sake of the game, suppose the SSPX is welcomed back into Newchurch. Newchurch leaders will then follow the Rifan-Brazil and Ecclesia Dei game plans. Trads are let in, but the establishment keeps the trump cards. According to the game plan of Ecclesia Dei, Newchurch leaders are to be patient with these sickos. Newchurch’s strong suit is fraternal charity.

"Trad-Newchurchers," just as the first Catholics, eventually will be forced to "offer incense to Caesar". They can worship "Tradition-wise" for as long as it takes for them to be cured of "traditionalism." That’s the strategy of Ecclesia Dei. Newchurch wins. "Trads" are to be tolerated until they yield to Newchurch.

Newchurch remains patient. Newchurch reigns supreme. "Trads" must bow before Newchurch bishops.

In such "new and improved Newchurch times," what will be the best way to discourage "religious Newchurch clergy" (those who believe strongly and exclusively in the novus ordo dispensation) from jumping ship? The financial bind is the best bind. Very few, if any, believe in Newchurch.

To prevent apostasy from their apostasy perhaps a simple strategy will suffice, the same policies presently in force to discourage Newchurch clergy from applying "to be Byzantine." Keep them busy. Keep them stupid. Keep them in line. Insist "priests" obey their bishops. Disobedience cannot be tolerated.

Practically speaking, Newchurch’s two trump cards in dealing with "trads" are as follows. Newchurch bishops wear these "sicko trad clergy" down until they attend diocesan services (such as on " Holy Thursday," national convocations, "priest" convocations, retreats, occasions for community prayer, etc.). On these occasions Newchurch bishops push them into concelebrating. Caesar reigns. One must pay tribute to Caesar!

Another trump card is to appeal to charity. When a novus ordo facilitator in the same geographic location gets sick or is otherwise indisposed, in charity, Newchurch will demand the "trad priest" take his place.

Also, one of Newchurch’s biggest trump cards is that Newchurch clergy need not reciprocate. It’s too hard to learn Latin and know all those "priestly rituals" for the trad service. However, any moron can learn and do New Order Services.

More, Later On

This is our first installment. We appreciate any input in playing this liturgical war game.




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

LITURGICAL WAR GAMES(Part II)
Newchurch Has A Success-Assured Battle Plan

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © January 2007 MAETA

In the first part of LITURGICAL WAR GAMES, we considered pertinent questions and possible answers regarding the establishment’s initiating and implementing internal liturgical ecumenism by conditionally taking in (fake or actual) "Holy-Ordered trad priests," and allowing them to say "Latin Masses." (The main element in this plan centers upon our definition of the word "conditionally." This word means "at the complete discretion of the local Bishop.")

The establishment’s think-tank, in some dark, restricted, and secure building, has assured Newchurch’s liturgical success in taking this step. This committee has carefully studied actual resolutions of attempts to attain "internal liturgical ecumenism" in two "fact-giving" areas – the actual reactions to SSPX’s allegedly accepting as "trad" or real priests those commissioned as Newchurch facilitators; and, the current ongoing skirmish between "Newchurch trads" and "sedevacantists." (I’m sure The Remnant regrets printing my last article in its newspaper: "Sedevacante – It Might as Well Be.")

The first area – the SSPX accepting Newchurch’s commissioning as equivalent to validly imparting Holy Orders is a great consolation to the members of the think-tank. Everything would be different IF this weren’t true. This position was "confirmed" on the internet ("Why Nine of SSPX Priests Left the Society"). This article contended that "over the past few years, the Society has accepted the services of priests (sic) ordained by vernacular versions of the New Rite of Ordination of 1968…" The establishment’s think-tank observed the people’s reaction to this "bombshell."

What was their reaction? Apparently, in general, the "SSPX crowd" didn’t seem to care one way or the other, as long as the people have a pious service under a "holy-acting priest," or as long as their "liturgical feelings" are satisfied. ("Feelings," not Reality, are essential to today’s superficial, dedicated and misinformed "trads.")

"Latin-related liturgical feelings" win over the Orthodox Catholic faith. The "SSPX crowd and their dictatorial-bosses" seem to accept "the Novus Ordo Salutary Economy." They already agree with Newchurch. Why not become engaged to and join Newchurch? Indeed, a marriage or reunion that’s "past due."

Since there was no noticeable grand scale ripple effect and since in general, people didn’t leave the SSPX because of this article or even because of "the horrible possibility or probability" that they were being served by pious fake-priests, the establishment’s think-tank was led to project a successful outcome for Newchurch’s proposed implementation of "internal liturgical ecumenism." When and if such a step is taken, the think-tank felt that SSPX and other "like-feeling" sheepel-people will flock to establishment-accepted churches to have their "Latin-related liturgical feelings" satisfied (with or without valid "Holy Ordered priests"). "We will beat our competitors by merging with them," said one member of the think-tank.

Now, let’s briefly consider the data gathered by the think-tank from the (at present and in the recent past) ongoing squabble between "Newchurch trads" and sedevacantists (as expressed in Catholic Family News, The Remnant, etc.). Most importantly, the think-tank observed that most "Newchurch trads" are blindly dedicated to "pope and bishops" (in spite of the fact that The Wanderer and the previously mentioned publications, at times, consider the American Bishops as acceptable targets or subjects of criticism).

The think-tank is convinced that the "bottom line" is that "Newchurch Trads" believe the Novus Ordo Liturgies must be valid, since popes and bishops have allowed these services to replace "the Latin Mass." These trads having been "blind-sided" by their "acceptance of wishes and hopes" made by Pope Paul VI as being dogmatic utterances and by lies and other Newchurch popes’ accepting as a fait accompli the Bishops Liturgical Revolt of the 1960s. Thereby, they too have become wolves in shepherds’ clothing, having deprived themselves of even the possibility of logically concluding from overwhelming evidence that the "New Mass" is invalid. [Read my book, "New Mass - Conclusively Invalid" for such evidence -- if you are open to considering "logical argumentation."]

Newchurch’s "think-tank committee" recommends that this huge "blind trust repository" be taken advantage of by the "new and improved Newchurch" to successfully implement "internal liturgical ecumenism," [as a prelude to "inter-denominational liturgical unity" and eventually world-wide liturgical unity and conformity"].

Also, the committee noted that the prevailing loss of interest in and dedication to the APOSTOLIC and true faith makes "internal liturgical ecumenism" an easily achievable goal. Because of this and similar facts, EPISCOPAL faith is now considered by members of the Newchurch think-tank as being able to totally replace APOSTOLIC faith which, they realize, included belief in and total and exclusive dedication to the Apostles-used, Apostles-binding and church-canonized Canonized Mass Divine Liturgies, (principally by the sensus et praxis fidelium of all ages of Orthodox Catholicism).

Of course, there exists a "fly in the ointment." Some bishops at present hate the true Mass so much that apparently they will thwart any type of "internal liturgical ecumenism" from being implemented in their dioceses. How has the think-tank planned to cope with this fact? Inform the bishops of the full plan. Assure them that they individually will still hold trump cards. For example, Newchurch bishops can block "priests" from saying Mass in their dioceses if these priests oppose the bishop’s notion or definition of "the Church’s faith." Also, these "trad-priests" will eventually be forced to say a Novus Ordo Service (as explained in the previous article on Liturgical War Games). Thereby, it is crystal-clear that as Newchurch appears to take one step backwards, it will be taking three steps forward – forward towards attaining not only internal liturgical ecumenism, but also inter-denominational liturgical ecumenism. Eventually, "the world will be as one" – the Novus Ordo Mundi (NOM) will be born, the Second Beast of the Apocalypse will materialize (Apoc. 13).

ICHABOD
(author’s final comments)

May God have mercy on us (which He most likely won’t) as we come to merit or deserve His gravest chastisements by our establishing or accepting the grossly unholy in the place of the God-given Most Holy or by our installing or accepting the Abominable Desolation in the (former) sanctuaries of the Son of God’s churches. Why not send this article to bishops and priests? They may wake up – but, then again, they may agree with the think-tank and ever more boldly and zealously work towards the establishment of the "new and improved Newchurch."




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

LITURGICAL WAR GAMES(Part III)
THE BASIC ISSUE: Novus Ordo Services and Ordinals Are Invalid

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © January 2007 MAETA

The highest members of the Church-establishment’s think-tank know that only Canonized Mass Liturgies are valid and that Novus Ordo Services are invalid. Also, those with God-given faith and a minimum of knowledge about Catholicism know for sure, by faith, that Novus Ordo services are invalid; or, at least, "most probably invalid" and consequently must be treated as being "in practice," totally invalid (according to the Catholic principle that, regarding the Mass and sacraments, one is never allowed to use "possibly invalid" matter and form when certainly valid matter and form are available – in our case, at least in or at Orthodox Divine Liturgies).

Not only does the establishment’s think-tank know these basic truths define the central issue, in effect, every knowledgeable Novus Ordo member, especially every "Novus Ordo or Newchurch Trad" deep down knows the truth. However, many dedicated "Newchurch Trads" (a contradict-tion in terms) ultimately and vainly attempt to rationalize their stand and behavior by employing a sinful and wrong understanding and application of papal infallibility to the basic truths they "deep down know" (that the Novus Ordo Service and Ordinal are invalid). Also, "deep down" Newchurch trads know they are "irrational" and often refuse to reason so as to correct their behavior.

For example, a popular editor for a Newchurch-sympathetic allegedly traditionalistic national newspaper was once asked to review my latest book on the Mass, "New Mass" Is Conlusively Invalid. At first, not knowing the title of the book, this well-known "Newchurch traditionalist" agreed to do so, but upon seeing the title of the book, he shouted: "Oh, no! I won’t go there!" Very few Catholics (even ones who left the seminary because they didn’t wholeheartedly accept or believe in Newchurch’s Liturgical Morals) are willing "to go there," i.e. to look at this issue rationally and using the premises of the Catholic Faith.

It was a great disappointment to me recently when a lifelong friend "abandoned me" to go to the "Mass-like" service of one whose ordination was most likely invalid. As ordinals go, so go services, and vice-versa. Therefore, it is fact that if a man is not ordained according to the Christ-instituted rite of Holy Orders, he is not a priest and the seemingly "pious prayers" he celebrates cannot "produce" a valid Mass. Such is the Catholic Faith according to the dogma of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church instituted by Christ and according to the rules of His Church reiterated by Pope Leo XIII a century ago.

The Past Shames and Condemns Many of Us

As in the revolting 1960s, so during the Anglican Revolt which began in the sixteenth century. Catholics go to the same old churches. Their priests are the same. However, the church is "modernized."

The altars faced the people. The "mass" was in English. A "New Order Mass" replaced the old Canonized Latin Mass. (Cardinal Gasquet who composed Apostolicae Curae called the Anglican new service a "Novus Ordo Mass." See Abbot & Me on Liturgy.)

Catholics in the first Novus Ordo Liturgical Revolt of the sixteenth century faced the same challenges Catholics face in the 1960s Novus Ordo Liturgical Revolt. The major difference was that far more Catholics in the first Novus Ordo Revolt had the true Faith (especially among the Irish) than in the 1960s and beyond. Many more Catholics during the Protestant Revolt refused to accept popular propaganda-slogans such as: "Our bishop can’t be so perverted as to impose upon us invalid Masses"… "It’s the same Church we’ve always gone to." "God will not let the bishops deceive us" "I like it now that it’s in English." Instead, true Catholics focus on the essential issue: "It’s the Canonized Mass Liturgy which matters, and that liturgy has been apocalypsed by our bishops and priests…"

Many British-Irish true Catholics went to house and even rock (out in the fields) Masses rather than go to the establishment’s churches and obey the clergy and thereby apostatize. When the same liturgical revolt hit Catholics in the 1960s, few had enough God-given faith and courage to revolt against the internal Episcopal liturgical revolt of the 1960s.

Our Logon

The logon of the counter-revolt, the revolt against the Protestant (i.e. Bishop Cranmer) Revolt, was "It’s the Mass that matters." Because most still call Novus Ordo Mock-masses "masses," and refuse to admit that Novus Ordo (Mass-like) services are NO Masses, we have to rephrase the logon of the counter-revolt of the sixteenth century. Our logon is: IT’S THE CANONIZED MASS THAT MATTERS.

We who are truly Catholics will not give up the fight until the faith and liturgical morals of "our fathers" is accepted and legislated or implemented and the Novus Ordo Experiment is dogmatically condemned and its adherents formally excommunicated.




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

TRADITIONALISTS GIVE TRADITIONALISTS
A BAD NAME

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © July 2006 MAETA

When I was an assistant pastor, I called an altar boy "Monsignor" because he resembled his pastor who was a Monsignor. After three days of such name-calling, he couldn’t take it anymore. He pronounced a bold disclaimer: "I am NOT a Monsignor, I’m a Catholic!"

That’s what I feel like telling so many narrow-minded and/or dumb Traditionalists. I am NOT a Traditionalist (as they, in practice, define such). I’m a Catholic! I have similar feelings when confronting non-Traditionalist Newchurch "Catholics" who claim they follow the pope and I don’t. Well, I follow everything "plenarily pope-ing popes" have clarified as being in Apostolic Tradition. Why? I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or "dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch."

Focusing on Ridiculous Trads

Recently, MAETA sent a press release concerning my bishop’s, in effect, refusing to let me say a Canonized Latin Mass for my 40th Ordination Anniversary over the tomb of my great-uncle Fr. Clemens Umbach, C.S.S.R. After all, I was ordained in 1966 to say the same Mass he was ordained to say (and was allowed to say by his properly functioning superiors). In response to our press release, we were attacked by a petty-minded Trad priest, who wrote to inform us, "Father Trinchard is wrong. He doesn’t need his bishop’s permission to say a Latin Mass."

I know that a priest doesn’t need permission to say "the Latin Mass." However, the bishop controls the use of his churches (most of those big buildings with crosses on top of them). Or, haven’t you heard?

Also, by contemporary or "posited" church law, one could contend that a priest ought to need the bishop’s (or establishment Rome’s) permission to say the 1962 illegal (according to Quo Primum) perversion of the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy. I don’t use the "1962 Liturgy" (as one well-respected group of trad priests does.) The distinguishing virtue of "Traditionalists" is that they have religious convictions, express these convictions and strive to live them. The distinguishing vice of "Traditionalists" is that they have religious convictions, express these convictions and strive to live them.

The crucial salutary problem for Traditionalists is to make sure as best they can by study and prayer that they stand for what is truly right and just (in God’s "eyes"). Most of today’s Traditionalists remind me of the kids with whom I played football when I was young. Two became sports writers. One became a lawyer. We played football half the time. The other half of the time, they argued with each other. One of the classical debates addressed the question: "Was John’s catch pure luck or heads up playing?" Trads are worse. Today, they argue and debate about "the most ridiculous." Usually, they fail to see the essential problem of our day concerning the Mass. As it were, they debate about which outfit clothes the naked emperor the best, while the emperor remains "buck naked."

The essential problem is the "buck naked" ecclesial establishment. Issues concerning episcopally-promoted sex ed and pedophilia are "child’s play" compared to the curse they have created and impose upon their flocks.

Issues concerning sede-vacantism, baptism of desire and other current non-essential concerns serve to distract Traditionalist news publications (e.g. The Wanderer’s one-time obsession with altar girls). Very few Trads are willing to see, admit and properly react to the essential problem: the apocalyptic horror (Apoc. 13) is in our midst. What makes a Newchurch bishop "buck naked" is his imposing a fake sacrilegious service in place of the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy.

Paul Tillich pointed out that the Catholic and Apostolic clergy have one essential role—the priestly role. In the one and only Catholic, Apostolic, Orthodox Church, this role is to know, appreciate, properly apply and hand on completely intact the Sacred Living Heart of Jesus—the Canonized Apostolic Mass Liturgy, or Divine Liturgy.

Today’s clergy, from pope to priest, obviously have failed to do this. (Read Abbot & Me On Liturgy, New Mass Conclusively Invalid, Sacraments Sacrileged and other MAETA publications). "It’s the Canonized mass Liturgy that matters."

Newchurch’s man-made liturgy has supplanted God’s liturgy. As Pope Paul VI correctly observed concerning "New Mass," "We are giving up something of priceless worth" [the true Mass]. Be concerned. Be obsessed with this essential problem: "666" has replaced God-given Divine Liturgy.




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

THE BEST OF TIMES
and
THE WORST OF TIMES

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © June 2006 MAETA

I was born into the Great Depression. It was the worst of financial times. It was the best of spiritual times.

Catholic culture, Catholic education and Catholic Liturgy were one’s very life. It was difficult to be bad. It was easy to be good.

At "the old Loyola" (of the South in New Orleans) I was attracted to the Jesuits. They didn’t wear buttoned dresses. They wore "black-belted kimonos." Of utmost importance to me, they were "slash-priests" — holy priests and "specialists."

Graduating in physics at the right time. I landed a draft-exempt "essential-industries" job. I was twenty years old. I made my critical vocation decision in Los Angeles — in Lockheed’s parking lot. Finally, I would answer God’s call.

Having no knowledge of Latin, learning Latin and even Latin itself became "bitter" to me. On the other hand, Greek was a sheer joy. Our class became the founding fathers of the new breed. We flowered with the hippies of the 1960’s. Five years of liberal theological formation was the final blow that "did in" most of us. As usual, the "good" left, the "holy" died young and the "rest of us" were left to carry on.

As the pristine apostles of Newchurch, we killed Ignatius’ Society of Jesus. However, as Jesuits, there was an innate kink in our diabolic armor: Jesuits love fights. They love disobedience. They are bred to be rebels. As time went on, I rebelled against Newchurch (and all of its works, pomps and liturgical sacrilege). However, I’m getting ahead of my story.

After obtaining my S.T.L. (Licentiate in Sacred Theology) from Rome, I went to the Orlando Diocese as a parish priest after being disappointed with being blackballed from "favored-Jesuit positions." At that time, I was one of the conservative Jesuit Order’s hated minority, the new breed, the Newchurch. However, I was not protected by the "in" crowd since they correctly sensed my lack of total dedication to "666." Although perfectly formed as a Newchurcher, by God’s grace and my graced cooperation, I lacked total dedication to their demonic cause. Unknowingly, I was in "no man’s land."

Thanks to my special studies in Paul Tillich and the philosophy of science, I came to know the liberals better than they know themselves. The year in Florida was exceptional. I quickly became one of the darlings in the "ruling clergy circle." The priest who ran Bishop Borders’ diocese (the Chancellor) urged me to stay in the Orlando Diocese, since I was chosen "to go straight up." Providentially again, I left and eventually returned to New Orleans as an associate pastor with much time on my hands to write for The Wanderer and later, The Remnant; as well as, time to study "the other side" (true Catholicism).

God’s great gift was my heart attack and subsequent major operation. Consequently, I retired early (as a diocesan priest). Then, God’s greatest and abiding gift was bestowed upon me — conversion to the "saying" of the Church-canonized Mass of the Latin Rite—the Mass I was providentially ordained by Archbishop Hannan to say in 1966 (6/7/66). God gave me many good years since my retirement and conversion to Holy Mass. During this time, I have written over twenty-five books and pamphlets, mostly on Holy Mary and on the one and only true Mass—God’s greatest gift to sinful mankind and sinful man’s only necessity.

Thanks to a small dedicated group of laymen, MAETA was founded in order to publish and distribute my good works: books, pamphlets, videos and audios. At this time, as I age, (although I refuse to act my age) I find that I need help more and more. Thanks be to God and the dedicated and God-elected chosen few, MAETA will be a continuing force into the future.

By God’s grace, we are twenty or so years ahead of our time. The Sacred Heart of Christ’s one and only Church is the Holy Sacrifice and Holy Sacrament. Without the Sacred Heart among us, we have "666."

MAETA evangelizes this Mass along with other pertinent Catholic truths. MAETA teaches and witnesses to Apostolic Catholicism. MAETA rejects and refutes the episcopal Newchurch—the church formed by the Bishops’ Liturgical Revolt in the hippy 1960’s.

On this God-given occasion of my ordination celebration and the celebration of my return to authentic Catholicism, I give my priestly blessing. May God’s richest blessing descend and abide with you and all other sincere and much needed supporters of MAETA –Marian End Times Apostles— now and always.




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

MIT BRENNENDER SORGE

(With the Greatest Sorrow)
by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © 2006 MAETA

On June 7, 2006, I celebrate the 40th anniversary of my "Holy-Ordered Ordination." This is the day I received my Holy Ghost empowerment and God-given duty to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for the living and the dead (according to the Canonized Mass Missal specified by the dogmatic decrees of Pope Saint Pius V and the dogmatic Council of Trent).

I was ordained in New Orleans to celebrate the Canonized Latin Mass by Archbishop Philip Matthew Hannan on "June 7, 1966." Since then, my greatest privilege and my gravest duty has been to re-present (make present again) in the mystical/sacramental way, God’s greatest Gift and man’s only necessity. In the social realm, I thank God and others for a most successful priestly apostolate. Well over twenty million copies of my articles, books, pamphlets and tapes have been read, heard or seen.

However, I especially thank God for my conversion back to celebrating the Canonized Latin Mass that I was authentically ordained to say. Since 1990, I have, in spirit and in truth, become a true member of the Latin Rite Patriarchate. One of my fondest "old age wishes" is to celebrate the year of the 40th anniversary of my Canonized Latin Rite Ordination by saying a Canonized Latin Rite Mass over the tomb of my great uncle, Fr. Clemente Umbach, C.S.S.R.

NEC IBI QUIDEM (Not Even Here)

However, a dark shadow falls on my ambition. The Archdiocese of New Orleans forbade me to rent (the "rentable") mothballed Church of St. Mary’s Assumption to celebrate the Mass for which I was ordained 40 years ago.

This church means a lot to me. My great uncle said Mass there, as well as, died in its rectory. My relatives and I have attended many Masses and novenas in this church. Most significantly, for me as a priest, my great uncle Fr. Clemente Umbach, C.S.S.R., is buried in its sanctuary next to Blessed Seelos, C.S.S.R. My mother was the first baby he baptized and I was very close to his surviving saintly unmarried sisters, my great-aunts, during my childhood (until their deaths). My great-uncle was a saintly Redemptorist priest who died in New Orleans a few years after his early ordination. His order’s "Redemptorist icon" a picture of Our Lady of Perpetual Help (which my great aunts gave my mother) hangs above the altar in my own house where I celebrate the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy.

MIT BRENNENDER SORGE

With heavy sorrow, I am forced to acknowledge that, in general, the church establishment appears to hate the true Mass. Let’s pray for these ruthless God-haters. Pray that this cause of my and others’ "brennender sorge" may be more rapidly removed than the Nazi regime which prompted the writing of the original Mit Brennender Sorge of Pope Pius XII. To us, militantly Catholic priests, as well as, to the priests of his own Canonized Latin Rite Mass, the priests of his Latin Rite Patriarchate, Pope Pius XII addressed the following command and commendation:

"You must not abandon in the slightest degree the proclamation, the vindication and the courageous defence of the truth, and its frank application to the realities of your environment. The first and the most obvious gift of charity which the Priest owes to the world in which he lives is to serve the truth, the whole truth, and to unmask and refute error in whatever form or disguise or false colours it may present itself. Failure here would be not only a betrayal of God and of your holy vocation; it would also be a sin against the welfare of your own people." -- Encyclical Mit brennender Sorge, par. 44, March 14, 1937

QUO PRIMUM TEMPORE

My Masses during and after my 40th anniversary will include the special intention for the conversion of Newchurch’s clergy to authentic Catholicism. Shortly after my conversion, MAETA [a 501 C (3) non-profit corporation] was established. It is dedicated to witnessing to the Apostolic Catholic Church (as opposed to the episcopal Newchurch which began in the 1960's). Also, I ask you to join me in contributing to MAETA which will continue in existence after my demise.

I invite you to join us in praying and working: 1) that "Rome" may once again become the APOSTOLIC See (as such, holding "fast and true to" Apostolic faith and morals (especially, Apostolic liturgical morals); 2) that the pope and his bishops may convert to the Canonized Latin Ordinal and Mass; 3) that, thereby, they may become one with the faithful of the Latin Rite Patriarchate from Apostolic time to the end-times; 4) that the present pope may have the courage of that pope who once held his "pre-papal office" (the head of the Holy Office), Pope Saint Pius V. In the spirit of Trent and of Pope Saint Pius V, may the present pope courageously restore the Latin Rite Ordinal and Mass to his Latin Rite Patriarchate.

Let us pray and work for these goals to materialize quo primum tempore (at the earliest possible time). Pray and work for these and similar causes. This is our great privilege. This is our gravest duty. As a Latin Rite Priest, in a special way, I pray for alleged Latin Rite popes, bishops and priests to convert to Catholicism, to become and function as honorable clergymen of the Latin Rite Patriarchate. Only by doing so can they avoid the eternal wrath dogmatically assured them by Pope Saint Pius V:

"We determine and order by this Our decree, to be valid in perpetuity, that never shall anything be added to, omitted from or changed in this Missal…Specifically, do We warn all persons in authority, of whatever rank…and command them, as a matter of strict obedience, never to use or permit any ceremonies or Mass prayers other than the ones contained in this Missal…At no time in the future can a priest, whether secular or order priest, ever be forced to use any other way of saying Mass. And in order once and for all to preclude any scruples of conscience and fear of ecclesiastical penalties and censures, We declare herewith that it is by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority that We decree and prescribe that this present order and decree of Ours is to last in perpetuity, and never at a future date can it be revoked or amended legally. And, if, nevertheless, anyone would ever dare attempt any action contrary to this order of Ours, handed down for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God, and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. -- Quo Primum Tempore, Pope Saint Pius V, July 19, 1570, italics added

UNITING WITH THE HOLY SACRIFICE

Today, it often happens that Catholics are unable to hear Mass even on Sundays. Their bodily presence is excused. However, each of us should unite in spirit to the Divine Liturgy. Kneeling or sitting before a Crucifix, be transported in spirit before an altar where Divine Liturgy is being validly celebrated. Pray the Holy Mass, God’s Saving Will Realized on earth as it is in Heaven.

ACT OF UNION WITH THE DIVINE LITURGY

Heavenly Father, I unite with Thy Christ-priest who offers Thee Thine adorable Son. Thereby, I am offered in, into and through Christ, my only Saviour. Through Him, I adore, I praise and I thank Thee, imploring Thy mercy, invoking Thine assistance and presenting Thee the homage and adoration due Thee as God and Saviour.

Apply to my soul, I beseech Thee, O merciful Jesus, Thine infinite merits: apply them also to those for whom I particularly wish to pray. I desire to communicate spiritually: that Thy Blood may purify, Thy Flesh strengthen, and Thy Spirit sanctify me. God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, Thou hast died for me through Thy Divine Liturgy. Ever increasingly, may I come to live through, in and into Thine Holy Sacrifice now and eternally. Amen.




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

READ THE CONTRACT, READ THE FINE PRINT

(Advice for those "traditionalists" who seek union with the ecclesial establishment)
by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © 2006 MAETA

What will the establishment demand of any "traditionalist" who wishes "to come home?" We can ascertain the answer to this question by looking at what the establishment requires of any SSPX priest who wishes to join the Fraternity of St. Peter (since 1993 as spelled out by the Ecclesia Dei commission). Will not a similar oath or promise be required for those "traditionalists who wish to return to the church establishment?"

As far as I know, the following "formula of adherence" (since 1993) is still required of SSPX priests who join the Fraternity of St. Peter.

1. I _____ promise fidelity to the Catholic Church and towards the Roman Pontiff, Supreme Pastor of the Church, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his Primacy and as head of the college of bishops. [What about fidelity to the Apostolic See of all previous times?]

2. I accept the doctrine which is taught in n. 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council concerning the adherence owed to it. [Thus, the one making this oath accepts the Novus Ordo Liturgy and its religion.]

3. Concerning other doctrines which the Second Vatican Council teaches, or concerning posterior reforms be they liturgical or canonical, which are viewed by some as being difficult to conciliate with preceding Magesterial declarations, I assume the obligation of following a positive line of study and communication with the Holy See while avoiding all polemic. [Meaning I will never publicly oppose the Novus Ordo liturgy or religion.]

4. I also declare that I accept the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments, celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does and according to the rites found in the typical editions of the Roman Missal as well as the Ritual published by the Supreme Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II.

Finally, I promise to adhere to the common discipline [practices] of the [present] Church and to her laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II.

________________________________________________
place     /     date     /     name of declarant

(Formula of Adherence, Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, words in brackets added.)

Should a "traditionalist" priest or layman sign such a statement? He could do as my liberal, nascent-Newchurch-devotee classmates did, when vowing the ordination-required, outstandingly Catholic, Oath Against Modernism. He could make "sweeping and nullifying mental reservations."

However, if such a one wants to remain honest ("true to God, himself and others"), then he should carefully and prayerfully read the contract and its fine print. For no reason whatsoever should he blindly follow his "leaders" against his convictions. As a Catholic theologian, I make the following minimal observations:

If one "believes" or rather is personally convinced that as far as he can ascertain the Novus Ordo Liturgies do not produce valid or real Masses, he must conclude that he cannot sign such an oath since # 4 apparently (within the context within which it appears) declares that he accepts the validity of the Novus Ordo Service. Then again, being "Jesuitical," could not such a "union-seeking priest" make mental reservations to apply these words "in the strictest legal sense"—to intend to make a reluctant and senseless statement, namely, that every Sacrifice of the Mass (to exist as such) must be valid?

However, what about when he is episcopally required "to practice what he vowed?" Will he not be required to say a Novus Ordo Service; or, at the very least, concelebrate the Holy Thursday (often appropriately moved to "Judas Wednesday") diocesan Great Annual Celebration?

If a priest holds or believes the Novus Ordo is valid, he will have no problem with con-celebration or other practical tests of his loyalty to the Novus Ordo establishment, such as taking a Novus Ordo priest’s place when necessary or going to Novus Ordo retreats or continuing education and "concelebrating" on these occasions.

Also, I note that if one already holds the Novus Ordo Service is a valid Mass, then (in my theological opinion), at present, he has "no excuse" for not joining the establishment Church. If any Novus Ordo Service constitutes a valid Mass, "in itself" it is "of priceless salutary worth." One who holds Novus Ordo Services are valid Masses has no justification for not already being a member of Newchurch.

Here’s the heart of the matter! Each priest (and each layman) must read much and prayerfully decide: "Do I consider the Novus Ordo Service valid?" Each one’s answer has eternal repercussions (for himself/herself).

Read "New Mass"-Conclusively Invalid and Sacraments Sacrileged. These publications express my THEOLOGICAL OPINION on the validity of "New Mass." These publications will help you to make the right (before God) appraisal (applicable to you and yours) of the Novus Ordo Mass-like Services and alleged sacraments. Before God, you must conclude: Are they invalid or valid? Are they "not safe" in practice or "safe" in practice? Make an adequately informed decision. It’s your duty before God.

Then, if you still seek union with the ecclesial establishment, read the contract; and read the fine print! May the Holy Ghost enlighten you to come to a truly salutary decision in this regard.




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

DODGING THE BULLET: "TERTIUM DATUR"

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © 2006 MAETA

I’ve received a couple of communiqués on my “bad dad” solution to the sede vacantists vs. pope-idolators squabble. In effect, these communiqués accused me of avoiding “the real issue” or of dodging the bullet.

For them, the real issue is “Is the pope really a pope or is he invalid and therefore not a pope?” I’ve avoided the problem.

Why? It’s too objective, “too God-like.” Why endanger my salvation by “playing like I’m God?” I’m not qualified to make a dogmatic statement either way.

My last article in The Remnant was “Sede Vacantist, It Might As Well Be.” Why be objective when all that concerns me is “What does the pope mean to me?” Or, “How does his being right or wrong bother me?”

For me (in certain ways), he’s not right. Therefore, I say he’s a bad pope (since he’s not leading or governing the good way.) I need not go any further. I have no urgency to do so. Being a logical positivist I’m satisfied with staying on my level. As Ludwig Wittgenstein observed in Logico Tractatus Philisophica, "Whereof man cannot speak, thereof he must be silent."

Why not dodge the bullet? Bullets can hurt the one who doesn’t dodge them. I refuse to swallow the bullet: to make him right when he’s wrong OR to deny him his papal office.

I have the Catholic Faith, I know for certain that the only canonized Mass liturgy for the Latin Rite Patriarchate is the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy. Why? For one thing, I believe in what the pope decrees infallibly.

I believe in only ONE “Who.” Other “who’s” including “papal who’s” can be right or wrong. Therefore, let’s consider: “How does a pope being right or wrong affect a true believer in Chirst?”

If one idolizes or adores the pope he must consider his non-infallible statements and impositions “in effect” to be infallible. Then one has a problem. If a pope speaks and acts so as to abuse his papal office (in a fallible way) and one considers it to be an infallible exercise of his office, then one has an insoluble problem (especially when this popes fallible deeds go against infallible papal pronouncements of the past.)

Obviously, previous popes canonized the Latin Mass Ritual (in its essential form). Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI act against such an infallible decree as in effect, they impose “mock-Mass Services” (like the Lutheran and others). Can one follow THE pope and not follow recent popes?

Is one’s only choice: adore the pope and follow or do his Novus Ordo Protestant Liturgy OR declare him a non-pope? No! A third choice exists. Isn’t it logical to hold that the last three popes were “at least bad” for not following an infallibly speaking pope (by their imposing Protestant Mass-mocking Services). This is obviously true.

The majority of the debaters on this issue reject the “tertium datur” They strain out gnats and swallow camels. They squabble and squabble and squabble ad infinitum, ad nauseam, “…Mann nicht sprechten kann…”

So I now tell the squabblers: “Be silent!” Refocus. Come to realize and focus on what the real issue is.

The real issue is the Divine Liturgy. Wake up! We’ve suffered an episcopal Katrina. The recent trio of popes have denied their papal/patriarchical office. In rejecting the Canonized Latin Mass Ritual, they have rendered their papal titles meaningless. They have reduced themselves to being merely bishops.

The real issue is the Divine Liturgy. Christ instituted the Mass. Bishops Bugnini and Cranmer issued Mass-mocking Services. In the revolting sixties (1960’s), bishops imposed these services upon their flocks. (Can’t you remember this?)

Popes since then have refused to pope these Mass-mockeries out of existence. Instead, they became fellow revolutionist bishops.

I strongly suggest you purchase and read the following books: The Abbot and Me on Liturgy, Sacraments Sacrileged, and “New Mass” is Conclusively Invalid for starters.

As a “Postscript,” I note that both sede-vacantists and papal idolators are “hopeless critters.”

In effect, sede-vacantists deny us any “ordinary ecclesial solution” to our problem. We have to find, invent and declare a pope. But short of Divine Intervention how do we know which “we” is right?

Papal idolators are far worse. The new popes have spoken. The issue is settled. The New Liturgy is “The Old Liturgy.” Black is white. Wrong is right. Bad is good.




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

SIMPLE SOLUTION: SEDE-VACANTISTS versus POPE-CULTISTS SQUABBLE

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © 2005 MAETA

Modern psychologists (notably, Freud) observe that a pre-adult child’s notion of God is that “God is like his dad but much bigger.” Theoretically, such a child with a good father can easily be taught more about God and brought to an authentic knowledge and love of God.

However, what happens in “fatherless societies?” Obviously, fathers exist but often merely as “impregnators.” In such societies, what is a pre-adult child’s notion of God? Such children tend to not only disbelieve in, but to hate “God.” Why? For these pre-adults, God is a little worse than their dad or He is just as absent as his dad or He is a “she” – a “God” who “unconditionally loves.”

Today, within the existential alleged Catholic Church, some pre-adults are members of the “sede-vacantist” group or the opposition group – the “pope-cultists.” These groups are squabbling with each other. Both the “pope-cultists” and the “sede-vacantists” behave like pre-adults. They both need to grow up.

The Cultic Archaeologist

One of my trips to Israel included archaeological study with trips to the sites led by noted archaeologists. Outside of Tiberius was a second century A.D. synagogue site. It featured a zodiac mosaic. The cultic archaeologist went on and on about how these religionists accommodated themselves to pagan cultures. They were good Jews.

I suggested another possibility. “It was a bad synagogue.” For that, the group was treated to a half-hour long tirade against Catholicism, citing the gargoyles on the cathedrals. I went to sleep.

I feel the same about the pope-cultists versus the sede-vacantists’ squabble. Grow up! We have bad popes! In fact, as I’ve told two archbishops “Pope John Paul II is the worst pope that ever existed.” Yes, Virginia, there can be bad popes (and even a worst pope). Pope John Paul II merited the worst pope award for his firming up the position of Newchurch in place of the Catholic Church within his jurisdiction, the Latin Rite.

So far, one can conclude that I agree with the sede-vacantists. My last article in The Remnant was “Sede-Vacante: It Might as Well Be.” However, I think of myself as being “above the squabble.”

Your Boss Died

One day, someone told me “Your boss died!” I replied, “God died?” I refuse to live on the pre-adult level. I’ve grown up. God did not say, “Obey your father.” He did say, “Honor your father.”

Honor his God-assigned office. Obey where you can. Ignore where you must; and disobey when the choice is between obeying God or obeying one’s father.

So do I treat the pope. Whether or not, or in what sense he is and in what sense he is not the pope does not bother me. He is not “my God.”

In fact, Jesus made this crystal clear. After appointing Peter as pope, He condemned him as speaking like the devil (Mt. 14:27). “[Obey]God first and always; God-appointed authority when it does not disagree with or threaten my obedience to God.” That’s my dictum.

Pope-cultists need to grow up. Become adults or perish. How can one be a pope-cultist who “blindly and totally” follows and obeys the Pope as Patriarch of the Canonized Latin Rite Mass when, in effect, the Canonized Latin Mass Rite is outlawed by him?

Do I follow him when he says: “There are three Persons in God?” Of course, I follow a parrot who says the same.

The adult solution, as manifested in the lives of saints, is to have Faith. Faith comes from God and is “exclusively spelled out” in Christ’s Apostolic (not episcopalian nor papal) Church. Know and believe in the Christ-given Apostolic-presented set of faith and morals (especially, liturgical morals). Follow these always. Period.

The pope isn’t God. I follow God. I am not a pope-cultist. By God’s grace, I’m an adult orthodox apostolic Catholic.

In as much as a pre-adult child with a dysfunctional or bad dad can say, “I have no dad,” do I say so? No, I’m an adult. I say, “I have a bad dad.” Thereby, I avoid the squabble among my pre-adult siblings. I transcend them. However, given their unwarranted pre-adult presumption that “Dad is God,” I tend to side with the “no dad” crowd, since they avoid being led into temptation, sin and Hell by blindly following our “bad dad.”




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

THE NEW POPE AND THE OLD LITURGY

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © 2005 MAETA

Within the Patriarchate of the Pope, the Latin Patriarchate, the Canonized Latin Mass text can be defined as beginning with the “Suscipe Sancte Pater…” and ending with the “Per Ipsum…” for “legalistic” moral purposes, or to give us something specific to focus on (in a “minimalistic way”). Certainly, Catholic morals has always held and taught (in seminaries) that for the priest to purposely leave out or add any significant words to the canonized text would constitute matter for mortal sin. For example, it would be a grave sin to knowingly with malice aforethought significantly add to, delete, modify or replace such words as have Newchurch’s priests done. This statement is “absolutely true” (“for one thing”) in the ever-binding and forever-dogmatic Quo Primum.

“Matter” for mortal sin is just that, “It” does not necessarily constitute a mortal sin. For example, in a prison under dire conditions a priest may omit all of the canonized prayers except those effecting the consecration.

However, as proven in my book ("NEW MASS" CONCLUSIVELY INVALID), Newchurchers have so unjustifiably and maliciously metamorphosised the Mass prayers as to have clearly committed the gravest of sacrileges (provided, of course, they have “sufficient knowledge” and “full consent of their wills”—which knowledge they should have come to possess as minimally educated and sufficiently prepared Catholic believers and seminarians). Newchurch bishops, priests and laypeople have done as Pope Paul VI said (in April, 1969): They have given up “something of priceless worth” in order to invent and maliciously substitute or impose their experts-instituted liturgical “conversations with God” (This gross sacrilege is intensified as their new prayer purposely mocks the Canonized Mass Prayers). By deliberately doing this, they have blasphemed God; they have grossly and “mega-blasphemously” sacrileged the Christ-given Divine Economy of Salvation; and, they have thereby “merited” eternity in the Hell whose existence most of them deny.

Will Pope Benedict XVI restore the exclusive use of the Christ-given and essential Church-defining and “mortally–binding” LATIN RITE FORMULA for effecting the mystical/sacramental salutary Passion and Presence of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus (and Holy Mary, since “the Lord is with Thee”)? Or, will he give mixed signals—serving Novus Ordo or "NO" God and the true God, Christ and the only Church of salvation? So far, as with many priests on their road to conversion to the one and only true Mass Ritual of the Latin Rite, the pope wavers between truth and deception, right and wrong, God and Satan.

We rejoice in Pope Benedict XVI’s funeral Mass for Pope John Paul II and his Inaugural Papal Mass (April, 2005) as opposed to his Inaugural Episcopal Mass (May 1, 2005). We rejoice in the fact that he said the Canonized Latin Mass without significant alteration at his “papal inauguration.” However, at this Mass, (as at the funeral Mass for Pope John Paul II) he did alter the canonized words of consecration (albeit, one may argue, for the “better” “meaning-wise” and/or “language/wise”). After “Hoc est enim Corpus Meum” he added “quod pro vobis tradetor” (which is given or “handed over” for you). At the consecration of the wine, he moved “mysterium fidei” to the end of the sentence. Lastly, he replaced “Haec quotiescumque feceritis in Mei Memoriam facietus” with “Haec facite in Mei Memoriam.”

Do these modifications “merely constitute” matter for mortal sin and not actual mortal sin (in light of the ever-binding and ever-dogmatic Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V and the Council of Trent)? Certainly, these changes are not significantly, “anti-Mass.” Are they warranted or justifiable? We dare not go further lest we lose the great joy we have on having a Latin Patriarch who says the canonized Mass of the Latin Rite.

Many “traditionalists” are impatient with “priest-converts in transition.” I suggest patience and tolerance. I suggest a positive attitude. Let’s rejoice in “our gains,” let’s not lament and reject “priests in transition”—those priests who do not properly and purely, as well as, consistently and completely pray the Canonized Latin Mass Ritual. Rejoice!

Rejoice in the pope’s saying the true Mass without significantly altering it. Lament the fact that he is in transition. For example, he said a Novus Ordo Service at his Episcopal Inauguration. What can we expect of Pope Benedict XVI? So far we only have an “inconsistently manifested promise.” However, at least we have “a promise” or a possibility—whereas we had no such thing under Pope John Paul II. Let’s do all we can to pray Pope Benedict XVI into consistently being the Latin Patriarch of the Latin Rite.

We pray for Pope Benedict XVI. We pray that God’s graces and his heroic graced-cooperation will make of him the pope God and His Church demand and deserve—a pope with the mind and heart (Spirit) of Jesus Christ. Such a pope will dogmatically condemn the “Novus Ordo.” Such a pope will properly and plenarily “pope” all of the “Novus Ordo Liturgies” out of existence.

May Novus Ordo sacrileges of the Canonized Latin Mass cease and may the Canonized Latin Mass be restored to its proper place. This is God’s Will! This is our salvation!




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

THE POPE WE PRAY WE'LL HAVE

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © 2005 MAETA

Having been told “Habemus Papem,” we hope and pray he is or will soon become a pope according to the mind and heart of Christ and His semper ubique idem Catholic Church.

Before Christ decided which apostle He would make the pope (or the proto-patriarch), He inquired of His disciples: “Who am I?” The apostles assured Him that the world considered Him “one who is less than God.”

However, God the Father revealed to Peter Christ’s Real Meaning, His Real Identity: “You are God the Messiah, the Saviour from sin and Hell.” Today we pray and work to have a pope who will confess and implement that Christ is God (and all that comes form such belief).

What do men say makes one a good pope? Newspeakers assure us the “right pope” will have the “right views” on: birth control, homosexuality, abortion, priestly celibacy, and women priests. To follow John Paul II, the next pope must be like unto him, but “do him one (or more) better.” He must be less closed-minded on the critical issues just cited. So says “the world.”

“We have no king but Caesar.”

The Lord of the Judeo-Catholic Revelation is rejected by our world. For it to have its perfect pope, this perfect pope will bless our pills. He will incense our birth control devices. He will embrace and kiss our “GLBTs” (gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered). He will understand and forgive our abortions. He will support our abortuaries. As pope, he will normalize and bless his priests—let them marry and once again be pure and beautiful. His sincere apology for the horror of the Church’s oppression of women will lead him to ordain women priests. He will be the pope who totally supports the New Age as we make the world a better place. All of our endemic imaginings will be realized. “Imagine no religion (to fight about)…no hell to fear, no heaven to live for...[we will] make the world a better place.”

“You, man, shall be as God, deciding what’s right or wrong, true or false”—one and all according to each one’s man-inspired and “religiously unbiased” likings (Satan to the first man, Gen. 3).

Thereby, will you, man, create the best possible world—a world of love, a world that will live as one. Imagine no religious contentions worth fighting for, then dream, speculate, dialogue, decide and uncompromisingly implement conformity.

The Legacy of the Twentieth Century,
The Legacy of Pope John Paul II

What is the legacy of the twentieth century? Holy Mary, Theotokos, came to earth at Fatima in 1917 to warn us of the “New Age.” She called this world-imbued spirit “Russia’s Errors” since Communism, the rule of man freed from God’s Revelations, had begun in Russia at the same time as the Fatima message was convincingly proven to be authentic to the whole world (October, 1917).

Until Our Lady straightens out Christ’s Church (as symbolically shown and proven at the public miracle of Oct. 13, 1917), the existential Church will continue to be the life-threatening and evil Newchurch, the aberrant sun which pleased men with various colors even as it is on its way to totally destroying mankind.

The Fatima Message climaxed at Tuy—the vision of the Canonized Latin Mass. Here and here alone is the abiding, immediate and infallible “cure” for Russia’s Errors.

Newchurch is defined by its rejection of the Canonized Latin Mass. Newchurch liturgizes Russia’s Errors. Thereby, it becomes far, far worse than Communist Russia.

“Russia’s Errors” are to be found in the government and in the spirit and goals of this new church. Newchurch was conceived by the “spirit of Vatican II” and given birth by the Bishops’ Liturgical Revolt of the nineteen-sixties. To abort this spirit (of Vatican II), God commanded that Fatima’s Third Secret (the real one) be revealed in 1960 “at the latest.” Pope John XXIII preempted God as he claimed that the Message did not apply to his times. Why? Obviously, unlike Pope St. Pius X, he was ignorant of (or condoned) the evils of his time, the imminent flowering of the Modernism condemned by Pope Pius IX and St. Pope Pius X. The emerging soon-to-be dominant spirit in his church was the spirit of “Russia’s Errors” or of Modernism. This spirit is the (on-going) operative “spirit of Vatican II.” This spirit is liturgized in Novus Ordo services.

Briefly stated, this Novus Ordo spirit leads bishops to define “the church” as they (under the direction of their revered experts) come to decide, and not as Christ once and forever, immutably and infallibly defined in and by Apostolic Tradition. This Christ-canonized body of truth was completed at the death of the last Apostle and is found by men of good will in the Holy Bible and in the sensus et praxis fidelium (which conforms to the truths of Apostolic Tradition). It is the semper ubique idem faith and morals (especially, liturgical morals) of Catholic Tradition from time immemorial. The sine qua non essential of true Catholicism or of the one and only Christ-given Way of salvation in the Latin Rite Patriarchate is the Canonized Latin Mass—the Living Sacred Heart among us, Holy Communion with Whom is a salutary necessity (John 6).

The Canonized Latin Mass has been rejected and counterfeited by the bishops of Newchurch. Their anti-mass Novus Ordo (New Age) services define their church as being Newchruch. As such, it is no longer the Catholic Church. Is it not the church of the Apocalypse (Apoc. 13)? (For incontrovertible proofs of these harsh accusations and insinuations, read: The Abbot & Me on Liturgy and New Mass Conclusively Invalid.)

A Catholic or Another Newchurch Pope?

The acid test of whether or not we have a Newchurch-spirited pope or a Catholic-spirited pope is to be found in Sacred Scriptures. “You are Christ, Lord and Saviour,” Peter, the first pope boldly professed by God’s grace and his own graced cooperation.

Christ in Apostolic Tradition has given us the Canonized Latin Mass. A Christ-loving pope will restore this Divine Liturgy and condemn and outlaw any and all types of Novus Ordo (New Age) Mass-mocking services. On the other hand, a Newchurch-spirited pope will continue to not govern his Latin Rite Patriarchate properly. Such a pope will continue to allow and even support and promote Newchurch’s Mass-mocking services.

PAX CHRISTI VOBISCUM
CHRIST’S PEACE BE WITH YOU

May the peace of, from and in Christ be with us. May the new pope bring us Christ’s peace. May he be bold enough to build upon and not build up PAX NOVAE ECCLESIAE (NEWCHURCH’S PEACE).

PAX ROMANA,
PAX NOVAE ECCLESIAE

When Christ came into this world, the whole world was not at peace. Christ came not to bring or to build upon such peace. He came to bring the salutary sword of dissent.

In God’s Providence, worldly peace prevailed when Christ was born. In God’s Providence today, worldly Newchurch peace prevails within the Newchurch Empire as Pope Benedict XVI begins his pontificate. The great embarrassment for Newchurch is “IRAQ.” That’s why President Bush was booed when Roman television focused on him during the formal burial ceremony for Pope John Paul II. Within Newchurch, the legacy of Pope John Paul II, nothing is so worthwhile as to fight and die for. Newchurch peace is the peace of a coward. Is aggression (e.g. capital punishment) ever permitted within Newchurch economy?

Must we admire Karol Wojtyla for being the great Newchurch peacemaker? Certainly he was the greatest such peacemaker in the history of mankind. However, did he fulfill his office in doing so or did he neglect his papal duties in doing so?

I believe that in being the greatest leader for world peace Karol Wojtyla did so at the expense of his most exalted office—the most exalted office on the face of the earth, the office of the Vicar of Christ. A few of the many observations that can be given concerning such a damning statement are:

1. He allowed aberrant Newchurch Mass-mocking services throughout the world. Protestants and Jews were at liturgical peace with the Novus Ordo.

2. Wojtyla, as pope, preached and implemented a false ecumenism, an ecumenism based on “Catholic indifferentism.” “Catholics” conceded as non-Catholics held their ground. Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus became a post-Vatican II heresy.

3. His own papally approved “pope-Masses” were scandalous. We have pictures of bare-breasted females and loin-clothed men taking prominent parts in such services. Why? Man was celebrating man!

4. The glorified “naturally sexed” man became the foundation of his sexual ethics. No longer was “the flesh” (along with “the world and the devil”) our great enemy. Glorious “let it all hang out” redemption!

5. In his inaugural encyclical (Redemptor Hominis), Pope John Paul II proclaimed the ecumenical good news—“in Christ all men are saved.” By “all men” he meant “all men.” Thereby, the Church and the classical priestly papal office were rejected. What’s left for him to do? Celebrate man and make this world a better place for man, the image of God, to live in.

6. Karol as pope managed to define and keep together a bi-polar existential Church. Briefly stated, old Catholicism was valid along with Newchurchism.

Can the new pope do the same? I doubt it. Either Newchurch will prevail and exterminate Catholicism or vise-versa. It is most unlikely that the new pope will be able to keep the bi-polar church alive.

It is most unlikely, for example, that he will be able to sustain the prevalent party-line propaganda that the “New Mass” is the Latin Mass in the vernacular, and that the “New Mass” is valid Divine Liturgy or Mass.

Of course, we pray and work that Pope Benedict XVI will be graced to disclose the ugly truth about the “New Mass.” We pray that like unto Pope Paul VI he will admit we are giving up “something of priceless worth” in order to have a man-made “supernatural conversation.” We pray that unlike Pope Paul VI the new pope will have the God-given courage to reject and thoroughly condemn any and all forms of Novus Ordo Mass-resembling services and to reinstall the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy as such to his Latin Rite Patriarchate.

7. Karol as pope downplayed the “Holy Spirit-given conviction of sin” to such an extent that Christ as Saviour from sin and Hell shared the fate of the Cheshire Cat’s smile. “How unusual a Christ Whom one need not accept and believe in in order to be saved.” “How unusual a smile without a cat!”

8. How many souls did Karol, the pope, convert to true Catholicism? Texe Marrs assures us that there is no record of even one of the many he received in audience being converted to Christ, the Saviour.

9. Why? Sin was negative. Karol was positive. Sin is the very worst evil. Sin is the only evil. Conviction of sin was not Karol’s papal goal.

10. Christ, Saviour from sin and Hell, became a “beaten dog” or a “dead relic” of the embarrassing past—the past for which his Church begged forgiveness from mankind (not from God).

We reject and renounce Newchurch’s Peace. Our children seek and are entitled to receive the Real Christ and the Real and One and Only Church of Salvation (the semper ubique idem Catholic Church). Outside of this, there is a personal eternal damnation in Hell.

PAX CHRISTI

True peace will exist only if and when the new pope, the new Patriarch of the Latin Rite, restores the Canonized Latin Rite Mass to its proper place. All other man-made liturgies (such as those composed by Bishop Cranmer or Bishop Bugnini) are to be condemned and strictly forbidden under pain of automatic excommunication.

Divine Liturgy must return to the existential Church. Divine Liturgy is the Christ-given and sensus praxis fidelium canonized precise way to praise God and to attain, sustain and “grow in” union with God. Divine Liturgy is the Church’s life, its priceless Gift from Christ. Divine Liturgy is Christ mystically/sacramentally saving and sanctifying in sacrifice and sacrament. Divine Liturgy is man’s only salutary necessity (cf. John 6). Divine Liturgy is Heaven on earth—the Greatest and only Life outside of which is eternal Hell.

The greatest and absolutely necessary papal challenge is to bring back Christ-given Liturgy to Christ’s Church. Using Pope John Paul II’s imagery, the right lung, the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy of the Latin Rite Patriarchate must be restored so that Christ’s Church can breathe with both the left lung (the Eastern Canonized Mass Liturgies) and the right lung.




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

LUCIA AND FATIMA ARE DEAD

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © 2005 MAETA

Sometime after my heart attack (in the 90's) I led a pilgrimage to Fatima. One of the side trips was to a nearby castle. Being sick and being from New Orleans, the climb was too much for me. So I remained at the coffee house at the base of the mountain.

While there, I met two young German ladies who spent their vacations camping in Europe. I asked them if they were Catholics. One turned to the other and inquired, “Are we Catholics?” The other said, “I don't know. I think we are.” Certainly, they could have been New Order Catholics. Certainly, they weren't authentic Catholics.

I then suggested they might enjoy camping out at Fatima. They said they might do that. At that time, I still perceived enough “life in Fatima” that their visit there could bring them to the one and only religion founded by Christ, the religion whose Sacred Heart is the Canonized Mass.

“The true faith will be preserved in Portugal.” Where is the true faith? In the people whom the upper clergy have robbed of their most precious legacy, the Canonized Latin Mass. Somehow, by God's special graces, these humble masses remain faithful to Christ as best they can. (Perhaps because they are devoted to the Rosary.)

Fatima itself is dead. Fatima no longer has the true Mass. Fatima is salutarily null and void. Fatima, with its Novus Ordo “Mass-mocking” services now serves as a propaganda mechanism for the New World Order. Lucia died in February (2005).

However, as far as we are concerned, she died in the 60's, since she was kept incommunicado since then. Imposters took her place. One imposter claimed that the Consecration of Russia was “done and done well.” Another one endorsed the contents of the “establishment-propagandized Third Secret” (whose authenticity even the secular press rejected). (Just as my German acquaintances couldn't have been real Catholics; similarly, these 'Lucias' could not have been the real Lucia.)

Fatima and Lucia are dead. Out of the ashes is born the New World Order with its New Order (Novus Ordo) Religion, a religion which would please my German friends. This Novus Ordo Religion is a religion of all religions; the religion of the '666' Beast; the religion of the anti-Christ; the religion of the Apocalypse (Ch 13). The Abbe de Nantes confirms:

“Pope John Paul II ordered Mgr. Serafim de Sousa Ferreira e Silva, whom he appointed Bishop of Fatima in 1993, to <<develop ecumenical and inter-religous relations to the utmost.>> Mgr. de Amaral's successor immediately got down to work so that <<the sanctuary of Fatima could be a lung where one can breathe deeply or an oasis where each person can find repose, be they Muslim, pagan or anything else, whether they believe or do not believe.>> The result is that this place no longer welcomes devout Catholics.

(The Bishop of Fatima does not believe in Fatima, Catholic Counter-Reformation, Rev. Georges de Antes, Aug., 2004)




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

BE SUBJECT TO AUTHORITY (Rom 13:1)

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © 2004 MAETA

True to its capital sin (the love of man in the place of God) in the cases of alleged clerical sexual abuse, the bishops' Newchurch has enacted a brand new policy – it puts the victim first. Previous to its milestone (February 27 2004) decisions, victims were considered to be the church and the priests. Before that date, the bishops' Newchurch looked in one direction–toward the priest’s and the church’s reputation or image. Now the direction has changed.

"We have gone from a model that has placed the priest and the church first in terms of limiting scandal, as well as, attempting to deal with the priest and his rehabilitation to a model of placing the victim first; that is, listening with respect... responding with the greatest compassion and concern" (quote: Fr. Maestri, Archdiocesan Communication Director, Clarion Herald, 3/10/04).

Excelsior! Both models are wrong. However, when one loves man as God, and when bishops endow themselves with "divine rights," one is limited to choosing one or the other model, and, in doing so, one can never act as Christ demands.

One source of the bishops' Newchurch dilemma is the extension of self-given "divine rights" of bishops' in the civil arena, which in this case, involved sexual abuse cases. By proudly self-bestowed "divine rights," American bishops claim "operational infallibility." God’s law, God’s will, is as they say it is!

How should a Catholic bishop handle an alleged case of clerical sex abuse? As a long-range and permanent solution, collectively, bishops should strive to abandon their self-serving paternal relational model of priest to bishop. If at all legally possible, they should enact and embrace a model which, in effect, would make each priest an independent legal entity. Under present conditions, realizing that he is subject to civil authority (Rom 13:1), each bishop should:

Call in the accuser. Gather the evidence. Sift out fiction from fact. Sift out money-seekers from the sincere.

Call in the accused priest. Have an impartial and competent attorney present who can tell the priest what is "prosecutable" and what is not.

Ask the priest if he believes the alleged victim has a case or not. If not, dare the accuser to take it to court. If so, "de-activate" the priest until the case is resolved.

In other words, bishops should respect the civil law of the land. If there is a criminal action involved, bishops should realize that they are not the civil authority. Bishops should not be fixated on protecting themselves at any cost. Instead, as much as possible, they should treat such cases primarily as litigation between accuser and priest. If a criminal act is possibly involved, the accuser should be instructed to report the alleged crime to the police for investigation, not to the bishop for "hush-money."

In all fairness to the priest involved, in the presence of a competent and impartial lawyer, his interest should be protected and the validity of the case should be assessed. If judged that the priest is not liable for criminal charges, the case should proceed in light of that. According to the law of the land, priests should be presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. The bishops' former sins of protecting and promoting criminally guilty priests does not justify their present shabby treatment of their (possibly or probably innocent) priests. After, all, it was the bishops' actively taking the civil authority into their own hand, of covering up and promoting sexual predators, which really constituted the grave scandal and crime of the pedophile scandal. It was their former legal violation of the RICO laws which brought great harm to the church.

Bishops Are Subject to the Apostolic Church

This grave ecclesial crisis (concerning the episcopal cover-up of pedophilia) and other crises have one cause. These same bishops have deprived themselves and their flocks of the Source of God’s Grace and Mercy among us – the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy. In doing so, these bishops have sinned gravely by failing to fulfill their basic God-given duty to preserve, apply, and transmit intact the faith and morals (especially, liturgical morals) given by Christ to His Apostles (i.e. the basic contents of Apostolic Tradition).

Without the Canonized Latin Mass, there is no true Church of the Latin Patriarchate. Where is the bishops' plan to return Christ’s Canonized Latin Mass? Where is the bishops' "mea culpa" for the sin of stealing Christ’s Mass and religion away from His flock? When will the bishops' confess that their "New Mass" is not valid? (See "NEW MASS" CONCLUSIVELY INVALID According to the Preponderance of Evidence.) When will the bishops restore the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy as the only Mass for the Latin Rite? When will the bishops make restitution for their grave offenses against Christ and His Church?

God is waiting. The faithful are waiting.




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

BELIEVE AND BE DAMNED

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © 2004 MAETA

Should or should not one who is pro-abortion receive Holy Communion? Presently, this is the question facing the bishops' Newchurch in the USA. The buck stops (and starts) at the bishops' desk. Each diocese has its own policy.

In New Orleans, for example, (as of July 2004) the bishop contends that politicians who are pro-abortion should not receive the Eucharist. However, they can do so.

What about the pastor who refuses publicly to give the pro-abortionist Communion? Should a pastor do this? The archbishop said he should not. Why? In the name of compassion, he should not. We believe in compassion! A Catholic says: "Believe and be damned!" "Are not thieves and robbers compassionate to their own (Luke 6:32)?" Do they not believe in compassion?

"Love man and do what you want" has replaced "Love God and do what you want" (St. Augustine). Even if one loves man unto martyrdom "and has not ‘agape-love or God-love’ it profits him nothing, because he is damned (Mt 16:26)."

Before the bishops' Newchurch came into being, Archbishop Rummel of New Orleans did not fear using his episcopal powers for the common good. He acted in accord with Canon Law. In the turbulent sixties, canonically speaking, he excommunicated those who interfered with his anti-segregation assignment of a black priest to Jesuit Bend.

Is not the effective church condemnation of murder by abortion to be enacted for the good of souls? In whose name do bishops in the USA now act? In the name of compassion! Also, they act in the name of community – the oh-so-precious and "divine" community of man. In the name of God, excommunicate the most influential "Catholic" pro-abortion legislators, doctors, nurses, etc. In the name of compassion refuse to do your episcopal duty; sinfully, continue to have compassion on those who have no compassion for innocent human beings.




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

BANKRUPT BISHOPS

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © 2004 MAETA

The Rev. Fr. Andrew Greeley once observed that the American bishops are intellectually, morally and spiritually bankrupt. When he issued this severe episcopal indictment several decades ago, I was shocked. I did not believe him. Being one of their "darlings," he must have known them as we are now only coming to know them. Obviously, these bishops, although running on empty brains and hearts, still operate.

Who manipulates them unto the murdering of souls? Ultimately, the reigning liberal faithless and anti-Catholic experts. I was groomed to become one of these reigning elite. Therefore, I know their methodology and agenda very well. I know them extremely well.

Such apostates-within instill a perverse spirit or life into the bankrupt bishops' hearts and souls. This spirit is attractively packaged as "the spirit of Vatican II." Reigning-apostates-within have dictated the thinking and decreeing of American bishops. Bishops are a sorry lot! What are "we" to do with them? What can God do with them?

The salt has lost its flavor. The light-stands, now like unto anti-matter, are producing anti-light. They squelch, destroy, reject and pervert God’s relevant truths (e.g. their "living tradition" replaces Apostolic Tradition.) They have come to be anti-Catholic in spirit, since they are such in truth or in reality.

From the earliest to the latest, my publications disclose and lament episcopal malfeasance in office. The bishops are responsible for two major perversions.

One of these perversions is that the Sacrament of Matrimony has been demonized. The primary in se purpose of marriage is the proper raising of children (not the establishment of a covenant of life and love or as religious texts propagandize: the close community of caring and sharing). The secondary purpose of marriage is spousal commitment to allay concupiscence and mutually to help each other to be saved and sanctified.

We will soon suffer the fruit of the bishops' anti-Catholic operational definitions of marriage. Soon, very soon, thanks in large part to the bankrupt and "spiritually murdering" bishops, same-sex marriages (or their equivalent) will be the law of the land in the USA.

More importantly, as it were, the dynamic fountainhead of all the bishops' problems is their rejecting and sacrileging the Canonized Latin Mass Text, and, thereby, rejecting and sacrileging the Sacred Heart among us – the living sacramental/mystical New Testament in Christ's Blood, the Holy Mass.

My latest book, "NEW MASS" CONCLUSIVELY INVALID presents "definitive argumentation" which conclusively evidences or proves that the bishops' New Mass is invalid, null and void. This book includes topics such as the following:

New Mass was never papally edicted. New Mass was instituted by reigning experts and imposed upon priests and people by duped or cooperating bishops.

New Mass is the result of the American Church’s schism from Rome–its rejection of the fully binding papal decree Veterum Sapientia (and those previous, but nevertheless totally binding decrees of all other popes regarding the Holy Canonized Mass instituted by Christ and coming to us from Apostolic Tradition).

New Mass is, in spirit and truth, protestantly heretical. In Pope Leo XIII’s words "Its native character and spirit" is no longer Catholic. Its religion is anti-Catholic.

Since it purposely or by design mimics and sacrileges the Most Holy, New Mass is the Abominable Desolation. The preponderance of evidence betrays its purpose.

A preponderance of evidence is concisely and clearly cited, leading one to conclude that New Mass is invalid.

Dare to see the truth! Dare to perceive the nature of the fountainhead of the bishops' Newchurch, its New Mass. Why? Your eternal destiny, your eternal salvation is at risk. Read: "NEW MASS" CONCLUSIVELY INVALID According to the Preponderance of Evidence, Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L., ISBN: 1-889168-28-9, PB: $16, 252 pages.




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

IN THE NAME OF COMMUNITY

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © 2004 MAETA

Abbe de Nantes characterized the Vatican Council II as "promoting anti-Catholic ecumenism; conferring divine rights upon the bishops; and, bestowing the priesthood upon laymen." For the sake of and in the name of the community of Catholic laymen and the community of all mankind, bishops anointed themselves with divine rights – in accord with the diabolic spirit of Vatican II.

In the name of such a community, bishops now speak, act and legislate in a political way. Where do priests fit in? Obviously, they are embryonic bishops most of whom will be aborted before they come to term (by being made bishops). Also, priests are commissioned to extend the divine episcopal presence to episcopally designated communities. Their duty is not to decide (lacking divine episcopal charisma) but merely to execute presently decreed episcopal policy and decision. In accord with episcopal dictates, they collaborate with the bishop and serve the people.

Newchurch priests facilitate or preside over the community’s worship services. They are commissioned to facilitate and preside over New Masses or other liturgies celebrated by the community of laymen, who possess and are to exercise their equally valid "liturgical priesthood" in various ways within the community celebrations.

True Holy Ordered priests who act ex officio in persona Christi, are becoming extinct. Soon, such will no longer exist. Such priests acted in the name of Christ and His Church. Such priests celebrated Holy Mass by and of themselves. Such were "Christ-priests." They acted ex officio in persona Christi to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Such a Holy Ordering Christ-willed dispensation has been rejected and replaced (in protestant fashion) by the bishops within Newchurch.

Now, episcopally commissioned and non Holy Ordered embryonic bishops or worship leaders act in the name of the oh-so-precious community. Functioning in such a name, they and their victims are damned. Functioning as such, they designedly produce invalid New Masses. (See "NEW MASS" CONCLUSIVELY INVALID According to the Preponderance of Evidence, Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L., ISBN: 1-889168-28-9, PB: $16, 252 pages.)




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

PARADIGM SHIFT

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © 2004 MAETA

IS "THE CATHOLIC CHURCH" ANY LONGER DEFINED IN ACCORD WITH "EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS"?

HOW ARE BASIC RELIGIOUS TERMS SUCH AS "SIN," "BIBLE" AND "TRADITION" PRESENTLY DEFINED?

Let us explore the fundamental metaphysical mind-set which arises from consideration of the above questions. Prevailing popular propaganda, in effect, assures us that Catholicism (or that which was Catholicism) is now to be defined by "the company." One has to check with the local or regional chancellory to find out what it means locally to be a Catholic; or, to ascertain which tenet is binding or not binding; presently tolerated or in effect, or condemned; kosher or frowned upon.

Sin? What about "sin"? That’s an unmentionable in an age when anything goes. Decades ago, T. S. Eliot described the contemporary prevailing zeitgeist in The Cocktail Party as Celia noted that people consider "sin" as being "bad form" or being "kinky." In today’s worldly church, sin has little or nothing to do with failing to live as God demands and thus being in danger of going to eternal Hell.

Most Catholics, even traditionalists, fail to perceive and evaluate the present (existential) church properly since they fail to take into account the metaphysical paradigm shift which not only redefines the existential church in a radically different manner, but also, significantly alters "sin" and most other basic religious terms such as "Bible" and "Tradition." We live under the spell of Wojtylanism and other personalistic heretical heart and mind-sets which postulate that reality is as man dictates.

In Fatima’s terms, we live in diabolic delusion – convinced (or apparently convinced) that we know what is best or what must be held in the name of God (and/or man); and, that this conviction is right and just; that, it is the will of man and, thereby, the Will of God; or, in ecclesial terms is "living tradition" (which no longer conforms to Christ-given Apostolic Tradition). Most of us fail to be aware of the diabolic paradigm shift which has taken over and now permeates the existential church.

At the very least, basic terms such as "church," "bible" and "tradition" have become ambiguous or have been re-defined. These words (and other key words) have suffered or undergone a paradigm shift. Terms such as Bible and Tradition have been theologically redefined even while used as if they retain their classical meaning. As it were, divinized human personalism (a fixation on man) has metamorphosized reality (as defined by God) into culture-dependent man-pleasing understanding (which is a diabolic delusion). Today, the exact meaning of any religious term – even "church" – is "whatever I or we want it to be." Today, we dwell within the Mad Hatter’s domain.

Man’s Newchurch

We now live in "man’s world." We no longer live in "God’s world." Man’s world cannot be adequately defined by classical or authentic Catholic terms.

Terms such as "bible" and "tradition" as now used in the final analysis and in practice no longer are Catholic and no longer conform to reality. Instead, they reflect reality as defined by the bishops' Newchurch. Newchurch is as God, deciding good and evil (Gen 3); deciding good and evil to such an extent that words such as "bible" and "tradition" mean what each bishop or group of bishops decide for their own un-Godly purposes according to the dictates of their own present necessity; or, as is usual, according to the dictates of their revered and reigning anti-Catholic alleged "experts."

Regarding the bishops' Newchurch definition of "church," one observes that any church which holds "extra ecclesiam salus," not only puts itself out of business; but also, radically alters its basic concept or its key building blocks. Such a church must do so in order to claim continuity with the past; and, at the same time, radically redefine itself.

Welcome to the Mad Hatter’s world. Welcome to Satan’s domain. Welcome to the existential bishops' Newchurch defined by and built upon diabolic delusion which for those who retain their sanity is to be perceived in this church’s ambiguity, prejudiced tolerances, evil political correctness, contradictory holdings, hypocritical stances, lying propaganda and the like, "ad nauseam."




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

CHASTE SPOUSES

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © 2004 MAETA

If one believes in Catholicism (which the bishops' Catholic Newchurch rejects) then it is commonly agreed that he must not and cannot truly love his neighbor as Newchurch preaches. Each Catholic is obliged to love God totally and exclusively. Today, authentic Catholics, in effect, are related to as "Catholic fundamentalists" who are uncaring towards the rest of mankind, while bishops and their Newchurchers care for, share with and love others. Newchurchers care for community of life and love. "Fundamentalist Catholics" put God first and are cold or indifferent to the human condition. Newchurch bishops condemn old time Catholics especially, regarding their alleged views on marriage.

Barefoot and Pregnant

"Christian" Bible fundamentalists are, in the final analysis, often condemned for sponsoring or promoting the barefoot and pregnant image. So say doctors at faculty dinners; so say or presume Newchurch religious leaders in their closed meetings; so say socialist engineers over the airwaves; and, so says the ordinary person who alleges that if one followed Catholic or bible-given sex morals, women would "always" be barefoot and pregnant. However, such propagandists know neither Catholicism nor the Bible.

What’s wrong with the Newchurch bishops' and the world’s thinking on marriage and family size? Basically, it assumes that within marriage, one is entitled to "sex" with impunity as "nature" demands. ("I got my needs!" growls the male.) However, humans seriously sin if they "sex" as nature demands. It’s that simple. It’s infinitely important–since the prevailing sex mind-set(often "male chauvinistic") posing as human concern is an infinitely dangerous myth. Following it leads human souls to eternal Hell.

"Let the marriage bed be undefiled." The marriage bed is not naturally undefiled; however, ever strive to make it so. Even Karol Wojtyla as Pope has misquoted this crucial passage: "The marriage bed is undefiled." He twisted God’s Word to render marital sex holy and undefiled. Thereby, he negated the vast "library" of Catholic practice and teachings on marital sex abstinence. (Today, in taking God’s view of sex and marriage, I put myself in danger of ecclesial censure whatever that might mean in this liberal, anti-legalistic, "humanly caring, loving and tolerant" church).

Each couple must "sex" responsibly, in proper response to God’s Law or to natural law as defined by God for post-Adamic men. Yes, Natural Law! Sodom and Gomorrah are the end-result of not sexing responsibly (to God’s world or to God’s will for fallen men).

Catholic dogma, as contained in the sensus et praxis fidelium and as made explicit in the Catholic Church’s canonized (or immutable) definition of marriage, is that the essential God-given ("natural" to the temporal and eternal well being of post-Adamic men) very definition of marriage focuses upon the allaying of concupiscence. To please God and to save and sanctify his soul, one must embrace marriage in order to conquer sex and not to become the temporal and eternal victim of his sexual passions.

Allay Concupiscence

Catholic marriage is the perfect indissoluble union of two free persons of different sex for the purpose of propagating the human race, mutually to bear the burdens of life, to prevent sin and grow in holiness, and to allay concupiscence.

Providentially and consistently, the Church in defining the essential purpose of marriage has always used the words "to allay (sexual) concupiscence." This word allay gives the God-given purpose of the sexual or "sex-ing" dimension of a holy marriage. The following definition of allay as given by Webster is pertinent:

allay–1. To put at rest; quiet (tumult, fear, suspicion, etc.); appease (wrath).
2. To mitigate; relieve or alleviate; to allay pain; put down, suppress.

In Webster, allay progresses from "quieting" to "suppressing." Indeed, allay is the very best word that can be used to describe the sexual challenge of marriage. In spite of currently popular propaganda, allay primarily applies to the man and his strong physical urges or "needs." (A normal woman does not experience overwhelming sexual urges even though she may experience heightened satisfaction at periods relating to the time of ovulation or because of her peculiar and unnatural psychological conditioning.)

Even Webster implicitly recognizes a spiritual progression within the process of "allaying concupiscence." Such a spiritual maturation or progression should characterize "sacramental" marital intercourse.

1) Appease or relieve urgent sexual tension. Why? Lest the man be led to go elsewhere (such as to another woman). Similarly, a man is to be sensitive to and satisfy his wife’s proper sensual psychological needs.

2) Lessen sexual needs and the frequency of having marital sex. Matrimony graces one to live less and less for the flesh. The Last Gospel read at Mass (Jn 1) assures us that those who live for or from their flesh cannot enter Heaven. Marriage is not a license to live for/from "the flesh" (and if "sex" is not of the flesh, then I don’t know what would be).

3) As marriage progresses in "age and wisdom" one should come to put down or suppress his concupiscence – his animalistic need to live from the flesh or to live for the satisfaction of his own animalistic sexual urgings. Individually, as "coupled" and as family-membered, one should come to live an ever increasingly ascetical life. Spouses and their offspring should come to live ever more pleasing to God. Indeed, allay is not negative. A true Catholic is not satisfied with subjecting his flesh to his higher faculties. He is not satisfied with conquering animalist sexual urges. He is not satisfied with living as a rational animal. His goal is not to have a perpetually barefoot and pregnant wife nor to be "fixed." Love of God totally and exclusively (agape-love) should increase as one’s marriage matures. Such marriages please God. Such marriages are Catholic.

Agape-love (living exclusively and totally for/from God) should be the positive all-prevailing goal of every sacramental marriage. As it were, to be salutary and sanctifying, one must abandon self-fulfilment and seek the fulfilment of God’s Will. One must love God totally and exclusively and then out of and because of such love, relate to or care for oneself, one’s spouse, one’s children and all else only as God desires.

They who in such manner receive matrimony, so as to shut out God from themselves and from their mind in order to give themselves to their lust as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, lose power over themselves and are delivered into Satan’s power (Tob 6:17).

For more reflections on Catholic marriage, it is recommended that one read Matrimony the Sacrament. This pamphlet can be obtained from MAETA.




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

CATHOLICS HAVE ONLY BEGUN TO BASH THE BISHOPS!

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © 2004 MAETA

"Those, therefore, who, after the manner of wicked heresies, dare to set aside ecclesiastical traditions; and to invent any kind of novelty; or, to reject any of those things entrusted to the Church; or, who wrongfully and outrageously devise the destruction of those traditions enshrined in the Catholic Church, are to be punished thus: if they are bishops, we order them to be deposed..."

Second Council of Nicea, 787



In its May 2004 issue, the Associate Editor of Inside the Vatican, called for a moratorium on bishop-bashing ("It Is Time to Stop Bashing the Bishops," George Morse).... "Others besides the bishops failed...attorneys...the laity" (p. 41). "Most of us have joined in the criticism of the bishops or the seminary or the schools, etc., but how many have responsibly acted to try to ascertain the facts and address the problems..." (p. 41)?

Sounds like Morse just landed from another planet! Conscientious laity (and priests) complained, complained, complained, ad nauseam. However, these complaints wound up in "file thirteen."

Were I to have stock in a small corporation, or even if I am its customer, I can complain without giving detailed facts. If that corporation is being run properly, it will investigate and address the problem(s) - especially if many customers or stockholders complain again and again about the same issues. Furthermore, as a customer or stockholder, it's not my business to address and solve "corporate problems." That's the responsibility of those in charge of the corporate body. Really, Mr. Morse, what's a customer to do?

What's a Catholic "customer" to do, especially if it's been drummed into him from his earliest days: obey and trust the bishop? We were led to believe that bishops are clothed in grace and truth. We're now shocked into the reality that the "emperor bishops' are quite disgustingly naked and sinful!

From the 1960's on, bishops imbued with the "disobedient spirit of Vatican II" have failed to run the Church as God demands (as known from the constant teaching of the Church from the earliest times). In fact, purposely or not, the bishop's actions have led to the cataclysmic deterioration of the semper ubique idem Catholic Church (as "incarnated" or as the existential church - the church of our day).

Faithful Catholics, their "victims," who adequately perceive the nature and extent of their bishops' Revolution, should be determined to bash bishops until they properly respond or are deposed. However, the situation worsens as bishops respond with bad will and smiles on their faces to a typical criticism: "Dear.... I appreciate your concern. However, I am the bishop and am doing what is expected of me...blah...blah...blah...." Almighty, conceited and evil bishops know what is best for you. They have all the facts. You are ignorant. Bishop knows best!

Are ordinary Catholics, the non-episcopates, expected to provide solutions by addressing the problems as Mr. Morse suggests? This is not so, according to your typical response: "I thank you for your concern but rest assured I am the bishop and will do what's best for all concerned..." Shut up and don't bother me! Trust me! Trust me with the authorities and the attorneys and the insurance companies and the churches, schools, seminaries and convents and all other physical possessions you and your ancestors built and paid for. Trust me to ascertain what is today "properly Catholic," your bodies and souls and those of your loved ones! Trust me as I tiptoe around the country in politically correct scene and stand back as abortion continues and same sex marriage looms on the horizon.



Dear Bishops,

You have lost your credibility. You have failed Christ and his teachings and government as every ordinary Catholic knows from the constant teaching of the Church. (The government is upon His Shoulder, but you have taken it away). You have failed the faithful clergy and laity. Catholics who were not aware of your failings have now become aware, so baneful and scandalous has been your performance in office.

Not only have you failed to be adequate administrators of the physical property of the Church, you have perverted the Faith, the Church and even Christ's Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Even had you the desire to attempt to repair the Church and bring it up to "par," you would not know where to begin, so in shambles is the Church under your tenure. You no longer know nor act according to the mind and heart of Catholicism. In your disobedient attempt to do "what no man has done before," you have dethroned God and enthroned man; desecrated Christ and His Holy Church; sacrileged His Holy Sacrifice of the Mass!

Where is your episcopal challenge? That challenge would be to return Christ and the Catholic Faith to His Church. Put Christ back into His Mass by deposing your fake New Mass of the disobedient spirit of Vatican II! Hopefully, this action, as recognized and employed by all the popes (until the disobedient spirit of Vatican II emboldened you to challenge and disobey it) consists of obeying the law of prayer and belief: "Lex orandi, lex credendi." The law of prayer is the law of belief. Repent. Undo your sin - the removal of Christ and His Canonized Latin Mass from your dioceses. Only a humble and repentant return to God on your part can save your earthly office and your immortal soul. Otherwise, for the sake of your salvation and that of others - resign - or be deposed!

Sincerely,

Faithful Catholic




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

OLIM, STAT, OLAM

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © 2004 MAETA

The motto of every militant Catholic is "OLIM, STAT, OLAM" (A.S.A.P.). OLAM–that which forever was, ever is and forever will be. OLIM–that which once was in the past. STAT–must diligently and wholeheartedly be restored or "brought back to life in our midst." A.S.A.P.

What is "that which?" "That which" is the mystical/sacramental Realization of God’s Saving Will. Forever in the beginning, without beginning there always is the Word – God’s Saving Word. This Word was made Flesh in order to "execute" (realize and actualize this Realization "at Bloody Calvary") God’s Saving Will (in our space/time captivity) in order to actualize the Realization of God’s Saving Will.

God’s Saving Will was realized (in space/time), more precisely, (in Christ’s Holy Ordered space/time) at the "Last Supper." God’s Saving Will is realized (in Christ-priest’s Holy Ordered space/time) by every Holy Ordered Christ-priest properly saying (celebrating) a Christ-given Church-canonized Mass Liturgy; and, in God’s unbeginning, "ever-is" and unending dimension. This Saving Will is realized eternally so as to enable, define and constitute Heaven for the Elect.

OLAM – The Saving Will in God’s dimension always was, ever is and always will be. In every "Our Father," the Elect pray that this Will be accomplished on earth "to the fullest possible extent" – on earth as in Heaven.

OLIM – Christ gave the "formula" to tap into God’s Saving Will. His Church canonized (forever and irrevocably fixed or defined) this "formula" and, thereby, forever and irrevocably defined the "sine qua non" element of its identity.

"Sine qua non" – without or outside of a Christ-priest, properly using this "formula," there is no way on earth to "re-do the Last Supper" and thus, there is no One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Also, without the proper use of this "formula," any church body cannot claim to be that church – extra ecclessiam, nulla salus – (outside of which there is no salvation).

Why? Christ declared that to be saved, one must (if at all possible, of course) receive a valid Holy Communion, "a Holy Communion from a valid Mass" (Jn. 11:15). Also, at the most solemn moment, at the Last Supper, Christ both defined His Holy Ordered priesthood and thereby His Church (as "doing into His Memory" the Realization of His Saving Will in a mystical/sacramental way – until the very last valid Mass); and, declared such valid Holy Masses to be "the Eternal Will and Testament in His Salutary Blood," the Only Way "to tap into" or realize on earth in a mystical/sacramental way, the "Salutary OLAM."

OLUM STAT – the existential Church must be as it was (OLIM). The militant Elect work to bring this about. Every militant Catholic is "under God-given orders" to make the existential Church once again be as Christ and the Catholic Church canonized it to be. OLIM, STAT!




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

THE CHURCH SHOULD APOLOGIZE TO FR. GALILEO

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © 2004 MAETA
(An Introduction of Fr. Galileo)

In the 17th century, Mr. Galileo, the physicist, contended that the earth went around the sun. Ruling churchmen of the Church of that time forced him to recant. Within the philosophy and history of science, a tale circulates that at his formal recantation, he muttered under his breath: Muy il se muevo. (But it really does move.) Today, I introduce Fr. Galileo (a pen-name for a notable Catholic theologian-priest).

In the 20th and continuing into the 21st century, the Pope refuses to apologize to Fr. Galileo the great theologian, who believes in, upholds and defends authentic Catholic Liturgy. In the 21st century, Fr. Galileo the theologian, presents his argumentation to us in "NEW MASS" CONCLUSIVELY INVALID by Fr. Paul Trinchard. Fr. Galileo, the Catholic theologian, claims that "our world" is to go around and center on the Son of God and the Realization of His Saving Will, Holy Mass. He boldly claims that Adam, each man on the earth ("our world") is obliged to go around or center "its very being" on the Son and His Canonized Mass Liturgy, Holy Mass. Once again, churchmen or the ecclesial establishment demand that he recant. Churchmen insist that our world goes around Man and the "New Mass." He is being pressured to say that the Novus Ordo "New Mass" Service is a valid Mass. Nonetheless, Fr. Galileo and his followers boldly profess: The "New Mass" is totally invalid.

Do Fr. Galileo and his followers represent most Catholic traditionalists? Do most Catholic traditionalists (as they call themselves) confess their firm immutable Catholicism, which leads them to tenaciously profess the obvious truth: "New Mass" is invalid or null and void? Regardless of the answer, these questions remain personal imperatives. They must be answered by each of us, individually. Each must ask himself how much of a Fr. Galileo he is: Will I even entertain the possibility that non-infallibly acting churchmen can act (and have acted) fallibly? Will I even entertain the possibility that Catholicism-rejecting popes and other prelates have enough free will to permit or do the grossest evil? Will I join Fr. Galileo to tenaciously hold onto the immutable Catholic Dogma that the immutable Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy is and will always be the one and only valid Mass Liturgy for the Latin Rite?

Is Fr. Galileo correct? Is "New Mass" the Abominable Desolation – the most unholy in the place of the Most Holy? Are churchmen far worse now than they were in the time of Galileo, the physicist? Churchmen are far worse now than they were then. However, now they have no possible justification for their persecution of Fr. Galileo or other authentic Catholics. Their argumentation is presented in "NEW MASS" CONCLUSIVELY INVALID. This, at last, is "must reading." One must read it to pray (or agree with its basic conclusions) in order to be saved from Hell. (Otherwise, the Catholic Church is a sacrilegious fake.)

Fr. Galileo has a Son-centered view of our world. The Catholic World must go around the Son of God (His Holy Sacrifice and Holy Sacrament mystically/sacramentally present among us). The Catholic World cannot go around the new Man-Ordered (Novus Ordo) liturgical system and be Catholic in any sense of the word. So believes Fr. Galileo.

In the 20th century, Pope John Paul II went through great pains (or was it delights?) to apologize. Will you refuse to be on "the eternally losing side" – on the side of those who reject Christ’s Salvation Economy (His Saving Plan) to embrace a demonically-inspired or anti-Christ man-devised and episcopally-implemented counterfeit or sacrilegious legion of liturgical forgeries of God’s most precious enduring and "identifying mark" of His Church, that which makes the Church be the one and only way to be saved from Hell -- (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is Church dogma, not post-Vatican II heresy) – the Canonized Mass Liturgy?

"New Mass" and Its Presiders

1) We are no longer involved with the "salutarily irrelevant." One can go to Heaven "believing" that the earth is the center of "the universe," of that which we more accurately call the solar system. However, one will be damned to eternal Hell for not believing in or for rejecting that which God demands one to believe in and/or do in order to be saved.

Certainly, belief in the Holy Ordered mystical/sacramental doing of the "Salutary Will and Blood Testament of Christ" (the Canonized Mass Liturgy) is an essential (sine qua non) salutary belief or tenet of that Church outside of which there is no salvation. Certainly, God requires us (don’t worry about the "island-bound heathen") to believe in and attend that Mass Liturgy and sacraments instituted by Christ and canonized by His Church – specifically, for Latin Rite Catholics, the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy (and Christ-instituted sacraments as canonized by His Church).

2) Once again, each must choose man or God. Each one’s choice is to embrace a man-fabricated, man-centered and earth-fixated liturgy –or– to believe in and attend the Christ-instituted, Church-canonized, God-centered, heavenly liturgy. One must choose to be homo-centric (or geo-centric) or to be Christo-centric (or "Son-centered"). One’s life either centers on God or on man (the "man" of John, Chapter One – which living for and from God, God assures us lead to being born into eternal Hell).

[Indeed, to our discredit, it took most of us many years to perceive the religious dimension of the Novus Ordo Liturgical phenomenon. However, thanks to God’s graces and our own graced cooperation, we along with an ever-increasing number of former Novus Ordo victims agree with Fr. Galileo, the Catholic theologian: "New Mass" is conclusively null and void or invalid. Be sure to order this book for yourself and your loved ones.]

3) God’s Revelation is His son. So has Catholicism always held. So will Catholicism always hold. Christ Himself solemnly assured us that unless one receives the Fruit of a valid Mass (Holy Communion) or unless one receives Holy Communion at or from a Canonized Mass Liturgy as properly said by a Holy Ordered priest, he goes to eternal Hell. So says Christ (Jn 6:53). Christus dixit, causa finita est. Christ has spoken. Any disagreement is futile.

4) Today’s churchmen (whether clerical or lay) have no possible justification for condemning Fr. Galileo, the Catholic or any other authentic Catholic. Today’s churchmen know or should know that the liturgy, Holy Mass, was instituted by the Son to "revolve around Him." They are "overripe" for Hell as they condemn any Fr. Galileo by condoning, upholding or implementing a liturgy, which glorifies man and not the Son of God. This is what adherents to and devotees of the Novus Ordo or New (Masonic) Order do. To their credit, these liturgical apostates are honest enough to re-define "liturgy" as the "work (ergos) of the laity or of the people (laos)." However, in doing so, they are anathematized. Catholicism long ago condemned such a definition. "Liturgy" is the work (ergos) of praising God (laus). The Mass Liturgy must be as Christ instituted (and His Church canonized) or – it cannot be. De facto, any and all liturgical fabrications made or approved by bishops or popes constitute the "Abominable Desolation," the unholy in the place of the Most Holy, as was clearly predicted in Dn 11:31 and Mt 24:15. Indeed, the legion of "New Masses" was predicted by God in His Holy Bible.




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

THE "UNBELIEVABLE" COROLLARY

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © 2004 MAETA

In "NEW MASS" CONCLUSIVELY INVALID, Fr. Trinchard proves his "theological opinion" (that the epsicopally-imposed legion of "New Masses" is obviously or conclusively invalid or "null and void," as already officially declared in Church pronouncements. This book is "must reading" and may be obtained from MAETA.com.


Once one accepts the "theological opinion" –that "New Mass" is not valid – as an obvious fact or as conclusively proven (in so far as one does so in good conscience based on the most recent infallible papal/Church declaration by Pope Leo XIII in his Apostolicae Curae) then an inevitable unbelievably horrendous corollary follows.

The bishops of New Order (Novus Ordo) times are the most rotten individuals that have walked the face of the earth. They are the "rhetorical fathers" to whom Jesus referred (Luke 11:11). They have taken the Bread of Life from their children and given them sterile and "inevitably life-destroying" stones to eat. Are these not the very worst of fathers?

Worse yet, when confronted with a "few facts" about their deed, they paint the stones to look like loaves of bread. They make their fake "masses" more believable – apparently more like unto true Masses. "Unbelievable!" Thanks be to God the "unbelievable" is not only an obvious conclusion (from the arguments presented by the Church through Pope Leo XIII himself) but, also, the "unbelievable" is becoming "credible by being factually verified."

God’s providential care has done this. How? Through convincing us of the truth of far lesser "unbelievable" episcopal scandals! Bishops protected and promoted their homosexual/pedophile priests. Bishops imposed immoral sex ed programs upon Catholic children in the classroom. Bishops granted wholesale annulments. Bishops allowed pro-abortion legislators and doctors "free reign." etc., ad nauseam.

Deo gratias! God has made the "unbelievable" credible. Lesser episcopal scandals make the very worst episcopal scandal "credible" and totally acceptable as just another terrible deed of the bishops. Catholics can now confess that episcopal emperors are not only "buck naked," but grossly ugly. Why? They prefer to see and confess the ugly episcopal truth: Bishops have excised the Living Heart, the Sacred Heart—from our midst.

No longer is the Christ-instituted and irrevocably Church-canonized Latin Mass Liturgy celebrated by the Holy Ordered priest "to effect" Christ’s sacramental/mystical Eternal Salutary Will and Blood-Testament among us. Now Catholics suffer the Abominable Desolation – the most unholy in the place of the Most Holy. Pope Paul VI was correct – within the Church Sanctuary – Satan is being actively worshipped ("The smoke of Satan fills the church sanctuary.") Who is responsible? Primarily, those responsible are Paul VI, the first "non-pope-ing pope (from Paul VI onward, popes present themselves as "Bishops of Rome" and not as the Vicar of Christ.) together with his fellow Latin Rite bishops.

Of course, this "episcopal scandal" can be a major stumbling block. Those without mirrors use this scandal to "justify" their departure from the true Church (which, while dependent on bishops exists independently of them). Lacking a properly "pope-ing pope," some become popes unto themselves and/or put themselves under "an acceptable pope." They become cultic traditionalists. Should the baby be thrown away with the dirty bath water? Are we to rid ourselves of bishops along with purifying the church of the worst episcopal scandal of all times?

Reflecting the pervasive episcopal stupor, Archbishop Hughes (of "Boston fame") "myopically" bragged (television show, September 2004) that the bishops of the Second Council of Nicea condemned Arianism (the gross heresy which denied Christ’s Divinity). Driven by "episcopal pride," this archbishop conveniently left out the fact that according to St. Jerome, a few years before this, over 90% of bishops awoke to find themselves Arian heretics.

Will today’s bishops ever awaken from their "disobedient spirit of the Vatican II nightmare?" We pray that they will. By God’s graces and their graced cooperation, will a sufficient number of them return to Catholicism and return Catholicism to their flocks? Or, will they follow in the footsteps of Bishop Cranmer and his fellow apostate bishops who formed a new church complete with "null and void ‘mass services’ and a powerless (to confect Holy Orders and Eucharist) null and void clergy?"




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

THE WORST CHURCH SCANDAL

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © 2003 MAETA

When confronted with the frightful "homosexual scandal," North American bishops often excuse their behavior on the grounds that they were following the best advice of today's psychiatrists—the same psychiatrists who determined that homosexuality was no longer to be considered abnormal. With that kind of mindset, one could have predicted the homosexual scandal!

The "homosexual scandal," arguably one of the worst in Church history, has exposed the ugly nakedness of North American bishops. No longer do these bishops profess, " We believe in Christ and His Church." Today, their credo is, "We believe in Freud and his descendents!"

We have learned that these bishops supported, protected, and promoted homosexual priests (who at times preyed on post-pubescent boys who were not yet legally adults). Their "love" of homosexual priests led these bishops to overlook psychiatric findings on the harmful effects upon "clerical victims." These bishops not only worshipped psychiatrists, they selectively worshipped these alleged experts so as to embrace and promote homosexual priests.

Here then is the source of this and other episcopal scandals which are native to New Church—modern day bishops have turned their backs on God-given apostolic traditions to embrace alleged "experts" proferring ever-changing human traditions. The root cause of present-day episcopal mega-evils is the enthronement of man and the attempted dethronement of God.

The bottom line is that North American bishops, and all like-minded "Catholics," are a faithless lot who worship man, not God.

"Experts-adorers" Commit Child-abuse

Among the victims of episcopal faithlessness are numerous children. In addition to the boys and girls sexually abused by priest pedophiles, there are countless children abused by effectively mandated, Newchurch-prescribed, sex indoctrination programs. Such programs exist in opposition to eternal Rome's will. They are condemned as violations against the virtue of modesty and as infringements on parental rights and duties.

Children are also abused by episcopally bestowed annulments and divorces. Episcopal faithlessness has all but destroyed the sacrament of matrimony. Following their revered experts, the bishops have redefined marriage as being a "community of life and love." This loophole-ridden new definition exaults the secondary purpose of marriage (companionship) over its primary purpose (procreation), and gives bishops ample leeway to grant wholesale annulments or divorces when a "community of life and love" ceases to exist or is to have been deficient in the past.

God's law concerning the indissolubility of marriage has been effectivley rejected, and who suffers? In nearly all cases—the children. Usually, the wife. Seldom, the husband.

What God has joined, let not faithless bishops dissolve! Legalistic "goobly goo" vainly attempts to justify Newchurch's wholesale granting of annulments, but their mega-error is crystallizing and is increasingly apparent. Sensuous or playboy men and women are enthroned. God and His Will have been rejected. Countless children and families have been, and continue to be, destroyed.

Accomplices to Murder

Another mega-evil resulting from episcopal faithlessness is to be found in bishops being accomplices to murder by abortion.

How are they accomplices? They fail to use the "weapon at hand"—excommunication—to deter the slaughter of innocents. Only bishops can specifically excommunicate legislators who vote to legalize abortion, and doctors and nurses who perform abortions. No other human being can wield this weapon to deter abortionists.

Why then don't the bishops use this "weapon?" Is their faithlessness such that they prefer Barabas, the murderer, to Christ their Redeemer?

Sincere and complete rejection of murder by abortion might be shown when and if North American bishops condemn the pill which flushes out of the womb any fertilized ovum. Thus far, they have been silent. The only plausable explanation? They prefer the wills' of sensuous men and women to God and His Revealed Will (e.g. as revealed in official Church teachings).

The Worst Offense

Undoubtedly, the very worst scandal resulting from episcopal faithlessness is that bishops have expelled the Sacred Heart of Jesus from their churches.

New Church bishops have sacrileged the Christ-instituted and Church-canonized Mass and the Christ-instituted Sacraments (within the Latin Rite). In doing so, Pope Paul VI admitted they had given up "something of priceless worth." What reason did they give for this mega-evil? According to Pope Paul VI, the Novus Ordo Missae was designed to enable Catholics to talk comfortably to God, to have "a conversation with God" (as scripted by Bugnini, et al). Let us hope and pray that through the intercession of St. Paul the scales may drop from the eyes of these blind leaders of the blind!

Only recently have I come to clearly see and repent of my own violation of the Church-demanded Oath Against Modernism, which was taken by all Latin Rite priests ordained before 1970. When taking this oath before my ordination, I wondered why the Oath included a vow to uphold the Council of Trent. Then, in the 1990's, the scales dropped from my eyes and now I see—I vowed to God to say only the Canonized Latin Rite Mass Liturgy! May God forgive me for violating this oath for so many years.

I pray that the Latin Rite North American bishops who were ordained before 1970 honor their vow to God. May they too confess their gross sacrilege. May they return to saying only the Christ-instituted, Church-canonized, "dogmatically-unchangeable" Mass Liturgy of the Latin Rite (which they vowed to God they would say and protect).

The Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy provides the faithful with the most-needed Sacred Heart alive among us. No wonder Holy Mary, in all Church-approved apparitions, has always appeared as Our Lady of the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy. Either she appeared in such a chapel or church, or she commanded that such a chapel be built.

No one can sincerely claim to be devoted to Our Lady without being devoted to the Canonized Mass Liturgy. As the great salutary sign of Tuy depicted, "the two Hearts" come to us and are to be praised by us, together.

A Postscript

I have intentionally employed the term "mega-evil" instead of "mega-sin" to avoid giving the impression I sit in judgement over the bishops. A mega-evil becomes a mega-sin when one knows the truth and freely consents to do evil—to violate God's Will.

I was mega-evil when I said the New Order Services. I leave it up to God to judge me as to how megasinful I was. Now, I repent.

Of course, one must recall the Roman's One Curse God gives those who reject Him (and His Will). They are given up not only to doing evil but to promoting evil (Rm 1:18-2:5). Has God given up on you as one of their consorts? We'll know on the Judgement Day.

How can God accept one who has trampled on the Holy Gift, that which is "of priceless worth?" How can one escape eternal damnation if he neglects, or worse yet, sacrileges so great salvation, the Canonized Mass Liturgy? (Heb 2:3, paraphrased)

Save yourselves and the Church. Stop sacrileging the Holy. Start praying with reverence the Holy Sacrifice AS God and His semper ubique idem Church demand.

For more information on this subject, please order and read:

Abbot and Me on Liturgy: Cardinal Gasquet
The "writer" of Apostolicae Curae shows clearly how and why the Anglican Ordinal and Service are invalid. His remarks apply a fortiori to the Novus Ordo Services and Ordinal.

(NEW!) Padre Pio Mass Prayerbook
A prayerbook that shows how to pray the Mass as the Salutary Oblation. Provides powerful insights to help Catholics grow in faith and love of the Mass. Designed for use at the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy.

Novus Ordo Condemned
A pamphlet that shows why the Novus Ordo Mass-like service is both illicit and invalid.

Call 1-888-577-4428 to place your order or e-mail us at orders@maeta.com




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

NEW HUMAN MORALITY

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © 2002 MAETA

Morality is defined as both human and divine. Human morality concerns one's relationship to himself and others as defined by God. Divine morality [liturgy] concerns the God-revealed way of worshiping Him.

[There is a Newchurch with its own new (Novus Ordo) morality (or religion). The Newchurch (or New World Order) has its own new (Novus Ordo) liturgy for its new morality. "Tongue in cheek," I pretend to speak as one of the perverted American bishops of the Newchurch. Pretending to be a Newchurch American bishop, I defend and explain our behavior. The last article exposed the perversion of American bishops. This article probes more deeply into this problem.]

How did we get to the present chaos? If I were a Newchurch American bishop, I might say:

In modern society, fundamentals of Catholic sexual morality were being successfully challenged. From seminary teaching, we knew we couldn't impose "doubtfully binding morality" on others. So we acquired a liberal; or, at least, a Rogerian mentality.

Hugh Hefner (who fostered sex as a sport) and later, Norman Lear (with his situation comedies) made us realize that, out of love of our neighbor, we must revise Catholic sex morals and invent a new morality. Otherwise, we would displease our flocks. We would be ostracized from them. We ourselves would become marginalized.

Then came "the pill." For three agonizing years before the final issuance of Humanae Vitae (Pope Paul VI, 1966) our priests had to hear confessions. For three years, Rome indicated that use of the pill might be moral. What were we to do?

We, informed and classically educated bishops and experts, could not bind in doubtfully binding areas. During this time, indications from Rome considered this area doubtfully binding. All we could do, out of love for our flock, is to tell priests that the issue is not clearly binding (since, doubtfully binding) and to advise penitents to decide according to the contexts of their various situations.

To those Catholics who were not comfortable using the pill, but who had embraced the contraceptive mind-set, we urged them to consult their physician. Under the spell of New Morality, doctors often allegedly discovered many diseased wombs which required "Catholic hysterectomies."

Regarding crucial areas of controverted morals (concerning such topics as marriage, contraceptive use, etc.) we blocked out any higher moral input. For example, concerning contraceptives, we refused to ask, "Does the pill murder the baby?"

Classical Catholic morality, which held that the secondary purpose of marriage (companionship and marital peace) can never take precedence over or supercede the primary purpose of procreation and raising saints, was rejected.

Systematically, we blocked out higher moral input, since we were confused enough on lower levels. Again, out of love of other humans; and, convinced that confusion justified indecision, we didn't decide. Each was allowed to formulate his own sexual morality as long as he thought of it as love.

A flood of books implemented our New Morality. These didn't teach "situational ethics" since such ethics were explicitly condemned by Rome. Therefore, "contextual ethics was used as individually determined morality." Out of love of man, we rejected God and His Revealed Will.

Those who were informed knew this. A few old school Catholics opposed us. We ridiculed them. After all, the Pope was on our side. The Pope seemed to agree with us. He devised a "theology of the body" which we used to support our New Morality. For example, recently, one of our bishops wrote the following to his priests:

From the very beginning of his pontificate, our Holy Father Pope John Paul II, has talked extensively about what has come to be known as "the theology of the body." During several of his early audiences in the late 1970's, he talked extensively about what he called "nuptial love" which is inscribed in our sexuality as "the fundamental element of human existence in the world." He mentioned that living according to this call of "nuptial love" is the only way we can fulfill the very meaning of our being and existence in this world. By this letter I would like to invite you to ...[hear a lecture on] Living and Preaching the Theology of the Body...

We allowed scholarly publications and instructional directives which implemented New Morality. Typically, we sponsored priests who contended that "at the moment of intercourse, grace is poured out on the couple." We pushed programs such as RENEW which implemented indoctrination into New Morality. A crucial RENEW passage reduced the First Commandment to the Second (thereby eliminating the First). The cult of man became our driving force. This was confirmed by Pope John Paul II's remark that we, more than others, have the cult of man.

Likewise, we devised RCIA programs "without meat." This assured our break with outdated Catholic Morals. "Feely-touchy love" replaced facts. To implement New Morality, we employed the apt vehicle of classroom discussions and adult discussion groups. We refused to teach a definite body of morals. We wanted to keep all definite Catholic sex morals out of the bedroom (in spite of the fact that we get accused of having done the opposite). As we taught and implemented New Morality, we became more popular.

Also, we altered the Bible to conform to our New Morality. For example, no longer would the Bible read "Let the marriage bed be undefiled." We changed it to the indicative mood: "The marriage bed is undefiled." For us, sex is sacramental and not evilmental. It need not be redeemed and it need not be feared. It is good: "Nuptial love is the fundamental essence of human existence."

When and where possible, we implemented Sex Ed, which a few said was condemned by Rome, but we are "the living apostles" and we can (by grace of the state of being "inheritors of the Apostles") decide what to do or not do. Indeed, we the bishops, are "living apostolic tradition."

As "living apostles," we felt free to develop and impose "Sex Ed" in place of outdated Catholic morals. Our Sex Ed destroyed the old fashioned and stifling ignorance of sex, which plagued the past. Knowledge freed our children. Now, they would know how to sex and to sex "well." Thereby, they would become better persons than their parents were.

A few objected. Some even pointed out that sex instruction was the right and duty of parents, not of the establishment church-but, we are "living apostles." Others objected that this is the methodology of pedophiles (to desensitize their victims by "exposing them to sexual material"). We, "living apostles," considered such objections to be ridiculous. Eventually, we told the "objectors" to leave (in order to maintain peace in our schools and parishes).

We have labored much to accommodate ourselves and our flocks to the "morals" of these changing times. We granted wholesale and no-fault divorces, which we still label as "annulments." Periodically, the Pope objected in a formal (pro forma) and ineffective manner, a manner which we imitated in all areas, especially, in our own "stand against abortion."

Although we could excommunicate legislators, doctors, "mothers" and direct accomplices for abortion, we "mouthed our opposition" and failed "to put our money where our mouth was." Why? - Out of love and understanding of fellow humans; out of fear of falling out of favor with the state; out of fear of losing many many "Catholics," etc. We worship man, not God.

We control the Catholic press. Every notable "Catholic-appearing" publication refuses to clearly oppose New Morality [where morals is defined as concerning our behavior-our behavior towards humans (ourselves and others) and our behavior towards God (especially, in Divine Liturgy)].

It is our hope that the people will understand our position and come to love us more. We have loved them. We ask that they love us in return. With the Pope, we are "servants of humanity." Don't punish us for being such! We are a success! We will not resign! Newchurch brings us closer to perceiving, acknowledging and properly responding to Newchurch problems.

Headaches may be a symptom of a "disease." Headaches are not the cause of the disease. One can't cure pneumonia by treating one of its accompanying symptoms (headaches) as if it were the disease. Similarly, one can't cure the Church's contemporary "moral" problems unless one discovers their cause-namely, New Morality (especially, the creation and imposition of simulated sacrilegious mass-like liturgies). I am led to harshly criticize Newchurch's "liturgy." Read my books for conclusive reasons why I am led to do so.

The next article in this series will focus on the essence of Newchurch's problem: its rejecting the Christ-given and Church-canonized Latin Rite Liturgy, the very heart of Catholicism.

For more information on this subject, read:

Keep the Faith
Faith, Hope & Charity
Gestating into Heaven
Matrimony the Sacrament

Call 1-888-577-4428 to place your order or e-mail us at orders@maeta.com




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

EPISCOPAL PERVERTS

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © 2002 MAETA

"According to a USA Today/Gallup poll, 75% of Catholics claim the U.S. bishops have done a ‘bad job’ in dealing with abusive priests...

87% of Catholics say the Holy Father should remove any cardinal or bishop who knew a priest had been sexually abusing young people...and moved him...rather than report him to the police."

The Wanderer, "Avoids Problems and Offers Questionable Solutions," Paul Likoudis, June 13, 2002

"Clergy Abuse: Cases Few, Response Significant" proclaimed the National Catholic Register from its front page (4/14/02). I agree with the first phrase; however, the episcopal response has been significant only in the sense that it proves our bishops are homosexuals or, at least, pro-homosexual.

Over-reacting to homophobia, and lacking proper convictions regarding the moral dimension of homosexual behavior, the U.S. bishops protected, and even favored, homosexual priests (and fellow bishops).

"Two-thirds of U.S. Bishops Protected Pederast Priests" screams out the lead article in The Wanderer (6/20/02). These bishops are such dedicated perverts that they violate Natural Law, Church Law and civil law to protect, promote and impose the pro-homosexual agenda.

The magazine Newsweek says: "On one of the very few studies based on reliable data—1,500 interviews between 1960 and 1985—psychologist Richard Sipe of Maryland, a former priest, concludes that close to 20% of the 57,000 Catholic priests in the United States are homosexual and half of them are sexually active. According to Sipe, the number of homosexual priests has significantly increased since 1978; other therapists believe the real number today [1987] may be around 40%."  In the Murky Waters of Vatican Two, Atila Guimaraes, Vol. 1 Appendix I

Many bishops are pro-homosexual. We've had the proof for decades beginning with The Homosexual Network by Fr. Rueda and climaxing with Good-bye Good Men by Michael Rose.

Buck Stops with the Bishops

The buck stops at the bishops' desks. They govern American dioceses "for better or for worse." As we've seen, the evidence is indisputable. Unlike the Boy Scouts' governing body (at least, up to the present) many American bishops admitted and promoted, as well as, aided and abetted homosexuals and their criminal behavior (such as engaging in "sex with minors").

Are we claiming that the bishops are "perverts?" What is a pervert?

DEFINITION: pervert: v.t. To turn from truth, propriety, or from its proper purpose; to distort from its true use or end; to misinterpret willfully; to turn from the right; to corrupt. pervert: n. an apostate; a degenerate; one who is sexually perverted.  The New Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language, Consolidated Book Publishers, Chicago, 1980 edition, p. 620

The "Against" Law

The bishops are perverts. They have turned form or distorted sensible church Law, as well as, "common sense" Natural Law. Even as late as 1961, the existential church reiterated Natural Law and Church Law on banning homosexuals from becoming religious or priests:

Those to be Excluded; Practical Directives

1. A candidate who shows himself certainly unable to observe religious and priestly chastity, either because of frequent sins against chastity or because of a sexual bent of mind or excessive weakness of will, is not to be admitted to the minor seminary and, much less, to the novitiate or to profession. If he has already been accepted but is not yet perpetually professed, then he should be sent away immediately or advised to withdraw, according to individual cases, no matter what point in his formation he has already reached. Should he be perpetually professed, he is to be barred absolutely and permanently from tonsure and the reception of any Order, especially Sacred Orders. If circumstances should so demand, he shall be dismissed from the community, with due observance of the prescriptions of Canon Law.  Catholic Family News, THE POPES SPEAK, "The Required Chastity," July 2002, Vol. 9 No. 7, p.2

From the U. S. News & World Report, we quote:

"The Rev. Donald Senior, president of Catholic Theological Union, a seminary in Chicago, says he has found that 'anger at the bishops far outrides the anger at the perpetrators.' For a bishop to 'knowingly reassign an abusive priest, putting children in harm's way, is a grave error and perhaps criminal conduct,' says Senior. 'I don't see how someone like that can continue to hold office,' he says."  U.S. News & World Report, June 17, 2002

Episcopal Debacle

On June 14, 2002, the American bishops issued their "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People" which barred "caught homosexual" deacons or priests from ministry. "Bad priests!" they exclaimed. "Bad bishops!" the people responded.

Apparently, american bishops perceive themselves as being crozier carrying, "uncriticizable gods." They perceive themselves as being immune from effective accountability. These episcopal gods lashed out at their underlings, like unto many officials who have been caught red-handed. "Those bad priests. We'll punish them!":

Even The Wanderer took notice of the episcopal perversion which turns them away from normalcy to favoring and protecting homosexuality and its culture:

"It was not encouraging that in Dallas an amendment to the charter proposed by Bishop Bruskewitz was defeated. That would have allowed (not even mandated) a study of the effect of dissent and the homosexual culture on the present crisis."  The Wanderer, "Bishops Need More Than Good Intentions," 6/26/02, p. 8

In effect, Paul Likoudis confirmed that many bishops are pro-homosexual:

DALLAS -- "The U.S. bishops' refusal to allow the subject of homosexuals in the priesthood and the episcopacy, seminaries and religious orders, to be openly discussed during their June 13-15 meeting on pedophilia, shows how deeply they are committed to modern, atheist-inspired psychological theories and therapies that do not classify homosexuality as a mental illness or moral failure and, indeed, helped create the modern 'culture of abuse' in which the Church is but one player."  The Wanderer, "Bishops Fail to Name the Source of Troubles," Paul Likoudis, 6/27/02

Conclusion

Now that we've identified one incontestable problem, we can begin to search for "the source of this and other problems. In the next article, I will show that the ultimate problem arises from Pope/Rome's misdirection or failure to properly believe, teach, direct and govern; and, the "bad bishops" taking advantage of such a dire situation.

Of course, one always encounters the "whether right or wrong, Pope/Rome is always right" attitude of the blindly loyal few. I refuse to embrace the attitude of the "blind or blinded" loyalist who demands that Pope/Rome be immune from criticism.

The book - IN THE MURKY WATERS OF VATICAN TWO, by Atila Guimaraes, is available in limited quantity for $16, postage included.

Other MAETA materials useful in understanding current problems in the Church include:

Canonized Mass History & Law
i>Novus Ordo Condemned
Keep The Faith
One Holy Catholic Apostolic
The Abbot & Me On Liturgy

Call 1-888-577-4428 to place your order or e-mail us at orders@maeta.com




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

PRO BONO PUBLICO
"MEA CULPA"

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © 2002 MAETA

"From this day forward no one known to have sexually abused a child will work in the Catholic Church in the United States."Bishop Wilton Gregory, U. S. Catholic Conference of Catholic Bishops



"Priests guilty of abuse barred from ministry" screamed the headline (The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, LA, p. 1, June 15, 2002) after the recent meeting in Dallas of the bishops of the American Catholic Church. The fine print gave the gist of it: "...Bishops voted overwhelmingly (239–13)...to permanently remove any priest or deacon guilty of sexually abusing a child." Aside from an apology for "anyone harmed by one of our priests" and "our tragically slow response in recognizing the horror of sexual abuse" not much was stated about the bishops’ role in the causation and prolongation of the problems within the American Church. In fact, so little was said that the Catholic Action League criticized the policy for not addressing the accountability of bishops:

"While the bishops dealt firmly with molesting priests, they did virtually nothing about those bishops who enabled offending priests...unless some resignations are forthcoming, lay Catholics will not be satisfied."
Catholic Action League, "Priests still put ahead of victims, critics say," The Times-Picayune, p. 5, June 15, 2002

Concern was expressed by the victims’ groups that the policy enacted lacks penalties for bishops, especially in view of their poor track record. Without addressing bishop accountability, the policy is effectively rendered toothless. The following was stated regarding the outcome of the Dallas reforms:

"Our goal is to keep children safe. The way you do that is to prosecute and incarcerate molesters."David Clohessy, Director, Survivors Network Abused by Priests, Ibid.

"We have a wonderful place in society for these people who are proven guilty. It’s called jail."Michael Emerton, member, Voice of the Faithful, a lay reform group

The Dallas resolutions had a certain "deja vu" about it. We’ve been here before. Once again tua culpa has managed to supplant mea culpa. That’s not surprising in light of the fact that Newchurch services have eliminated mea culpa. As we pray, so do we live. Meaningful mea culpas are missing from the Dallas resolutions. Instead tua culpa has been embraced, promulgated and will soon be implemented.

"Deja vu." We all remember the tua culpas hurled by the Pope at the Church of the Crusades, the Latin Mass Church; the "Inquisition Church;" the evangelizing Church; etc.–at past Church. What about uttering mea culpa for his own establishment church? Of course, such a mea culpa (as all sincere mea culpas) ultimately would have led to penance and restitution. Would not liturgical restitution entail restoring the Canonized Mass Liturgy (the eternally binding Mass prayers within the Liturgy of the Eucharist" as defined by the Council of Trent and Quo Primum)?
 

Analogy

Suppose that a "perfect press blackout" were enforced and the people did not know that a General of the military had "ordered or allowed or overlooked" the rape and pillage of foreign cities by certain of his soldiers. Then, the "blackout" fell apart. The General was on the "hot seat" as head of these armed forces.
 

Would an official investigation rest content with his setting up future policies to avoid similar evils? Would the General in command not be accused of malfeasance in office? Could the people rest with his claim to be immune from his men’s mistakes, since he was "the General?" Would the people be content with imposing zero tolerance of "aberrant soldiers" in the future, with no punishment of the General himself in the present?

Peace Through Justice

You begin to see the picture. Should bishops (who are known for preaching "peace through justice") not be held accountable to practice what they preach? Should those bishops who purposely harbored and abetted known "sex criminals" in the past, not turn themselves in for their crimes? Should they not be prosecuted for these civil crimes? Are they above civil law?
 

Let’s take a cue from God’s Word as to how God would want us to resolve the present scandal. Consider the following:

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God; and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same.

For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake."

Rm. 13:1-5

God’s Word demands our subjection to properly functioning legitimate civil authority. Catholics are to obey such authority. Period. Good people need not fear properly functioning civil authorities. Only evil people fear, reject and avoid such authority (Rm 12:3) lest they come to experience the execution of God’s wrath upon them (Rm 13:4). Why did God give us this Scripture passage? He did so pro bono publico,  or, in other words, so that society may dwell in "peace through justice."

Awaiting Resolution

A basic common sense and Catholicism-approved principle is that to "improve man’s lot" or to achieve the common good, evildoers must be punished. At present, this principle is being applied in the Enron case. Legal prosecutions in this case most likely will be for the betterment of the business sector. Through a just civil resolution, trust will be restored and increased regarding businessmen and business transactions. The public good will be served. Likewise, the image of the bishops and the church will be repaired and improved if (as applicable) episcopal civil criminals are removed and brought to penal justice. It’s that simple. Offending bishops, confess your crimes to proper civil authority. Let them decide your fate.
 

Pro bono episcoporum, the "non-criminal bishop majority " should not let the civil issue be "smoke-screened" by double-talk on behalf of the few episcopal criminals. Let the non-criminal bishops prosper by the exposure and civil prosecution of evil bishops (if the state so decides). It’s hypocritical for bishops to resolutely resolve to apply the civil law to their "priest-pawns" while failing to apply the civil law with the same enthusiasm and resolution to all members of the episcopal privileged class who committed what could be considered "RICO-style crimes."

Opening the Closet Door

At this point, the bishops are tempted to utter a bishops’ "but." "But we’re under church law!" But, you’re gross criminals in the eyes of church laws from Rome:

"Those affected by the perverse inclination to homosexuality or pederasty should be excluded from religious vows and ordination."Canon Law Digest, Vol. V, 1963, pp. 452-486

Evil bishops have gone beyond violating the letter and spirit of this law and have even sided and abetted homosexuals who broke the civil law regarding their sexual conduct with legally defined minors. Various reports and studies indicate that there is a "homosexual ecclesial network." Many or most pertinent civil suits involve "post-puberty" minors; and, therefore, homosexual behavior. Politically or "public image-wise," this area is confusing and delicate. Commonsense-wise, this area is crystal clear (as was shown by the Boy Scouts’ courageous action under pressure).
 

Indeed, the Church has spoken. American bishops violated these "good laws" by distinguishing them out of existence. "We can’t condemn this orientation" they contended (and still contend). However, Rome has spoken–the orientation is incompatible with religious or ordained life.
 

De facto, just about any older priest (who was admitted to seminary before 1970) could vouch for the fact that homosexuals were excluded. No exceptions! Also, many priests can assure us that after the revolting sixties, blatantly homosexual priests were episcopally protected and even "privileged and promoted."
 

Apparently, those who refuse obedience to God’s Natural Law have no respect for ecclesial law nor for the civil law. Obviously, where ecclesial law has broken down "across the board," then civil law becomes our refuge and civil authorities must exercise their authority. Why? Pro bono publico. Catholics should demand that evil bishops turn themselves in to civil authorities or else, civil authorities should arrest them (where the civil law has been broken). Pro bono publico! Pro bono ecclessiae!

Just, Peaceful and Edifying Resolution

Pro bono publico: we the people of the United States in order to have ecclesial and social peace, and prosperity through justice, demand that each bishop guilty of aiding and abetting a known criminal in the past, turn himself in to the appropriate authority and throw himself on the mercy of the civil court. Any "guilty bishop" who has experienced repentance will likewise turn himself in, convinced that, by doing so, in God’s providence, he may prick or awaken the consciences of his fellow men.
 

Such bishops will prove their sincerity by standing up for what’s right courageously and at great personal loss of prestige, office and freedom. If jail terms are handed out, they should be embraced by the guilty bishops. Imagine what an example of dedication to truth this would be. Undoubtedly, it would be the "best sermon" ever preached by these bishops. Will not such episcopal humility (to confess and turn one’s episcopal self in to civil authority for punishment) start a movement towards ecclesial and social reform?
 

Offending bishops, Catholics demand that you confess your crimes and/or sins before God and man.. Catholics (according to one statistic–87%) demand this! God demands this! Pro bono publico! Offending bishops, say and mean, Mea culpa! Offending bishops, turn yourselves in to civil authorities for assessment of your legal culpability.
 

[Why not send this to others? e.g. your local bishop or priest. Reprints available $2 each + 50 cents postage]




Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.

PEDOPHILIA AND THE NOVUS ORDO (NEW ORDER LITURGY)

by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.         © 2002 MAETA

Lex orandi, lex credendi. Lex credendi, lex vivendi.
One believes as one prays. One behaves as one believes.

The fruit of the i>Novus Ordo and its new age mindset have recently come to light in the media’s frenzied attack on "priestly pedophilia." One might ask, "What is the nature of the tree, which "naturally produces" such fruit? Let us evaluate this tree to find the answer.

To do so, I quote pertinent excerpts or thoughts from the mouths of i>Novus Ordo seminarians as presented on two separate television programs. Even establishment-controlled propaganda (or the Church’s defense" shows up basic problems (and I mean basic). Ultimately, the basic problem is Newchurch and its religion.

One typical seminarian said: "We are all part of community...we are family [as in the YMCA song]." This is a major Newchurch belief. "But," interrupted another reluctantly, "we shouldn’t protect our own [members of community] at the expense of others...everyone is essential [to community].... A third squeezed in: "We need to protect the weakest ones [in community]...."

All agreed that not being community makes for aberrant (pedophilic) behavior. In effect, they held that groupies don’t fall. Only loners fall. In fact, if a groupie seems to stray, go talk to him. "Re-group" him. "I’d talk to him about it, [once I had sure evidence of pedophilic behavior)...I’d try to find out his view...what’s going on?" said one seminarian.

Then, a ray of light! The ABC announcer summed up, saying in effect that "groupie-ism is their problem." A seminarian retorted "It [our approach] is difficult, but must be done!" Thus, he confirmed for himself and the establishment, a closed mind.

The other program aired on a major network pursued a similar direction to the first with remarks from seminarians such as: "One has to make friends...each needs to embrace his sexuality." Then Bishop Walsh was interviewed. In effect, he held that such problem priests (evil behaving and/or criminally behaving pedophiles) could be cured but that he never used "strong arm tactics." He assured the announcer that he always gave such "thus-accused" priests a fair hearing before sending them off for psychiatric treatment, which is often Rogerian.


Let’s open the wound which presently inflicts Newchurch. Let’s go beyond the surface. What are the basic problems within the i>Novus Ordo Church?

1) Obviously, they’re obsessed with community: "We are family!" Therefore, they condone evil, contending that they love sinners and hate sins; they are lenient and don’t condemn the individual sinner. Rarely, if at all, do they condemn the sin. In fact, to postulate "community" as "the given" or to be community-fixated, as in Newchurch, is to eliminate God and a true notion of sin and Hell.

2) The ABC announcer went to the heart of the problem as he implied that groupie-mentality is the problem.

3) Karolian (as in Karol Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II) phenomenologic philosophy, is the deeper problem. In practice, this philosophy "trickles down" and is often encountered in the catechetical logon: "You are a sexed being. Be proud of being such!" One sees this in sex ed courses within Newchurch schools. One also sees this in the reluctance of the clergy to label immoral sexual behavior as seriously sinful. It is interesting to note that, not only has the Sacred Liturgy been replaced by a new and alien liturgy, but also, the "old" religion has been replaced by sex ed (formerly forbidden), which is taught in "religion class."


Now, for the obvious cures:

- Reject Newchurch religion. However, embracing sectarian traditionalism is likewise evil. The cure, then, is to know, believe and love the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy and its religion. Then, (as regards the clergy) govern in its light: (in the light of its emphasis on sin, God, sacrifice, Hell, etc.)

- More particularly, notice what’s absent from Newchurch seminarians’ thinking: God, sin, Hell and the individual. Re-instate these to "front and center." How? Restore the Canonized Latin Mass to its proper position (as the only Mass permitted in the Latin Rite). Renounce and condemn the present obsession with community and the innate goodness of humans (as they would say). Be obsessed with God, preservation from sin and Hell and the like.

- Sex is evilmental! Sex is not, ipso facto, virtuous. Therefore, eliminate sex ed in schools. Instead, when appropriate, give sex morals. The "Boys have...girls have..." approach has led children to be comfortable with "talking about and doing sexual things" (before and outside of their proper time and proper place).

- Modesty is a virtue, not a vice. Parents, priests and teachers should strive to preserve modesty in youth. Resolve to keep children "innocent" as long as possible. Keep the genie in the bottle. Don’t let it out before its God-appointed time. If you do, you are already a "spiritual pedophile." Most adults have enough problems dealing with their own "sex genies." Why give such problems to mere children?

- Recognize sin as the greatest temporal evil. Why didn’t even one seminarian say "sin?" Being victims of the Newchurch religion, they perceived being a loner or an individual as the great evil (whatever evil would be for them).


How then, does Newchurch define evil? Evil is whatever presently upsets people (or other communities). God and His Revealed Will (especially, as regards how to worship Him) are irrelevant or of little importance within Newchurch. This type of thinking is exemplified and fortified by Newchurch’s i>Novus Ordo definition of liturgy as "humans’ way of praise" instead of "the God-given way to praise God!" Lex orandi...lex vivendi.

- Eliminate such new age thinking! Convert: radically change mindsets! Convert! Make "God, sin, Hell and the like, the words seminarians would naturally mention" instead of continually restating their belief in Karolian personalism and the Babelian community (Gen 11).

- Cultivate individuals (as in the classical saints). An individual is loyal to God, not to the group or community. An individual is not divisible from his allegiance to God. An individual is a "God oriented person." An individual’s morals come from God’s Revelations. They do not arise from the karolian "oh so precious" human person. Such Karolianism ultimately holds that "as one thinks morals to be, so morals are."


Catholicism believes the opposite. Catholicism believes in a set of unchangeable morals, (especially, a strictly unchangeable Latin Mass Liturgy for those of the Latin Rite). The choice is ours: Newchurch New Order Liturgy and Religion or God’s Revealed Canonized Liturgy and Morals (which emphasize God, sin, Hell and the like).

Do bishops perceive the underlying problem? Will they introduce the remedies outlined above? Of course not. Even after the avalanche of pedophile attacks on American priests and bishops, bishops cherish the sources of their problems, while resolving to more adamantly pursue solutions which aggravate the problem.

Does the problem originate beyond the bishops? Does it originate from the Pope? How would one get such an idea? Consider this recent communique of an American bishop to his priests:

From the very beginning of his pontificate, our Holy Father Pope John Paul II, has talked extensively about what has come to be known as "the theology of the body." During several of his early audiences in the late 1970's he talked extensively about what he called "nuptial love" which is inscribed in our sexuality as "the fundamental element of human existence in the world." He mentioned that living according to this call of "nuptial love" is the only way we can fulfill the very meaning of our being and existence in this world. By this letter I would like to invite you to...[hear a lecture on] Living and Preaching the Theology of the Body....

What does this Pope effectively teach? How is his ambiguity to be understood? Or, rather, how can it be understood by naturally sinful bishops and priests?

Following this line of thought, would not one be led or tempted to alter this papal ideal of love to one’s own peculiar circumstances of life? Is sexual contact (which most would concede is part of nuptial love) necessary? Is sexual love the fundamental element of human existence in the world?

We have grown so accustomed to vague, ambiguous and misleading teaching that we have forgotten how Catholic Popes have spoken. In today’s world, one must be as clever as a serpent, yet meekly pray that God will grace us with "properly pope-ing popes and properly bishop-ing bishops" who teach and enforce Apostolic teachings (as in "one, holy, catholic and apostolic). "What" Christ, the Apostles and the Church taught and continue to teach must be upheld in Apostolic Tradition and governance by the Pope, bishops and priests, most especially, the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy and morals (or religion).

Are these confusing times? You bet. Under the "old" Mass and religion, there was some corruption, but the Mass and religion did not initiate nor foster, the corruption. Sin, not virtue, is inherent in human existence. Christ’s divine legacy of the Canonized Latin Mass inspires, strengthens and graces us to save our souls and seek God. In conclusion, pray that God will grace us with good governance and a return to the sanity of the Canonized Holy Latin Mass and its implied, attested to and promulgated religion. Lex orandi, lex credendi. Lex credendi, lex vivendi.



To help individuals to see the i>Novus Ordo mindset and to remedy it in a positive way, I recommend the following publications from MAETA:

Canonized Mass History and Law

Mass Meditations

The Abbot & Me on Liturgy

The Mass That Made Padre Pio

Holy Mary Holy Mass

Faith Hope Charity

Gestating Into Heaven

Keep the Faith

Worshiping God in These End Times



On the evils of the Newchurch New Order Liturgy and Religion, I recommend:

New Mass in Light of the Old

New Age New Mass

Novus Ordo Condemned?

Sacraments Sacrileged

The Indult Mass



MAETA, © 1995, All rights reserved
Post Office Box 6012, Metairie, LA 70009-6012, USA
Telephone Orders: 888-577-4428
Office Phone: 504-833-4428 / Fax: 504-833-5272
orders@maeta.com