What the Pope Would Have Said
Is This Pope Christian? Is This Pope Catholic?
Why an "Indult" for Catholic Mass?
"Rip, Wake Up"
A New Mass – A New Church
Newchurch Cannot Ecumenate with Christians
The New Ecumenical Council
Newchurch's ("777") Victory
The Key to Understanding Newchurch Papal Talk
The Bottom Line on Summorum Pontificum ("777")
Newchurch's IHOL (International House of Liturgies)Dramatically Expands Its Offerings
To view articles previously featured in our "In the News" section, check our
Archives
section.
2004 Press Release - "NEW MASS" Is Conclusively Invalid According To New Book
Before reading this, keep in mind that as regards "observations" the author is a logical positivist. Meaning, for example, if a feathered animal quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and behaves like a duck—we apply our "duck model" to that animal.
A model is a working hypothesis. It works until it breaks down--that is, until the hypothesis is not verified (in some essential note or component, or in some verifiable "modular" conclusion). As a positivist, I do not claim to know the Truth. I observe. I postulate. I use models. I predict ("K," "L," "M"… etc.) so as to either verify or negate (disprove) the model or hypothesis.
St. Paul was speaking as a positivist when he said he didn’t know whether or not he was "in his body or not" (2 Corinthians 12:2-3) when having a certain spiritual experience. Did St. Paul deny having a body? No! He made a scientific statement. He was speaking as a scientist—as a positivist.
Likewise, do I deny Joe Ratzinger is a priest or the pope? Not necessarily! I am speaking scientifically or observationally. The model "pope" or patriarch, as defined by Christ, Apostolic Tradition and the sensus praxis fidelium, is employed to predict "K," "L," "M"… etc. These predictions either are verifiable ("hold" or prove to be true) or they are not.
If a predicted result ("K," "L," "M"…etc) is not verified, then either my model is "false" (defective), or, the thing not verified cannot be verified because it is not what it claims to be. In such a case, the predicted result cannot be verified because it is not a "member" of the "set" of elements necessitated as "true" according to the model; it doesn’t "fit." Accordingly, for example, a "real" or "proper" pope is what he would be expected to be, based on a correct model (understanding or definition) of what constitutes a pope.
Some say this doesn’t apply to "pope" since as Vicar of Christ on earth, a pope is Christ among us (the assumption being that Christ cannot be bound by a model.) Let’s define terms.
What is a vicar? A vicar is analogous to a babysitter. A babysitter is a vicar of parents or guardians, appointed to take his/her/their place. A babysitter is not the actual parent or guardian.
A pope (or patriarch) who claims to be a "Vicar of Christ" is not Christ on earth. Pope Benedict XVI is a vicar of Christ. He is not Christ. The criteria for defining "pope" therefore apply; unlike Christ, the pope does not transcend modular boundaries.
Quae cum ita sunt, which things being considered as optimally true, we now proceed to our topic "what the pope would have said." I’ll present material for your consideration. You conclude as you will—as God demands or as God doesn’t demand. Maybe, you’ll conclude, "He can’t be the pope because…" in the same way as in our example we conclude: "It can’t be a duck because…"
Maybe, you’ll conclude, "He certainly failed to act as a pope would have acted."
Maybe, you’ll conclude, "If he is the pope, he shouldn’t be the pope." Maybe, you’ll conclude, "He’s one of the worst popes ever. [In effect, "He’s a Newchurch pope."]
Then again, maybe you’ll conclude "Fr. Trinchard is nuts."
Let’s get to our topic, lest I give you good reason to conclude that I am nuts (or, to be politically correct, "mentally challenged.")
We limit our "papal considerations" to two "open-ended" but constitutively necessary characteristics—he is to be and act as an authentic Holy Ordered priest (perhaps, the last Holy Ordered priest-patriarch of the Latin Rite); and, he is to be and act as a Great Prophet ("prophet" as defined by Paul Tillich).
Great Priest-Prophet?
According to the "spirit of Paul Tillich," an Orthodox Catholic Priest is to preserve intact, faithfully apply and hand on intact Christ-given Apostolic (not necessarily episcopal) Tradition, that is, the Deposit of Faith. According to Paul Tillich, a prophet is there to "highlight" or correct priestly abuses or failings.
What is the greatest priestly abuse and failing? The greatest abuse and failure has been the failure to pass on intact and unchanged the sacred traditions of Holy Orders and Divine Liturgy. We in the West no longer have authentic Holy Orders; as time progresses, we have fewer and fewer authentic priests. We in the Latin Rite Patriarchate no longer have authentic Divine Liturgy. This being the case, we must ask: How can we have Christ among us?
Christ, "the mystical/sacramental Way, Truth and Life," has departed—been evicted-- from "our" church buildings. ICHABOD! Instead, "our" buildings house the Abominable Desolation—the Grossly Unholy priesthood and Grossly Unholy liturgies in place of the Most Holy (or true) priesthood and Divine Liturgy. Pope Benedict XVI has not addressed this major fundamental problem.
A true priest is a genuinely Holy Ordered priest. Any competent Holy Ordered priest as well as any overseer of priests knows this. Does "Fr. Joe" have (as he should) a fiducial awareness or conviction that he, having been ordained before 1969, is an authentic Holy Ordered Christ-priest? Does he have awareness of true Divine Liturgy, which defines his Holy Ordered identity? Does he understand his duty (so well described by Paul Tillich)? If he does, why has he not prophetically addressed this greatest problem of the apostate Newchurch in his speeches or writings? In failing to do so, he has failed as both priest and prophet. He has not acted as one would predict a priest, let alone a pope, would act.
Think about these things and conclude as you must. Is what Pope Benedict has said (or not said) consistent with "what the pope would have said?" Is it consistent with what one would predict or expect from a pope? Is the liturgy he used in the United States Christ-instituted? Or, is it Bugnini-instituted?
Pope Benedict XVI made an April visit to the U.S.A. (2008). During this visit, he said three public "Masses" and he gave a speech at the United Nations (U.N.). On these occasions, did he speak as a good Christian? A Christian as defined by me is one who creates, and relates to, his own "likeable" image of Jesus, as opposed to a Catholic, who perceives and strives to relate properly to the Real Jesus.
U.N. Speech
Many members of the assembly were anticipating a pope in the image of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. Pope Paul VI "kowtowed" in reverence to this "august body of atheists, pagans, apostates and a few true followers of Christ." He put his Church (no longer Christ’s Church) at the service of the U.N. (that is, at the service of man, who is cuddled in the lap of the Wicked One—1 John 5:19). Pope John Paul II, with his "in Christ all are saved," joined and reinforced his predecessor’s "cult of Man." Was Pope Benedict XVI going to be another like-minded Newchurch pope?
No! In effect, he gave a Christian witness (in a Protestant fashion). He made two particularly noteworthy points. First, in contradiction to prevailing thought, he said that man is not made for the environment or for nature (as opposed, for example, to the reverence for cows, monkeys and even ants that is expressed in Hinduism). Rather, he said that nature or the environment exists for man, to presently use and prudently preserve for future generations.
Secondly, this Newchurch pope underlined natural (God-implanted) law as the basis for governing ourselves and others. In particular, he pointed out that natural law demands respect for the inviolable rights of humans from conception until natural death. [Should we Americans not apply these thoughts to our own internal political decisions in this election year?]
A Christian pope?
Again, I remind the reader that I use the word "Christian" as it is popularly employed in Western Civilization. A Christian is "one who admires and tries to imitate or follow Christ and Christian values"—as he or she understands such, of course.
According to my definition of Christian, a Christian is not an Orthodox Catholic. Minimally or nominally, being a Christian according to my definition assures one of going to eternal Hell. "No one who merely says ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter Heaven, but only those who do the will of God…" (Matthew 12:50).
Today, allegiance to Jesus has been so corrupted that one who gives allegiance to any of the "Jesuses" out there most likely does not follow or even know the real Jesus—Jesus, Who is with us (in Holy Sacrifice and Holy Sacrament) all days even to the end of the world (Matthew 28: 20), Jesus, who demands one receive valid and true Holy Eucharist or go to eternal Hell (John 6). In fact, following the average (misconceived idea of) Jesus is a ticket to Hell.
We sense with this new pope a radical shift in "defining" Jesus. Does he follow the real Jesus? His Jesus does not save all (as did the Jesus of Pope John Paul II). Pope Benedict XVI’s Church does not worship and serve Man in the name of Jesus (as Pope Paul VI's did). That’s a step up? Most certainly it is, if it is a papal church. Most certainly it is, if it is an episcopal church (as represented by the head bishop and spokesman, the Bishop of Rome).
However, the real Church, that is, the pre-Vatican II, is Christ’s. It used to be operationally or observably Christ’s Church—not man’s church, not the pope’s, not the bishops.’ Man’s church is that church within which one’s memory of Christ, one’s "distorted and carefully chosen" memory of a "fabricated" Christ, a false Christ (Matthew 24:24), reigns supreme. How can one tell the real Christ?
Christ is Holy Sacrifice, Holy Sacrament. At the conclusion of the readings in their mass-mocking services, Newchurchers proudly proclaim that this book containing the words that were proclaimed is “The Word of God.” No! Christ, salutarily active and alive among us, is the Word of God—so does the Orthodox Catholic Church know, believe, proclaim and insist.
This knowledge is foundational, an essential fact that defines the one and only Church of salvation and sanctification—the Church outside of which nulla solus!
A Catholic Pope?
Is this pope a Catholic pope? Obviously, to be a Catholic pope, he must be Catholic; furthermore, he must be a Catholic priest. Is he a Catholic? Is he a Catholic priest?
Before answering this question, it will help us to recall the remarks of an ex-professional wrestler who converted to Orthodox Catholicism. He was once asked, "Do you think you’re more Catholic than the pope (Pope John Paul II)?" He answered, "I certainly hope I am!"
Catholic
A Catholic is not a pope-idolator. Rather, a Catholic is an authentic and complete follower of the Real Christ—at least in orthodox beliefs. A principle truth believed by Catholics, the belief that actually defines "Catholic," is belief in Divine Liturgy, which is inseparable from knowledge of or belief in Holy Ordered priesthood and the truths that follow or are implied. For example, a Catholic believes in the sacrament of baptism, the real purpose of which is to allow one to pray Divine Liturgy now and eternally. Initially, baptism brings one to Divine Liturgy, so as to be in Divine Liturgy. When mortal sin severs one from Divine Liturgy, a repentant Catholic receives the sacrament of Penance, through which Christ brings him back, that is, back to Divine Liturgy.
In origin, the word catholic basically refers to a chair (as in ex cathedra). Who sits as head of Divine Liturgy? Christ. It is Christ who sits, as on "The Mercy Seat." Now is the time of Christ’s Mercy. At death, comes Christ the Judge. Being at Divine Liturgy is being present to or at the Holy of Holies, at the Mercy Seat of Christ.
Here we pray to be in the Divine Liturgy, in the Holy of Holies, in Christ Jesus, our Lord and Saviour, in Life and Love, in God Himself. This is what it means to be Catholic in its fullest sense.
Catholic Priest
A Holy Ordered Christ-priest acts or does Divine Liturgy ("says" a Canonized Divine Liturgy) ex officio in Personna Christi to bring Divine Liturgy into his here and now. To do so, he must employ the proper formula.
The proper (effective, efficacious) divine formula was the one instituted by Christ. It was taught and done by the apostles. It was canonized by the sensus et praxis fidelium of priests and people of all A.D. ages. And, it was recognized and unchangeably canonized by the Great Council of Trent, which rejected any formula, particularly an innovated formula, if it failed the test of the faithful.
Pope Benedict XVI, a real Holy Ordered priest (having been ordained before the sacrament of Holy Orders was corrupted in 1969), says a mock-mass. How can one who says or does the Most Abominable Sacrilege be a Catholic in spirit and in truth, validly ordained or not?
Most likely, the next "pope" (who will have been commissioned after 1969) will not be valid. Most likely, he will not be a Holy Ordered priest, as every pope must be. As such, he will be ipso facto an anti-pope.
We who are Orthodox Catholics must pray, work and act so as to restore to the Latin Rite Patriarchate the true Mass and the true priesthood (or in these "mean-times" we must "go east," that is, to the Eastern Rites where the sacraments have not been corrupted). Nothing is more important than to restore Christ’s Church.
Why? Divine Liturgy is Life and Love. Outside of Divine Liturgy is death and misery. Divine Liturgy is our salvation and sanctification. Outside of Divine Liturgy is eternal damnation. Extra Liturgia Divina, nulla salus!
The devil has always attempted, by means of the heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of the anti-Christ, who, before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar, as a punishment for the sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel, "And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice" (Daniel 8:12). - St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Dignity and Duties of the Priest, Benziger, 1889
If the word, "indult," means anything at all within Catholicism, there is absolutely no need for an indult to say the "Latin Mass." Either Pope St. Pius V meant what he said "infallibly and with the fullest authority of his office;" or "the whole Latin Rite Church" is a farce.
A Papal Indult?
In the light of Quo Primum, Pope John Paul II’s Ecclesia Dei "allowing the Latin Mass for those who feel attached to it," and Pope Benedict XVI’s "allowing priests" (without differentiating between Holy Ordered priests or presiders/facilitators) to say the "Latin Mass" is very interesting. Are we to praise Pope Benedict XVI for this, for returning the use of the Latin Mass, despite his allowing all the accompanying aberrations to remain?
Is he now a decent or a good Catholic? No Not until he liturgically believes and governs as popes/patriarchs of the Canonized Latin Mass Rite have believed and governed from Pentecost until the "Bishops’ Liturgical Revolt of the 1960s" can he merit to even be called the Patriarch of the Canonized Latin Mass Divine Liturgical Rite.
How can Pope Benedict XVI "generously condone to allow" (by indult) the few Latin (R.I.P. "those ordained before 1969") priests to do what they were "Holy Orders ordained" to do? It doesn’t make sense. Ah, but here’s the Q&A which makes sense of the whole present-day "indult-sham."
Who Are Indulted?
Newchurch, believes and so acts (in its "liturgical doings") that "all are priests." All celebrate liturgy. Each is entitled to find and do "his thing" in community-celebration. There are no more priests (since 1969). There are only episcopally commissioned "lay presiders over" or "lay facilitators of" the community’s celebration (still falsely called "priests who celebrate Mass").
Are these laity indulted to celebrate the "Latin Mass" or are the laity indulted to have part or all of their "celebration in Latin?" The latter would seem to be the case as judged from the previous papal indult (of Pope Paul VI).
According to the word, mind and heart of the previous "indult," the "immature or sick" are allowed under the prescription of their "bishop-doctor" to take "Latin Masses" until they can be cured of such and then come to fully believe in and do as Newchurchers believe and do. What, then, about this "Latin Mass" is being indulted?
Are Holy Orders ordained "priests" now allowed to openly say the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy? Or are lay-presiders/lay-facilitators now being allowed to use a Novus Ordo "Latin Mass" that is indulted?
Indulting Exposes the Heart of the Problem
No sensible Catholic theologian (of which there are few) would contend that "facilitators, presiders/collaborators with the bishop" (words used in commissioning instead of Holy Orders "ordaining" priests) can be given the indult to say a valid Canonized Mass-Liturgy. Since the Catholic Church teaches that only a validly ordained priest can "produce" a valid Mass. That would be meaningless. Here’s the heart of the problem. Without rash judging the pope, maybe he is "indulting" in order to expose the heart of our liturgical problems. After all, (from carefully selected quotes) he seems to know what Catholicism and the Latin Rite Patriarchate are "all about."
Open Heart Surgery
Will the pope be able to perform the most needed, "life or death" surgery of the heart of Newchurch? Will he excise its heart and install the Catholic Church, Holy Ordered Priests and the Canonized Mass Liturgy?
Time will tell. Will God grace him to do so? Pray Pray for the pope. Pray this pope may come to properly and plenarily pope the Novus Ordo fake-salutary Liturgical Economy out of existence (by outlawing it) and re-instill the Sacred Heart active and alive among us in the mystical/sacramental dimension (through properly functioning Holy Orders ordained Christ-priests and their Divine Liturgy–the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
How to Do the Surgery?
It’s simple enough. After issuing a fully Catholic and dogmatically-binding Motu Proprio, he calls as many bishops as can come to Rome. He instructs them as to the Catholic priesthood and Divine Liturgy. Then they freely decide to be Catholic priests or to depart. Subsequently, he makes them "Holy Ordered Priests" (i.e. those who were Newchurch-commissioned after 1969). Then, he makes them bishops. In turn, these Catholic bishops of the Latin Rite return home and do the same (as required by Catholic law and theology up to 1960 or so). Simple? Too simple? If it weren’t so simple, the existential church couldn’t "right itself." The fact that it is so simple, condemns to Hell those who refuse to do as God demands
"Wake up, Rip. Wake up to the fact that you are a heretical protestant or an apostate "
Most of us older Catholics who stayed in the establishment church during the episcopally–revolting 1960s resemble Rip Van Winkle who went to sleep for forty or so years. Both of us turned off our brains, and with that we lost or forgot what we knew about being Catholic. Some most likely lost their souls by becoming Protestants and by dying as such (according to the semper ubique idem (always everywhere the same) dogmatic teachings of Catholicism up to the 1960s).
It’s forty years later! Wake up, Rip. Kick in or activate your memory. At least read to inform yourself about the Catholic Church which is always and everywhere the same. Wake up to the fact in your face that "It’s a whole new ‘Mass’ and a whole new religion and a whole new church!" And, it’s not Catholic (although, to avoid any semblance of honesty, it failed to call itself what it is–"Newchurch!").
Is your particular existential church organization "Catholic," or isn’t it? It isn’t Catholic if it isn’t in sync with the "religious essentials which remain the same" into ancient history. We have very little conclusive and concrete evidence, such as books, tapes or videos, from the first millennium of uncorrupted Catholicism—so you’re thrown back on accepting or rejecting the "Faith of our Fathers."
"The Trench" is Wrong
Those who were born asleep—those who were formed into Novus Ordo non-Catholics or Newchurchers "all of their conscious lives" (so far, at least) need to "do research" and then observe the present. Did "they" lie to you? Does "the Trench" speak the truth? "The truth" will condemn you to eternal Hell or He will grant to you His grace and mercy. Hear the Truth. If at all possible, attend and pray "the Divine Word," salutarily active and alive. Attend Divine Liturgies.
If you are morally responsible for your ignorance and/or for accepting a lie, then you will abide in eternal Hell-fires. As for me, I wouldn’t want to build my eternity on this flimsy "if." St. Jerome concurs that in the first millennium the bishops woke up to find themselves Arian Heretics. Following your bishop in today’s world will most likely bring you to eternal damnation (as in the times of St. Jerome). Bishops were never reknowned for their theological correctness or even "theological ‘eptness.’" They were appointed by the kings or princes and/or bought their way into office or as today "had the right connections."
Usually, at best, bishops became (as in our day) good administrators, period. What about consulting them for the Catholic faith as at church councils? Boil it down, it’s the faith and morals (especially, liturgical morals) of the people which is polled through the bishops. In fact, when the bishops’ faith (or faithlessness) bled through, there you had a "bad council." According to St. Jerome, 90% of the bishops of his day were Arian heretics. If, imitating Vatican II, these heretical bishops had met in ecumenical council and solemnly decreed their Arian heresy, would the true church be Arian—would it deny Christ is God? To be a "true Catholic," one has to reject and trash the new services, the new religion and the new church and cling to the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy and Religion to be a "Latin Rite Catholic." In St. Jerome’s time, a Catholic would have had to reject an "Arian teaching council." Catholics must always reject their bishop’s heresy. Instead, in our times, most have buckled under and blindly believed in bishops unto their eternal damnation. Today, once again, Catholics are obliged to reject their bishop’s heresy.
Foundation of Newchurch
Upon what foundation is newchurch built? Is it built upon the Apostles or upon presently reigning bishops or liturgists? How do Newchurch propagandists (a.k.a. catechists and teachers) sell their "new and improved church?"
Newchurch makes its bishops into "the Apostles." Bishops from 1960 on are "presenters" pawned off as being "the Apostles alive and well among us."
What the majority of today’s bishops hold or reject determines Newchurch’s binding faith and morals (especially liturgical morals). For Newchurch, the Deposit of Faith is time and place dependent. For Newchurch, this Deposit of Faith was not closed at the death of the last Apostle.
According to the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church, such a church is not apostolic. In as much as it is both "non apostolic and anti-Apostolic," Newchurch is apostate.
Observations of Vatican II
We make the following observations "in all fairness to the bishops of Vatican II." At Vatican II, most of the bishops intended to be "faithful and modern." The experts who wrote Vatican II so wrote it as (in the words of Rev. Malachi Martin) "to later on drive a coach and four through these verbal gaps." In other words, Vatican II was written in "double-dutch." Also note that two days before the end of the Council, to the bishops’ credit, they voted to retain Latin in their Latin Rite Mass.
Very few of these bishops (who would later become pawns or "useful idiots" for reigning apostate-experts) would approve, tolerate or even conceive of "any Novus Ordo type of mock-mass." Also, significant of the binding status of Vatican II, Paul VI purposely and boldly signed Vatican II as (merely) Bishop of Rome, thereby distancing his papal office from this Council. Later, he would explicitly state that Vatican II was not dogmatic. It did not reflect or define the true church, the Catholic Church, outside of which, nulla salus. Vatican II set the foundation in place—the foundation upon which apostate-experts would build their Newchurch.
A "Sorry Lot"
The bishops in history are most often "a sorry lot." At Vatican II, the sorry lot of bishops was formed into "useful idiots," who would be used by reigning apostate experts to build Newchurch. After forty years, observation confirms that Newchurch has become "self-evident."
When is an alleged "Catholic church" not the Catholic Church? When a church is an episcopal church and is not an apostolic church, it is not the Catholic Church. When it has severed itself from every salutarily required or essential fiducial connection with the Apostles (of Tradition) it is not the Catholic Church!
The most outstanding factor or property which makes Newchurch apostate/heretical is its "worse than protestant" Novus Ordo sacrilegious simulation of the "Latin Mass Liturgy." (Read my book New Mass Is Conclusively Invalid, for proof.) I remind the reader of the fact that like unto the Spirit of Vatican II, Novus Ordo Liturgy was defined by episcopally-revered apostate-experts and imposed by "episcopals"– bishops!
While You Slept, Rip
"While you slept, Rip, the existential churches "of the West"(not "of the East") woke up to find themselves episcopal churches " Here’s the heart of "the problem with Newchurch." We have found our enemies since we "subscribe to" an episcopal anti-Apostolic church. While you were in your "hippy-sleep" or your "bishops-infatuated stupor," you were spiritually raped and some of you were forced by "reigning apostate episcopally-revered experts" through their duped or cooperative Latin Rite bishops (who were so illogical and satanic as to abandon "Latin" in their Latin Rite).
While you slept, Rip, the church edifices "in the West" were taken over by "hordes of Germanic types of intellectual barbarians," who easily manipulated proud, naive and "fanatic" liturgically faithless/ignorant "Latin Mass-despising" bishops. As their own episcopal darling, the very Reverend Andrew Greeley once observed: "The American bishops are intellectually, morally and spiritually bankrupt." Do you concur? Or, do you follow them? I contend they are at least a duped and/or cooperative lot of victims of reigning or episcopally-popular apostate-experts. I say "Stop following such bishops and be Catholic "
I Had a Dream
Last night, I had a dream(or was it a nightmare)? I was sitting in the sanctuary of "my childhood Church," St. Francis of Assisi. (The iconoclastic barbarians had left most of the priceless antiques intact. It was too expensive to tear them down and replace them with plain walls.)
My dream which turned into a nightmare had two parts intermingled. I was preparing to facilitate a Newchurch community celebration (and I was spared joining in, since it was in my dream); and, I was at a table in front of the altar in the sanctuary being televised at a debate (in which, as usual in my dreams, the other side had no chance to win or even to present its case). In my usual way ("to no avail") I tried to convince the people that the altar—(the remains of which stood in back of me) — had been replaced by a community-table, the table around which we were sitting and a table around which "they" would eat, drink and make merry.
The people ignored me even as I showed them the table and the place where the old altar stood (in which place we were now sitting). All the while there was my simpleton-opponent (it was my dream and I had him) humbly sitting at the other end of the table. He didn’t say a word and he "looked like an idiot." I woke up from this nightmare just in time to be spared the inevitable "nightmare lynching" by the crowd, I had once again (even in my dreams) managed to irritate.
Does not an eternal and infinitely worse nightmare-future await "Newchurch Rips" unless they wake up and once again become Catholics? Such apostate-heretics will suffer a nightmare "from which they will never wake up." For the Rips of the world, existential church is defined as the church of a particular period in Church history or present times, usually entreating or projecting the imperfections of governing churchmen who govern according to the particular "heresies" or political correctness of the day.
Wake Up to Two Major Truths
Most importantly, wake up to the fact that the bishops present a fake "Mass" (a Protestant service). Even though it may be said by a pre-1969 validly ordained establishment priest (truly a Holy Ordered ordained priest) the "new mass" liturgy is not from Christ and is not, therefore, Divine Liturgy. Thus a valid Holy Ordered ordained priest is celebrating a Bugnini, man-instituted human liturgy in the place of Christ’s Divine Liturgy of Canonized Mass.
More likely, the scenario you encounter is that you will have a "fake priest," a layman in clerical garb commissioned to be a "presider/facilitator/collaborator with the bishop" in order to receive the "gifts of the people," who will pray human prayers in their celebration of community. Or this layman might feign that he is celebrating the "Latin Mass" of Apostolic Tradition. Either way, a valid priest celebrating invalid liturgy or invalid layman celebrating "human liturgy" or Divine Liturgy equals an invalid Divine Liturgy of Mass.
"The upper clergy are under a diabolic delusion" - Sr. Lucia of Fatima.
Let’s understand what she meant and how the clergy, allegedly of the Latin Rite, have "satanized" the liturgy, so much that they now present the satanic simulation of the most holy in the sanctuaries of "Christ’s Church." It would seem that after Vatican II, the following prayer must have been prayed to Satan in order to bring down such diabolic delusion upon and among the bishops of the West, that those who were called by God to be upholders of his Apostolic Tradition became instead "usurpers" who fostered into reality the abominable desolation. "Come, Unholy Spirit, inspire us to implement liturgical destruction and perversion unto the abominable desolation in the sanctuary."
The Evil Spirit of Vatican II
We know that the "Fathers of Vatican II" never intended to vernacularize the Canon of the Latin Mass. The "Latin Rite Canon" was "off limits."
The Canon is the Holy Ordered Christ-instituted priest’s prayers, which define Divine Liturgy. Now, the new canon is what (words and doings) defines "Newchurch’s" community prayer service—that which used to be the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass or the Christ-instituted Divine Liturgy. Therefore, the Canon of Tradition defines the Liturgy as the Divine Liturgy of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Now, the new canon defines the liturgy as it is in the new service, most appropriately: a new canon, a new service and thereby a new religion and a new church, which is not Christ’s Church, the Catholic Church of One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic (and Orthodox) Tradition.
Who created "New Mass?" Whose "mass" is now said in establishment churches? Is this new liturgy and church effective unto salvation from Hell? Bishop Cranmer created the first apostate set of mass-mocking services. Bishop Bugnini used Cranmer’s work. (His committee was composed of six Protestant liturgical apostates and two docile and spineless priests).
Bishop Bugnini’s new liturgical baby resembles Bishop Cranmer’s liturgical baby. There is no difference in meaning, theology or religion, between the Novus Ordo stable of liturgies and the Lutheran-Anglican liturgies. Why? They both have the same daddy. Christ instituted the canonized liturgies of the East and of the West. Satan instituted the Protestant and Novus Ordo Liturgies.
What’s this "Novus Ordo?" It’s on your one dollar bill. It’s the Satan-inspired New Age of Man (without God, and thereby with and of Satan). It’s Russia’s Errors (as Fatima warned) made "flesh and blood." It’s Satan’s mock-mass liturgy—a great source of implementing his anti-Christ kingdom on earth. Is this not the Abominable Desolation? Go into your local church, there you’ll find the grossly unholy in the place designated for "Christ’s most Holy Sacrifice and Sacrament" to happen through the valid semper ubique idem "words and deeds" of a "Holy Ordered properly functioning Christ-priest."
In God’s Holy of Holies (His Sanctuary on earth) now stands the Abominable Desolation, the Novus Ordo presider/facilitator of Satanically-inspired and oriented Novus Ordo mock-mass services. Within the Latin Rite Patriarchate (the Patriarchate of Pope/Patriarch Benedict XVI) such laymen operating in place of the bishop (in loco episcope) have replaced "Holy Ordered Christ-priests"— men who ex officio do Divine Liturgy (and the priest-dependent sacraments) in persona Christi (not as episcopal reps and collaborators). [Only that which is from Christ–Christ’s Divine Liturgy–through His properly functioning valid Holy Ordered priests is effective unto salvation from Hell. Only Divine Liturgy (Mass and Sacraments) is the Christ-designated way to receive graces unto salvation.]
Is this Satan’s greatest victory or can things get liturgically worse?. What once was Black Masses will be replaced with Satanically simulated Latin Masses. The Canonized Latin Mass Ritual will be sacrilegiously simulated by invalid Novus Ordo "facilitators/presiders" (those commissioned as lay presiders of community prayer).
God sent Christ the Saviour– His Sacred Heart active and alive (comes among us until the end of time) through Holy Ordered priests properly saying Canonized Divine Liturgy (Latin or Eastern). This is God’s Salutary Economy in this the age of the Holy Spirit. It is the age of the Holy Spirit because it is the power of the Holy Spirit which provides graces for/from Christ’s Divine Liturgy.
Every Protestant or Novus Ordo mock-mass sacrileges and blasphemes God’s Salutary Economy. How long will God allow this, the greatest sacrilege of all times, the Abominable Desolation? All conjectures along these lines are useless, redundant and irrelevant. God will not be thwarted. Each will be eternally frustrated or fulfilled. This is reality! Each is real!
Wake up! See the awesome truth! We live "under" the worst bishops in the history of the Latin Rite Patriarchate. What can each do in the era of a "new mass" and "Newchurch" so as not to be eternally damned by God?
In this article we will prove that according to its own definition of itself and according to its own definition of "ecumenating with," Newchurch cannot possibly "ecumenate with" other Christians.
Newchurch Defines Itself
"In theory" and in practice which flows from or is consistent with "theory," Newchurch defines itself. Since we are dealing with a living entity, not a philosophical or theological definition, Newchurch is as Newchurch does (or allows to be done) by its ruling caste. Newchurch "does" – by definition and in practice. We now focus in on the very identity of Newchurch – which identity flows from what it does.
Does Newchurch follow Christ? Not really! We can prove that the Newchurch idea of Christ is not as the ordinary faithful (sensus et praxis fidelium) have always defined Christ to be; nor does Newchurch define "Christ" as He is defined by the Apostolic Church (especially, in the Bible).
The "Christ" of Newchurch
In his inaugural encyclical, Pope John Paul II defined Newchurch’s "Christ" as redundant to salvation and thereby put Newchurch out of the "salvation–business." "In Christ, all men are saved!" (Redemptor Hominis or more accurately Homo Redemptus;). What did he subsequently do to confirm and clarify this statement? He treated any and all men and their religions as equals or with greater respect than Orthodox Catholicism.
How could he do so? Christ saved (past tense) all men. All men are "Christ’s." What then did religion become? It became an opportunity to celebrate each one’s "assured Christed-ness" and to inspire men to pledge themselves to making this a better world (here and now, for the sake of those here and now). This was reflected and reinforced liturgically. Eucharistic ministers are commanded to look at the recipient (of the "cookie") and elicit from him/her an assent or confirmation of his assured "Christed-ness." "Amen, I am indeed the Body of Christ. Amen, I am Christ!" Thereby, the capital sin of Presumption is celebrated liturgically.
Newchurch "Pre-empts" Being Christ’s Church
"Unica Christi Ecclesia…subsistit in Ecclesia catholica." ["The one and only Church of Christ…subsists in the Catholic Church (clearly meaning "Newchurch")] This church is [operationally or de facto defined (as that church as governed by and allowing itself to be thus defined ) by the Successor If Peter and the bishops in communion with him. (Lumen Bentiusm, no. 8)]
Why not say "the Church of Christ is the Catholic(or Orthodox Catholic) Church? This cannot be, in all truth, since "a new ‘Mass’ is a new religion" and must, therefore, be defined as such. A new and different religion requires a new and different definition of itself. Therefore, "subsists in" replaces "is."
"Subsists in" means that "the Catholic Church" is, or constitutes or forms one subset among the many other subsets which constitute the set of "Church of Christ" [Since Vatican II, this Newchurch (in profession and in deed) shows that it holds that any and all religions constitute subset (s) of the Church of Christ – since "in Christ, all men are saved" [Homo Redemptor, or more honestly, Homo Redemptus.] Therefore, since the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ never ever defined itself in such a manner as "one church within the subset of many Christ churches," then the only prerogative of the sensus et praxis fidelium (faithful and practicing Catholics) is to designate such a church as "Newchurch," thus acknowledging that in truth, such a church cannot be the Church of Jesus Christ.
Other Churches "More Christ-Consonant," Than Newchurch
Now we come to the heart of this article. Newchurch, de facto, can no longer ecumenate with the "more Christ-consonant churches" – especially, the Orthodox churches or even "fundamentalist Protestant churches." Why not? It’s rather simple. These "other religions," at best, believe or profess that each man is "by birth and inclination" as well as "in deed and in habit," a sinner damned to Hell (the absence of God eternally) unless he truly accepts (and is "received by" or is "incorporated into") Christ Jesus, sinful man’s only Saviour.
Newchurch removes itself from the set of "Christian religions" – as defined above. Each man is already saved. No one needs "to accept, believe in, obey or be incorporated into Christ." Why not? Each is Christ by birth.
In conclusion, by its peculiar professions and by its unique practices(especially, liturgical practices). Newchurch has removed itself from membership in the set of even loosely (and falsely or incompletely) defined Christian churches. Newchurch is and can be only an apostate Christian church, a New Age entity. This is how it defines itself in word and deed.
Reality is as Reality is. Reality is not as we think it is, nor as we might like it to be. I say this because the philosophy of physics has humbled us into acknowledging this basic truth about reality. Correct religious thinking (very little of which exists in our man-exalting times) leads us "ever more conclusively" to the same conclusion.
In modern times, man has become psychotic. He lives in a self-created, un-real world. The "stranger" and the "strangest" have imposed their pet psychoses (distorted views of reality) on the masses—in thought and deed. Correct theological thinking leads one to hold that only God can think, will and make real. One can follow the God of reality or make his own "strange god." Modern men not only create strange gods; but take God’s name in vain (uselessly and with damnable pride).
What has happened to Europeans and their cousins in modern times (originating in the Protestant liturgical revolt and culminating in the presently on-going Episcopal Liturgical Revolt of the 1960’s) within the Latin Rite Patriarchate? Men (as defined above) have created God to their own imaginings and likings. Therein resides the heart or essence of man’s apocalyptic revolt against God. "You shall be as gods—deciding what is good or evil"(Gn 3). Reigning apostates willed and actualized sacrilege of the Divine Liturgy, creating a man-centered liturgy. Through episcopal "useful idiots" they decreed that it is evil to praise God "as God instructs" and "as His creatures have complied" for over a millennium.
Theotokos tried to ward off the greatest human revolts against God--the Protestant Liturgical Revolt of the 16th century and the Episcopal Liturgical Revolt of the 1960’s (as previously defined). So did popes and saints (read Apocalypse of the Mass, Maeta). In both of these liturgical revolts, man not only rejected but sacrileged "Living Salvation." As popes have predicted, man put himself out as being God.
Christ dwells within His Church. He does so in Divine Liturgy, that Liturgy instituted, defined and practiced by Christ Himself and delivered over to His Apostles to be handed down verbatim through oral Tradition. Christ’s one and only Church is Apostolic As such, it is defined by, is centered upon and lives for and from Divine Liturgy.
Christ comes to live in His Church through His Holy Orders-ordained priests properly saying Apostolic Divine Liturgy (Canonized Mass Divine Liturgy). As Christ wills, so is reality. Anything substantially less, "religiously different" or even "different at all" is living sacrilege, the Abominable Desolation—the unholy in the place of the Most Holy. "Be it done according to God’s will" (Luke 1:39). [Theotokos brings Christ into the world initially and at every "valid Mass." At every valid Mass, she does so only through a Holy Ordered priest who properly says Mass. Jesus comes through Theotokos at every such liturgy as He initially came through Theotokos. As Holy Mass is validly prayed, devotion to Theotokos is enhanced. As Holy Mass is blasphemed, devotion to Theotokos is diminished.]
Today, in our apocalyptic times, Theotokos has been driven out of the Latin Rite Patriarchate. She and her children have fled from their home, the Latin Rite church buildings (Apoc 12). ICHABOD—Christ has left Latin Rite church buildings
Our (presently "Christ-emptied") beautiful cathedrals and churches were constructed by the faith of our fathers. Such faith no longer lives. Wherefore and thereby, such buildings have become empty shells—"churches of the real absence." They now contain "the Abominable Desolation" or worse yet, perform the greatest of sacrileges. (Here, I define sacrilege as blasphemous treatment of a valid Mass and Eucharist). The former case prevails when Novus Ordo celebrations or services are invalid. The latter case (greatest sacrilege) prevails when Novus Ordo services mock and sacrilege a true Eucharist. Such services are "Mock-Masses." By now, I contend that even the most liberal Catholic theologian would have to agree, very, very few Newchurch mock-Masses could be valid.
Therefore, as in "purely Protestant Churches," the greatest sacrilege is avoided. At least, these churches of the "real absence" don’t have "black" or "satanic Masses" (which require valid Eucharist’s). The remedy for our situation can be found in those who caused and sustained the apocalyptic liturgical problem. At present, "Latin Rite Bishops" constitute "an empty or null set."
Vatican II: the Fake and Sacrilegious Council
Some cower in fear at the prospect of "another ecumenical council." Such people need to realize that "Vatican II" was the fake and sacrilegious council. At best, Vatican II was "bi-spirited." At worst, Vatican II was satanic. In reality, Vatican II became the foundation upon which the "increasingly apostate Newchurch was built."
Who wrote Vatican II? The bishops did not. Well over ninety percent of them weren’t theologians in any sense of the word. They were administrators—usually, good businessmen. Who wrote Vatican II? Liberal reigning heretical, apostate experts used duped bishops ("useful idiots" as Marx said) to adopt and implement their Christ-hating agenda. How did they dupe the dopes? They skillfully employed "worldly and/or heretical, apostate, pious sounding double-talk."
For example, this "council" announced that "the people of God subsist in the Catholic Church." Sounds pious but it’s not only worldly but apostate, to be loyalist bishops. The experts said "this is a modern or worldly way to emphasize that the church is Catholic." To their own, they confessed: "This means, or will come to mean, that the Catholic Church forms one of many subsets (hence subsists in) of the People of God." A good example of "future-resoluble" double-dutch was the bishop’s commitment to vernacularize the liturgy and their commitment to re-teach priests parts of the Mass in Latin. We all know how that bi-polarity was resolved.
An Ecumenical Council? Unfortunately, we’ve seen and experienced what an "ecumenical council is not" and should never be. Now, in the light of history we identify and explore "the why, how and what" of such a council. (The historical proof for our "summarily and simplistic statements" is left to the reader.) Why call such a council? A major problem concerning a data in the set of salutarily necessary beliefs/doings arises which affects the whole church. For example, according to St. Jerome, ninety percent of bishops woke up to find themselves Arians ("deniers" of the divinity of Christ). Situations such as this must be resolved. Are we to follow our bishops or Christ? Certainly, the parallel is clear.
Today, Latin Rite bishops "don’t wake up to discover" but de facto are Newchurch liturgical heretics/apostates. For the survival of the Church, this issue must be confronted and effectively resolved. Otherwise, the Catholic Church ceases to exist (in its Latin Rite Patriarchate). If this patriarchate becomes extinct will another patriarch have to become chief patriarch? Here is another question that may have to be resolved. Who does the resolution? Never the bishops. In previous ecumenical councils, the bishops were polled as to what the faithful held in their dioceses. The sensus et praxls fidelium defines binding faith and morals.
Why not poll bishops? These men are appointed by kings or princes to office; or, have had the right connections; or, in the best scenario were appointed to the office since they had proven themselves to be faithful and reliable "middle-management" material. Many of this number of thus appointed "priests into bishops" became good administrators. Very, very few bishops are Catholic theologians. As their darling, very Reverend Andrew Greely once observed: "The American bishops are intellectually, morally and spiritually bankrupt."
An added seemingly insurmountable problem exists today. Who are "the faithful?" Certainly, Newchurch bishops are not. How will this be resolved? We’ll see the answer shortly. Other insurmountable problems arise. How could Latin Rite bishops meet to excommunicate themselves? Will the Holy Spirit overwhelm them?
Keeping all of this in mind we revisit Vatican II. How, where and why did it go wrong—at least, in the sense of giving a green light to liturgical apostate-experts to destroy the existential Latin Rite Patriarchate?
Vatican II Revisited
First of all, there was no reason to call Vatican II. There were no heresies and few abuses. The existential Latin Rite Patriarchate was growing by "leaps" and "beyond its previous boundaries." In America, new seminary buildings were going up in the early sixties. In the fifties, when a future Chancellor of Florida was to be ordained in Rochester, N.Y. his bishop called the class in and said he couldn’t at present "place any more priests." So, Neil went to Florida. That’s how my very good friend, Fr. Neil Sager wound up in Florida. Pope John XXIII tempted God. His whole patriarchate was punished. He sinned gravely because he wanted Christ’s Church to be committed to aggiornamento—to join the world, to become worldly, to become the People’s Church. And thus it did. Thereby, it betrayed Christ, rejected "heavenly Jerusalem" and became its own "new and improved" Tower of Babel. The laity became priests. Priests became facilitators for or presiders over local community celebrations. Bishops became perverts—both liturgically and otherwise.
Bishops didn’t compose or write Vatican II. As we’ve noted, apostate-experts (especially, in the area of liturgy) wrote Vatican II. Fr. Malachi Martin once observed, they wrote in such a way that later on "their coach and four could go through the gaps (or implement their purposely implanted double-speak)." As with the Protestant Episcopal Revolt, this they did, especially, liturgically. All it took was time.
For example, I was ordained three years after the close of Vatican II. I was ordained to say the Canonized Latin Mass. Pervert bishops never allowed me to do so. Three years later, they closed the gap. They ceased "Holy Orders’ Ordinations." Instead, Newchurch liturgical presiders and episcopal collaborators were commissioned into being in their "Mock-Ordinations."
[Read, Order of Melchisedek by Michael Davies, for conclusive proof—e.g. they purposely deleted any and all references to the candidate being "ordained to offer the Holy Sacrifice" (as I was explicitly ordained to do).] The results are in. Vatican II has "all but eliminated" the Latin Rite Patriarchate. What can a good-willed Pope do (at least as "top manager of this Patriarchate," if not truly "Holy Ordered")?
What can the Holy Ghost do with such an organization? Is it redeemable? How? Before answering this question, you must follow Christ’s liturgical Will as best you can in these "mean-times." You can know what’s salutarily necessary to believe/do to be saved. Anyone can be baptized (and married).
However, for the rest of the sacraments we must have "Holy Ordered Apostolically-linked Christ-priests." Who makes such priests? Bishops do. Who determines how the priests pray or if they say true Masses in "their" buildings? Bishops do. Who provides, discourages or even takes away Confession and Holy Eucharist in "Catholic" church-buildings? Bishops do. Now, you can begin to see why I contend that today’s Bishops are the very worst sinners, robbers and perverts who have taken from us the Salutary Sacred Heart, active and alive in our midst through properly functioning Holy Ordered Priests.
How could such as these reform? It would be easier for a house of prostitution and its "madams" to become a cloistered convent of perpetually chaste and penitential nuns than for Newchurch bishops to become Catholic bishops. However, with God, such things are possible. Suppose the "Pope" converts (in spirit, truth and dedication to; as well as, "intellectually and fiducially") to Catholicism and calls an ecumenical council. What would be his preparation? How would the council work?
Preparation for the Liturgical Ecumenical Council
"Where" is no longer important. This council will be known for its subject matter—Holy Ordered Priesthood, Divine Liturgy and Priest-dependent sacraments. It will be known as the Liturgical Ecumenical Council. The "Bishops of Vatican Two and their likes" are perverts of the worst kind. They have perverted their "charges" from God to Man—especially, liturgically. In doing so and in order to do so, they have raped and castrated their "priests." Newchurch has stolen Holy Orders from the clergy. These thieves, rapists and mutilators must be stopped The LEC will eliminate them.
First of all, we note that no Pope can do it alone. From the revolting 1960s on, papal Motu Proprio have been totally ignored and violated (e.g. believe it or not Pope John XXIII in his Motu Proprio forbad the liturgical abandonment of Latin in the Latin Rite Patriarchate. (See New Mass Conclusively Invalid, Maeta.) An operational and fully functioning papacy must be initiated or restored. Pope Paul VI signed Vatican II as Bishop of Rome and not as Patriarch or Pope.
Bishops now rule We operate within an episcopal (dictated by bishops) church. Bishops claiming to "be Apostles" reject the Apostles. Newchurch is not Apostolic, nor is it Catholic. It no longer has a valid Catholic Mass, that which defines Catholic as Catholic. Is there enough life within this Christ-dead Newchurch to birth from its ashes the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, One (of all times) Church of Christ? Time will tell. You and I need to pray, pray for ourselves; and, if possible, pray such a church into existence.
Where could the Patriarch (of the Latin Rite or by default of another Patriarchate) find the faithful—especially, faithful bishops and/or theologians? Within its own ranks, the "East" would have no problem on this count. Perhaps, their bishops and liturgical theologians would have to sacrificially work for the restoration or rebirth of the Latin Rite Patriarchate, (remembering the pope’s words (paraphrased): "Let them be as they should be or let them not be").
We have very few truly Catholic "learned men" in the former Latin Rite Patriarchate. I know of very few truly Catholic theologians in the Latin Rite. What about with the "trad groups?" Most trad groups "dogmatize" or are hung up on their favorite distortions of Catholic Dogma. Few, if any, believe in and are dedicated to the "faith of our Fathers" (the Fathers of the Church, especially). Presuming the naturally impossible—that the or a Patriarch got together enough truly faithful Orthodox (right holding and teaching) Catholic "learned men" (with authentic Divine Liturgy) — what would LEC address?
The Liturgical Ecumenical Council (LEC)
An ecumenical council receives its "dogmatic weight or status" from the pope’s approval. What topics will such a council have to address; and, what kinds of papally-approved statements will it make?
! It will restore Holy Ordered Priests. To do so, the Pope (if he himself is validly ordained) or an eastern Patriarch will have to call some bishops or priests to Rome, ordain them and then commission them as bishops. In turn, this group will go out and ordain priests, consecrating some as bishops (in accord with the traditional laws and practices of the Church).
! It will declare the Canonized Mass to be the one and only Divine Liturgy. Any and all Newchurch or different liturgies and "mock and/or null" sacraments will be outlawed under "severest pain of ipso facto" automatic excommunication.
! Liturgy and the sacraments will be restored to their traditional "matter and form."
In effect, the LEC will underline the fact that every true Catholic believes in Canonized Mass Divine Liturgy as an article of the Orthodox Catholic faith. To be an Orthodox Catholic, one must believe in Canonized Divine Liturgy as exclusively defining the "Catholic" in "Orthodox Catholic" Religion—the one and only salutary religion (in every year of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ or in every "A.D." year). As with all "papally defined into dogmatic status" Ecumenical Councils and as the last dogmatic council ("Vatican I") pointed out, the exclusive "definable as dogmatic subject matter" must already be in the Deposit of Faith and must already be held as salutarily necessary unto salvation. In other words the Orthodox Catholic Church is Apostolic and not papal or episcopal.
The salutarily necessary to be believed (faith) or to be done (morals, especially liturgical morals) have been given us by Christ taught and/or practiced as being such by the Apostles, as well as, "within or by" the semper ubique idem (always and everywhere the same) sensus et praxis fidelium (beliefs and doings of the faithful).
Simply stated, up to the episcopally revolting 1960s, whenever one met another "Catholic," the inevitable question followed "Where do you go to Mass?" To be Catholic is to attend or say (if a priest,) as well as, believe in, pray and "live" Divine Liturgy. The liturgical dimension of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of salvation needs to be and will be "made explicit" as being "necessary unto salvation by the greatest council in the history of the Church—The Liturgical Ecumenical Council.
As usual, this papally approved ecumenical council will be called to address a "big heresy or apostasy." The Bishops’ Liturgical Revolt of the 1960s [within the Latin (sic) Rite Patriarchate]. This liturgical apostasy has produced the greatest apostasy that the existential church has ever suffered. For the survival or restitution of the "Latin Rite Patriarchate," this issue must be faced and resolved.
An ecumenical council is of "absolute necessity." Pray for the Pope that he may believe as Catholics must believe, then that he may be graced into doing what he must do. He must call for the Liturgical Ecumenical Council. Possible? Will such a council succeed? Will it be implemented? Most bishops are "useful idiots." As such, they can be made to do what is "just and right" as easily as reigning apostate experts made them do the grossest evil. That’s my operative historically proven theory. Therefore, let’s not lose heart. Liturgical apostasy was forced upon us by episcopal "fiat." Cannot Orthodox Catholic Liturgy be more successfully imposed by papal and episcopal "fiat?"
Along with Pope Leo XIII and other popes, President Reagan exposed and popularized Communism for what it is: "the Evil Empire." Those few of us who have enough salutary faith to see the truth have come to identify and acknowledge Newchurch as being the most evil empire. Why? "Corruptio optimi pessima." Corruption of the God-given and God-commanded way of adoring Him is the vilest corruption. Newchurch repeats the tower of Babel. The revolting bishops of the 1960s created their own way of worshiping God.
Pope Paul VI acting as head bishop, sarcastically and reluctantly, recognized the episcopal fait accompli. He did so implicitly but undeniably in one cleverly written paragraph:
"A new rite of the Mass…affects our hereditary patrimony which [up to now] seemed to be untouchable and settled…We are giving up something of priceless worth…pious people will be disturbed…this novelty is no small thing …[We now recognize that] the faithful are qualified to supernaturally converse with God." Pope Paul VI, Nov. 26, 1969
Divine Liturgy as instituted by Christ is the "Living Essence" of Orthodox Catholicism. Divine Liturgy is "of priceless worth," of infinite value; and Divine Liturgy is the Church’s greatest unique and identifying hereditary patrimony. Paul VI, as a fellow revolting bishop, said Newchurch had given up that which is of pricelss worth [Divine Liturgy]. In its place, the revolting bishops imposed novelty. Popes of the past condemned and forbade every such novelty, especially any novelty which rejected Apostolic Liturgical Tradition. One such novelty is the New Service of the Anglicans as dogmatically pronounced "null and void" by Pope Leo XIII. The novelty in our day is Bugnini’s New "Mass-like" Service.
Every informed faithful theologian knows that when a pope accuses one of embracing "novelty" he accuses him of heresy and/or apostasy. Pope Leo himself used this word in speaking of the New Service of the Anglicans.
To clarify his astute papal observation in the use of the word "novelty," Pope Paul VI told us "pious people will be disturbed." As any decent theologian before Newchurch’s reign knows, piety is the supernatural gift of God by which we relate to God unto salvation from Hell (which "Hell" exists despite Newchurch’s vociferous denials). Those who want to relate to God so as to be saved from Hell "will be disturbed" to say the least.
The revolutionist, Pope Paul VI (speaking as reluctant revolting brother-bishop) described the Novus Ordo mock-Mass dispensation as man attempting to speak to God, a somewhat penultimate Protestant mock-Mass Liturgy: "We give up that which is of priceless worth so man can supernaturally converse with (to) God [according to man’s, not God’s wishes]." Indeed, Divine Liturgy would soon become "community celebration!" As I often say: "The reigning apostate experts rejoice in what they are doing and their victims become sheepel people following wolves in shepherds’ clothing into the depths of Hell."
Dialectics of Newchurch
Archbishop Lefebvre stated to one of his priests that "Newchurch" employed Hegelian dialectics. We see this in Pope Benedict XVI’s Motu Propio (Summorum Pontificum, 7-7-07). The re-"777" problem was that interest in religion seemed to have atrophied. What was needed was a dose of "new life." Thesis/anti-thesis had produced an inactive synthesis. This synthesis awaited a new antithesis.
"You shall be as Gods, deciding right and wrong" (Genesis 3). Newchurch awaited "new deciding which would give it new life."
The Dialectics: Greater Freedom; Greater Enslavement
In pre-"777" days, Pope Benedict XVI and his "think circle" were challenged by the "dead life" that climaxed in 2007. Liturgical talk and propaganda was "Blah…blah…yatta…yatta…yatta." I and a few other theologians felt we were encountering brick walls in trying to dialogue with/convert Newchurchers to Orthodox Catholicism whose heart is the Canonized Divine Liturgy.
"They wouldn’t go there." Even to mention the "Latin Mass" made one suspect of heresy. Then came 7-7-07, the day Pope Benedict issued his Motu Propio Summorum Pontificum. The Berlin Wall had fallen! Or, had it?
The cleverly engineered "777" papal letter protected, promoted and "officially established" the Christ-rejected Novus Ordo liturgical dispensation while appearing to accept the "Latin Mass." In fact, Summorum Pontificum managed to give the Novus Ordo greater life. As a result, Newchurch was "born again"—given new life. The dialectic works!
Governmentally perfect, this dialectic ostracized; and in effect, "excommunicated" (from "pastoral communion within the apostate Newchurch" any and all priests who held that "new mass" is invalid - who, in principle, refused to accept it as valid).
The dialectic works! Newchurch’s Legion of vernacular Liturgies are papally recognized as being "the Latin Rite." In fact, the ordinary form of the Latin Rite; as faithless, feely-touchy latin-loving Catholics are welcomed back "home."
[I use "Latin Rite" since every patriarchate is defined by its unique Canonized Mass Divine Liturgy. However, Pope Benedict XVI quite logically and precisely used the term "Roman Rite" in view of the fact that within the past year he "resigned" his title as Patriarch of the Latin Rite." Then, we presume, he became Patriarch of the Roman Rite (or more precisely, the vernacular Novus Ordo Legion of "rites").] We realize, of course, that "Roman and Latin" are equivalent. Therefore, Pope Benedict XVI is using word games to distract us from the dastardly deed he had done. Or is this merely part of his dialectic circuitous process?
Will the SSPX or parts of it return? Will priests (or, is it lay episcopal commissioned presiders wrongly referred to as priests) be able to say or in reality sacrilegiously simulate saying Latin "Masses" with complete freedom? I believe both of these issues will be resolved in a positive manner—once bishops see that this Summorum Pontificum is a greater affirmation of Newchurch.
As this papal edict establishes the "Lutheran inspired, Bugnini instituted, Protestant Mass Services" as being (from that time on) not only the Roman Rite Mass Liturgy but the Ordinary form of the Roman Rite Mass Liturgy, Newchurch thereby officially became Protestant; and, therefore, the Christ-instituted apostolically, popularly (according to the sensus et praxis fidelium) and papally canonized Latin Mass Divine Liturgy was marginalized into being "an extra-ordinary form of the Roman Rite Mass Liturgy. On 7-7-07, the Canonized Latin Mass, as it were, became a second-class citizen of the Roman Rite, while Bugnini’s apostate protestant liturgy was "exalted to the heights" (of Newchurch). Thereby, the Deposit of Faith, the Council of Trent, Quo Primum, Apostolicae Curae, as well as, orthodox Catholicism and Christ Himself are formally renounced. The Apocalyptic apostasy (Ch 10) has materialized by papal decree!
In summary, this Motu Propio is a "stroke of Newchurch dialectic genius." The pope and his confreres have given new life to the Novus Ordo Liturgical Dispensation—the first Apocalyptic Beast (Apocalypse 13).
Will "Iron-fisted" Rule Return?
"It’s time’ to open and close ranks." After "feely-touchy," faithless Latin devotees "fully return" it will once again be time to rule with an iron fist. It will be time to shape up or ship out; time to close ranks. (Liberals make the worst of dictators.) Liturgical history will be rewritten to "validate the most evil empire." Being a student in the history and philosophy of science, I clearly remember how the Communists in Russia rewrote the history of physics (e.g. Edison did not invent the light bulb). They also monitored and forbade studies which did not honor and respect state-appointed boundaries. Now, in these "post ‘777’" times, Newchurch is challenged to do likewise.
Newchurch officials will force its adherents to "follow and tow" the party line. They will be forced to believe such things as:
1) Christ did not institute the Canonized Mass (Latin or Eastern) liturgies. A corollary is that He did not institute the "less important" seven sacraments.
2) The reigning bishops are "living apostles." Thereby, their church is no longer Apostolic but episcopal (the Episcopal Newchurch).
3) Even our being born Hell-deserving sinners is to be denied, thereby denying the need for Christ and His salutary economy as being necessary in order to be saved from eternal Hell.
4) Key binding papal encyclicals (such as Quo Primum and Apostolicae Curae) and dogmatic councils (such as Trent and Vatican One) are not to be accepted at face value. They do not say what they mean or they do not mean what they say.
5) No one will be allowed to question the validity of Newchurch’s presider appointments. [Such appointments reject Holy Ordered priesthood and ensure that it will be impossible for any Latin Rite pastor to say valid Masses.]
Anti-Christ is almost here! His abominable desolation and his apocalyptic reign will soon commence. (See Apocalypse 13.)
On July 7, 2007, the cornerstone was laid and blessed for the great liturgical bridge as espoused by Pope Benedict XVI in his Motu Proprio (Pontificum Summorum). Pope Bendict’s Motu Proprio is designed to unite separate and "separating" liturgies into the "New World One-Liturgical Order"-- the Novus Ordo Liturgicus. Will that which is "Legion" be made one by pontifical decree? Will the most Holy be made one with the abominable desolation? Who will succeed in understanding this Motu Proprio? To enable faithful Catholics to grasp the degree of deceit reached with the publication of Summorum Pontificum, I offer the following lessons in the science of word use: controlled dialogue and dialectics.
The Newchurch Method of Teaching and Papal Talk (especially Summorum Pontificum)
In employing its homocentric/Communistic dialectics, Newchurch decrees that facilitators make certain to eliminate obstructive personal and fact holdings. Facilitators will give participants in the group all they need in this area of facts and "group acceptable fiducial tenets."
Why, then, have community discussion or community dialoging? We gather together so each can express his feelings and opinions on the issues at hand. Having done so and having received the "group’s blessing," one becomes more comfortable with himself and more "accepting and loving" of others. More often, groups meet in order to arrive at "consensus towards action." What are we to do about…? What can I do regarding….?
For example, within the imposed episcopal program, RE-NEW, participants dialogued. What was dialogued? What facts were underlined? No one really knew. Participants were led to feel "community." Thereby, each enriched himself "at the expense of giving up any and all faith-convictions." The work of RE-NEW was to perform "fiducial lobotomies."
RE-NEW’s number one rule: "Knowledge was taboo and communicating facts was the ultimate sin. What do you think/feel about this issue? What does the group think/feel about that issue? Never did Newchurch facilitators ask "What does the Catholic Church teach or what do Catholics have to believe in order to be saved?" Why? This was counter-indicative for "fiducial lobotomizing."
Similarly for the R.C.I.A. (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults.) What dos it teach? Nothing! Why does it exist? It exists to help a potential community member to see if he can feel comfortable or even fulfilled by this faithless Community of St. _________ Parish.
Likewise for the writings of Pope John Paul II. They do not impart information. They refuse to define words. Read them without bias. If you get something out of them, you read that into the text.
On the other hand, Pope Benedict XVI does a superb job of facilitating dialogue. In Summorum Pontificum, (7/7/07) he defines "new liturgical discussion and governing data." He defines the boundaries of "free thought" within the confines of Newchurch. He makes precise the parameters for discourse. As such, he is a "regulator of dialogue," a "keeper of the gate" of the box within which certain matters may be discussed.
For example, one must hold that the Legion of Novus Ordo ‘liturgies" constitute the Ordinary form of the Roman Rite and that the Canonized Latin Mass Divine Liturgy is the Extraordinary form. As such, the latter is permitted or not permitted but not automatically allowed.
What then makes Newchurch radically different from the Orthodox Catholic Church? A carefully and precisely engineered metaphysical paradigm-shift has occurred within and on behalf of Newchurch. Could Newchurch exist and make sense in the "real world" of fiducial, logical or historical facts?
No! Newchurch needs this "metaphysics of propaganda" not only to thrive, but also to survive. Obviously, the truth, especially of and from salutary faith, frees one from this Satanic gestalt. This is our only cure from the Satanic Curse, Newchurch.
"Faith makes evident the unseen world!" (Hebrews 11:1). "This is your victory [over Newchurch] – your Faith!" (1 John 5:4). Without Faith, it is impossible to be saved! (Hebrews 11:6). The faithless displease God and are delivered into Hell! That’s fact!
How to Run a Newchurch Meeting
As demonstrated, the promoters and protectors of Newchurch use Communistic tactics and procedures. For example, within their system, they allow controlled dialogue, but use dialectics, a process of discussing which forbids citing "fiducial absolutes" (or truth), focusing on feelings and thinkings within the group to arrive at an anti-fiducial, faithless decision (ideally, promoting action oriented goals).
These techniques are quite easily recognizable if we cite examples of this dialectic process. When appropriate, the first question would be followed by a second inspired to instigate one to action. A few legitimate Newchurch discussion questions are:
… How do you feel about Protestants? What can you do about that?
… How do you feel about homosexuals? What laws are needed to help them?
… What values do you think Christians should embrace? How can we promote these?
… Must we not care for the earth, the poor, the downtrodden? What can we do?
… What should we think about the current war? How can we stop it?
Never is one permitted to say that this or that is wrong; or that God forbids certain actions; or that deliberately purposing sin will bring one to Hell; or that the Catholic Faith holds absolute truth; or even that the Holy Bible clearly reveals God’s teaching to man. Rather, Newchurch seeks the consensus of all Christian confessions. Newchurch reduces Christ’s salvific event to a mere series of value statements. [Catholic schools even advertise in the media as teaching "Catholic values."] Objective facts are abandoned and subjective values dominate.
New or "Modified" Lies Established by Summorum Pontificum
What did Summorum Pontificum accomplish? On the positive side, the grand facilitator (Pope Benedict XVI) opened up for discussion a previously forbidden "off-limits" territory. Now the "Latin Mass" can "respectably" be talked about within Newchurch circles. Also, new definitions were put into place:
1) Tridentine Mass is from Trent; is the New Mass of Vatican II;
2) New and improved, and only "allowable" old Mass is the "Newchurch patented" 1962 old Mass;
3) Communities using it and eventually every "priest" must not in principle be against the Novus Ordo Liturgical Economy;
4) New Mass is the Ordinary Form for the Roman Rite. The 1962 "Tridentine" Mass is the Extraordinary Form.
A Few Other Major Liturgical Lies
"We more than anyone else have the cult of Man…" is Newchurch’s preamble as given by Pope Paul VI (Catholic Documents, ,Pope Paul VI, Jan. 1966). "We are giving up something of priceless worth" [Divine Liturgy] … so man can speak at God [as Protestants do]" (Pope Paul VI, Nov. 26, 1969). Because of its "666 orientation," this faithless generation (1 John) is cuddled in the lap of Satan. (John 5:19) Newchurch is his baby.
Satan is the father of lies. His apocalyptic kingdom is built on mega-lies. Only by "questioning to deny" (and then forbidding) basic Catholic faith-data can "666" change agents create a dialectic matrix which focuses on "feelings," "thinkings," "embracing pleasantries" and "following fallacious experts" which thereby create and collect victims of "666" who will become damned to Hell in Satan’s kingdom of lies.
We now conclude our study by turning to the big picture. Newchurch is built on many major fundamental lies. A few pertinent liturgy-related fundamental Newchurch lies will now be presented and explained.
Fundamental Lie #`1: God Loves You Just as You Are
The cult of man requires that God be perceived as "loving every man." Newchurch’s foundation lie is that "God loves unconditionally." Newchurch "presumes" this lie as it celebrates the sin of Presumption. Newchurchers gather to celebrate: that "God loves me just the way I am." (In fact, one Newchurch girls’ high school displayed such a sign on the front lawn.) The truth is that God can’t stand you the way you naturally are. You must be born again (in the Sacrament of Baptism). Then you must (by God’s grace) live in the state of Sanctifying Grace (or regain that state when it is lost by Mortal Sin). To be saved from Hell, one must "live" the Faith. That’s a major condition for God to love you.
God’s supernatural gift of Faith "creates" salutary facts. "Faith makes evident the unseen [salutarily necessary to be believed in] world. Without faith, one cannot please God (Hebrews 11:1). Without "living the faith," one displeases God.
Fundamental Lie #2: "Tridentine Mass" is the Product of the Council of Trent
Once the lie plants doubt in the belief that Jesus Christ instituted Divine Liturgy (even though one may still "mouth" or acquiesce belief in Divine Liturgy of the seven sacraments which flow from and lead to Christ-given and Christ-required Divine Liturgy) then Newchurch easily leads one to embrace mock-Masses made by mere men such as Bishop Cranmer or Bishop Bugnini. Also, as has been proven by the people’s acceptance of the recent Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, an invalidly functioning pope will be believed and followed when he claims the lie that the "Tridentine Mass" was the product of the Council of Trent just as the Bugnini-invented Legion of liturgies (supposedly) is the "Ordinary" form for Divine Liturgy in what Pope Benedict XVI refers to as "the Roman Rite." What Pope Benedict inappropriately refers to as the "Roman Rite" is correctly stated as the "Latin Rite" of the Canonized Latin Mass Divine Liturgy.
Fundamental Lie # 3: The "New" Mass Prays the Catholic Religion
Even murder of the most innocent and defenseless is tolerated or "insincerely reprimanded." This is so because (in his Newchurch) modern man prays a man-centered liturgy and thus has been conditioned to please himself in self-fulfilment, and not God. Newchurch prays a man-centered liturgy and thus is unable to utter "Stop sinning and repent!" So, if a couple "contracepts" or "commits abortion" (although at times an empty rhetoric may condemn the sin, but never the sinner) society "understands" and "supports sinners in their sin." Likewise, society formed by Newchurch continues to elect and re-elect politicians who make laws to enable men to continue sinning for their own fulfillment, all the while Newchurch hierarches "insincerely reprimands" such for doing so. If "New" Mass is the liturgy of the people, then that liturgy reflects society’s morals. In effect, one prays as one believes and one believes as one prays; thus, a "New Mass" is not Divine Liturgy even though it may be spoken "at God." If "New Mass" is not Divine Liturgy, then it does not teach and reflect Christ’s Church and Catholic religion.
Fundamental Lie # 4: A Facilitator/Presider/Collaborator Is a "Priest"
Regarding Divine Liturgy, Newchurch preachment and practice has fostered the lie that even a man commissioned to be a "facilitator" or "collaborator with the bishop" is the same as a "Holy Ordered ordained priest," who is ordained to say Mass for the living and the dead." Since 1970, Newchurch has conditioned "Catholics" to accept episcopally approved presiders or facilitators as if they were valid priests; when, in fact, Pope Leo XIII dogmatically ruled such to be "null and void" in this precise circumstance regarding the Anglican service and ordinals. (See The ABBOT & ME On Liturgy). The reality of the situation is that Newchurch is committing sacrilege and distributing "the abominable desolation"—"fake Mass" and "fake Eucharist." (See Pope Leo XIII’s dogmatic Apostolicae Curae and Fr. Trinchard’s "NEW MASS" CONCLUSIVELY INVALID.)
Fundamental Lie # 5: The "1962 Latin Mass" Is "the Tridentine Mass"
Why has Newchurch introduced the "1962 Latin Mass" calling it "the Tridentine" Latin Mass? The "Mass of 1962" has a "permission" attached to it. The "Tridentine" Latin Mass is the "Mass of all times" declared so in 1570 by the Council of Trent (and thus, called "Tridentine" because Trent dogmatized it). The Canonized Latin Mass Divine Liturgy "of all times" was so called because it was instituted by Jesus Christ and taught to the Apostles in oral Tradition; kept by the sensus et praxis fidelium through the centuries; and so dogmatically declared into the law of the Church to be the Canonized (codified by Church canon or law) Latin Mass for the Latin Rite Patriarchate; and thus, implemented governmentally within the Church by Quo Primum as commanded by the Council of Trent; and therefore, handed down as the "unchangeable Divine Liturgy" of the Catholic Church "for all times" (requiring no permission for a valid Holy Ordered priest).
[How can the Motu Proprio-Ecclesia Dei "Mass of 1962" be called "Tridentine" when the Council of Trent dogmatized the Latin Mass in 1570? Also, the so-called "Tridentine Mass" as dogmatized by Trent is a misnomer. It is not the "Tridentine Mass" since Trent did not "create" this Mass. Trent merely "canonized" this Mass into Church law or "canons." This Mass is properly called the Divine Liturgy of the Canonized Latin Mass. It is properly called Divine Liturgy because it was instituted by Christ, after which Trent "formally canonized" this liturgy into Church law. Thus, it is appropriately referred to as the Canonized Latin Mass Divine Liturgy.]
In recognition of the fact that it was the practice of heretics to attack the Catholic Mass (Divine Liturgy) in order to destroy it, the Canon Law of the Church protects this Divine Liturgy by stating that "no pastor" is to add, subtract or change the unchangeable parts of this Mass (which is the Ordinary of the Mass of the Faithful from "the Suscipe Sancte Pater through the Per Ipsum Prayer and the priest’s Communion." Likewise, recognizing that heretical bishops and hierarchs govern heretically, Quo Primum (written by Pope Saint Pius V, by order of the Council of Trent) recognized such as a "fact of faith" and so ordered that "no permission is required" for any valid Holy Ordered priest to celebrate this Canonized Mass Divine Liturgy.
A bishop cannot give permission to exercise a right (to the use of the Canonized Latin Rite Divine Liturgy) to which any validly ordained priest (or baptized Catholic) already has the Catholic "birthright" to practice (say or attend). Because the Canonized Latin Mass Divine Liturgy comes from Christ, it is "verbatim" (word for word) already and forever canonized from Apostolic times "for all times."
No one, most especially a pope, can give or take away this liturgical rite. So why did Newchurch create this "1962" aberration of the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy? Did Newchurch do such so that bishops and hierarchs could grant or not grant permission to use this satanically clever method of control? Under Church law, all the bishop can do is forbid a priest to enter "his" (sic) diocesan facility.
Fundamental Lie # 6: "New Mass" is the Same as "Catholic Mass"
Why does Newchurch persist in making new meanings for every Catholic word, so that there is a Catholic Church meaning and a second "Newchurch" meaning for each Catholic word and teaching? It is now most noticeable that the Catholic Church meanings are no longer in use and the Newchurch meanings are rampant. Does Newchurch thus admit that a "New Mass" is a "new religion?" Why then in every instance, does Newchurch make a difficulty where "there should be no difficulty?" Why does Pope Benedict XVI make a difficulty where there should be no difficulty in his Motu Proprio of "777?"
The "Word Gestalt" Comes From the Theory of "Language to Thought"
Engineer words and one can change thoughts (John Carroll, Language to Thought). Newchurch leaders do an excellent job executing this strategy. A few of their more successfully engineered words/thinkings are:
1) Divine Liturgy (largely due to the fact that the West used the non-specified word "Mass’ to describe or define it) was changed to "community celebration."
2) Consequently and as an integral part of managing thought (attitudes, personal definitions of the entity considered faith convictions) Holy Ordered Priesthood was radically and honestly changed to "presider" (over community celebrations) or facilitator (of community celebrations). Mass was rejected; or subjected to sacrilegious simulation; consequently, those who provided such a (protestant apostate) celebration were no longer "Holy Ordered" but commissioned by the "bishop" as presiders/facilitators of community celebrations, as well as, episcopal collaborators. In truth, they are episcopally exalted laymen, "docile middle-management" for Newchurch Corp.
On July 7, 2007 ("777") the cornerstone was laid and blessed for the great liturgical bridge by Pope Benedict XVI. This great bridge (Summorum Pontificum) is designed to unite separate and "separating" liturgies into the "New World One Liturgical Order" -- the Novus Ordo Liturgicus. Will it succeed; or, is it doomed to failure?
"Let the new and improved bridge of babelian liturgies begin. Let it be built on the cornerstone set and blessed by Pope Benedict XVI. Our name is ‘Legion’ and we (Novus Ordo Liturgies) will be made one with Divine Liturgy and its similitude. We will be made into the Babelian Bridge to God by papal fiat."
Personally Welcomed?
At first, I misunderstood "777." Naively, I thought it would reinstate my place in the Newchurch community. Presently, I am rejected and despised by Newchurch people, priests and bishops. My close relatives can’t understand how I can be opposed to Newchurch (which they mistakenly call the Catholic Church). Why don’t I embrace the Novus Ordo Liturgical Dispensation? On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of my "priestly ordination," my archbishop refused me permission to celebrate this happy occasion by saying a "Latin Mass" at the tomb of my great uncle, Fr. Clemence Umback, C.S.S.R., who is buried in the sanctuary of St. Mary’s Church next to Blessed Fr. Seelos, C.S.S.R. Would this archbishop let my uncle or even Blessed Seelos say a Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy? Is it credible that these saintly priests would say a Novus Ordo Service as if it were Divine Liturgy? Before "777," fellow priests in the archdiocese were of the opinion that I’m crazy. After "777," would I be pronounced "sane and faithful?" I thought at first that "777" would redeem me in their sight. For this reason, I welcomed Summorum Pontificum until I read it. What does Summorum Pontificum say and mean? The bottom line: it’s not a step in the right direction.
Infallible?
Let’s clear the air. Summorum Pontificum is not in itself an infallible papal document. To be so, it would "confirm, apply and clarify" an essential Apostolic datum of faith. (Novus Ordo Latin Mass is not Apostolic.)
Obviously, the entire Novus Ordo Liturgical Economy is episcopal—the abiding fruit of the Bishops’ Liturgical Revolt of the 1960s. As such, being in se "non-Apostolic," this New Order Liturgy (whether in Latin or the vernacular) cannot be a fit object of an infallible decree—according to the last dogmatic Council, Vatican I.
Can one question or deny to the pope his right of governing the existential church? No! However, any pope can govern sinfully or virtuously; rightly or wrongly; faithfully or unfaithfully. He is also responsible to God (and the faithful) to govern "faithfully." Let no man take this right/responsibility from him! However, in all of this, each is obliged to be faithful to his own properly formed and "properly working" conscience. Let no cleric dare take this right/responsibility from any morally accountable adult!
Bottom line? The pope governs and decrees as he wishes. Each of us must agree or dissent; follow or not follow, as one’s properly formed and properly functioning conscience determines. In the words of St. Joan of Arc: "I will obey provided Our Lord is first served!...It seems that God’s will and the [existential] church should be the same…Why do you [clerics] have a problem where there should be no problem?"
Bottom line? Summorum Pontificum’s "reasoning," statements or directives are not de fide. The statements it expresses or the commands it gives are at best based upon theological "opinions." As such, they are questionable and open to criticism.
"Muy Il Se Muevo"
There is a saying within the contemporary culture of physicists that Galileo, when conceding that the earth was stationary mumbled under his breath "Muy il se muevo" ("But it really does move!").
"But these two liturgies, the so-called Latin Mass and Newchurch Mass-like Service, are de facto radically and irreconcilably different! The "Galileos" of our day mutter to themselves. Eventually, we pray that what they mutter to themselves will be proclaimed from the housetops.
Listen carefully to future local ecclesial propaganda. The embarrassing (to them) truth will bleed through. At the very least, you will notice that the dedicated Newchurch cleric really rejects the other expression of the Church ’s "lex orandi" [(Summorum Pontificum)].
Will the totally and exclusively dedicated Novus Ordo cleric be treated in the same way as his liturgical counterpart—the bishop (that’s a joke!) or priest who sincerely holds firm to or believes in the "total and exclusive" use of the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy [a.k.a. "the other usage of the Roman Rite" (Summorum Pontificum, art. 2)]?
Time will tell. (Time will prove that the establishment church does not believe in or practice equal rights for geese and gander!)
Back to the formally complying priest who really believes in the Canonized Mass Liturgy. He may mouth consent to the equal rights of the other rite but under his breath, he mutters "but they are radically different!"
They are not and will never be or become "in fact, two usages of the one Roman Rite" (Summorum Pontificum art. 2). Not even pontifical decree can make them be otherwise than they are.
Novus Ordo Conceived and Born in the Revolting 1960s
The evil spirit of Vatican II (which conquered "the good spirit of Vatican II") conceived and birthed, nourished and brought into adolescence the Novus Ordo Liturgicus (the "New Liturgical Order"). Bishop Bugnini, inspired by Luther and apostate Protestants, was its "creator."
Why "1962" Latin Mass?
One cannot give permission to any validly ordained priest to exercise his "ordination right" (in this case, to say a Canonized Divine Liturgy). Quo Primum dogmatically by papal decree, recognized and edicted the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy to be "verbatim" already and forever canonized –from Apostolic times to the end of time.
No one, especially a pope, can give or take away this liturgical rite. So what did "they" do to control "Latin Liturgy?" In 1962, they created an aberration of the Canonized Latin Mass Liturgy (the 1962 Missal). Why? They did this so they could grant or not grant permission to use it. This satanically inspired fait accompli is assumed and employed in the "777" decree.
In Principle "Protestant?"
"…The priests of the communities adhering to the former usage [the ‘extraordinary form’ of the Roman Rite, i.e., the 1962 Missal] cannot as a matter of principle exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness." (accompanying letter to the bishops).
Strictly speaking, this restriction does not ("at face value") apply to individual priests. However, let’s assume it will be thus applied. Let us also assume it is stating binding policy which springs from, implies and concludes to great fundamental premises or conclusions.
These premises/conclusions are spectacular. This will be the stuff of great theological study and debate! Some areas of further theological inquiry are:
I. Has Newchuch officially confessed and/or professed that it is "in principle" Protestant? Has the "head of Newchurch" defined his church (a.k.a. "Catholic Church") as being "in principle" against or intolerant toward the Canonized (Latin) Mass Liturgy (of Apostolic Tradition)?
II. How will the "addressed communities within Newchurch" conform to this decree? More relevantly, how will "reigning bishops interpret and enforce this decree?" While "externally conforming" some still retain "conscientious objections" to the Novus Ordo Liturgy. If they do not conscientiously reject the Novus Ordo Liturgical Economy, ipso facto, do they not thereby become Protestants – in spirit and in truth? Cannot this "Newchurch edict" be used by bishops to hunt out and destroy "community-priests" or even individual priests who hold that orthodox Catholic Mass Liturgy is and must be the only "acceptable to and commanded by" God Divine Liturgy, since the Canonized Mass Liturgy (Eastern or Latin) was instituted by Christ, "canonized" by the Apostles; "was, is and will always be" canonized by the truly faithful orthodox Catholics of "all times and places"(so as to define them as being orthodox Catholic) and, specifically and "verbatim" canonized by Pope St. Pius V (Quo Primum).
III. Again, the question arises: "Is lex orandi, lex credendi?" If so, according to real evidence, (as pointed out in NEW MASS CONCLUSIVELY INVALID) is not "New Mass" conclusively invalid, since it prays an apostate faith?
IV. Ultimately, we are forced to ask: "Are not Protestantism and authentic Catholicism incompatible religion-wise?"
Recommended "Theological" Reading
These issues and most other basic liturgical issues of our day are treated (in popular theological manner) in the following MAETA books: NEW MASS CONCLUSIVELY INVALID, LATIN MASS PRAYERS EXPLAINED THE ABBOT & ME On Liturgy, APOCALYPSE OF THE MASS. (Tollfree: 1-888-577-4428 or 1-504-401-3412 or fax: 504-833-5272. Internet: www.maeta.com
Effectively, the Papal Message to Apostates Within!
The bottom line: apostates within, REJOICE! The rites of your religion have been papally "green-lighted." Proceed with caution. Watch out for those who have not been "religiously lobotomized." While embracing "feely-touchy trads," watch out for "trads with a correct conscience," those who believe in the Canonized Mass Liturgy as an "article of faith."
From the appearance in two secular newspaper articles within one week (in our area of the deep south) it appears that another announcement of the long awaited policy change by IHOL's president and executive officer, Joseph Ratzinger, is imminent. The experts have already treated it as a fait accompli.
Lacking the unanimous approval of his board of directors, president of Newchurch announced that Newchurch's subsidiary, commonly referred to as IHOL, (International House of Liturgies) in an attempt to offset and reverse diminishing sales and thereby to remedy its weak market performance, would offer a dramatically expanded liturgical menu: it would bring back "old-time favorites."
Wall Street and Church Street experts quickly reacted. They reminded us that this menu was the mainstay, the basis of the outstanding performance of the Catholic Church before it became Newchurch up to the late 1960s. IHOL's stock soon rose sharply, but then, lacking affirmative action, slowly resumed its slow slide downward.
Stockholders' reaction was skeptical and mixed. Church Street experts, in general, suggested dumping all of one's shaky Newchurch holdings. Others suggested a "wait and see" strategy.
An Expert's Evaluation
The foremost Church Street expert, Paul Trinchard, points out that the corporation [IHOL] will be strained, perhaps even "overstrained." Trinchard cited internal dissension within both high and middle management as a crucial factor. He stated:
Will middle-management (clerical personnel who have come to operate their franchises independently of president Ratzinger and his wishes) go along with this 180 degree product change? Due to loose governing tactics of the previous president of Newchurch, middle-management personnel have now come to see themselves as being independent franchise operators.
Add to this the fact that nearly all of those franchise owners and their executive officers have successfully and wholeheartedly adapted to discarding the old-time menu offerings and have, we dare to say, 'religiously' committed themselves to the new all-improved, liturgical menu, which in IHOL outlets, has come to totally replace the pre-sixties' menu. I predict bigger problems arising in the future.
I advise one to take his stock out of IHOL or to watch it very carefully. Watch the overall market indicators and compare Newchurch IHOL stock's projected performance to general market trends. Observe the present and projected supply and demand data concerning liturgical items.
The bottom line? This initiative could save a dying corporation. It could prove to be the shot in the arm that it needs to regain its share of the market. As for me, I'm too old and too independent to switch to IHOL.
One last bit of advice look into switching over to OL (Orthodox Liturgy). Its market performance has been impressive (even though it took a dramatic and frightful dip during World War II)."
Editor's Comments
Although Trinchard is the foremost authority on church stock, for the uninitiated, his observations need clarification. We'll fill in the gaps.
CC Corporation preceded Newchurch Corporation. In fact, franchise operators in CC Corporation (none of them were owners at that time) were under strictest control by their president. What he ordered them to do, they did [even before he gave an order].
IHOL did not exist before 1966. Only one liturgical item was offered on CC's menus (in all of its outlets). Canonized liturgies were the sole offerings in the CC outlets.
In the 1960s, a hostile company takeover took place. Middle management revolted and turned the presider into a figurehead who was under their control. Wojtyla became a very attractive and lucrative public relations spokesperson for IHOL. His act proved to be hard to follow.
While, for many, CC seemed to remain intact due to Wojtyla's clever and entertaining publicity, in reality, the corporation's identity was radically changed. CC, Inc. was formed into Newchurch Inc. Newchurch's main subsidiary was and remains IHOL which replaced CC's limited liturgical selections with a legion of "New Order" menu items.
This background which Trinchard left out is integral to understanding the essence of Newchurch and its wholly-owned subsidiary, IHOL. With this background in mind, the reader can come to fathom the enormity of the president's challenge (or is it really an order, and if so, what will he do to the disobedient franchise owners)?
Is Ratzinger trying to regain control of the failing Newchurch Corp? Is he strategically "back-dating" his company in the hope of "updating" it? Will he update it into once again being CC?
Many questions remain unasked. Many answers remain ungiven. It's not as simple as Trinchard leads one to think (but at least he has led us to think).
Metairie, La. Just as Roman Catholics awakened to suddenly find themselves non-Catholics in the early times of St. Jerome, Catholic faithful today dwell in a church that at its best is Modernist and at its worst is an abominable impiety, according to a new book by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.
In his book New Mass Conclusively Invalid, Father Trinchard uses the very own teaching of the Roman Catholic Church to trace the devolution of Christ's Divine institution of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to the man-made abomination that it has become today. "Christ instituted the Mass to be as He instituted in perpetuity forever period," Father Trinchard says. In the disobedient "spirit of Vatican Council II in the early sixties, the Bishops revolted against Christ and the Catholic Church and celebrated their New Mass."
"Celebrated in the vernacular, the New Mass is more suitable to man, but disobedient to God and, therefore, conclusively invalid," Father Trinchard continues. "This book brings to the forefront truths of the Christ-instituted Holy Mass and emphasizes the mandate to uphold the Christ-bestowed Canonized Latin Mass."
"Even in the early days of the Church, there were bishops who led the faithful astray by questioning the divinity of Christ, thereby becoming non-Catholics in spirit and truth. Today, more than 90 percent of Catholic Bishops have led an attack on Christ's New Testament the Canonized Latin Mass. By attacking the Christ-given Liturgy, they have destroyed the belief or faith of the Church, since a Catholic prays what he believes and believes what he prays," says Father Trinchard.
"New Mass" Conclusively Invalid utilizes an historical time-line to highlight the fact that the Church, its popes, and its bishops embraced Christ's Canonized Latin Mass and preserved it and honored it up to the 1960's when the Bishops revolted in disobedience "in the spirit of Vatican II" and demanded a New Mass.
"The teaching of the Catholic Church from the time of Christ has always remained the same," Father Trinchard says. "However, since the introduction of New Mass, the entire belief, action and agenda of the Church have been misdirected from God to man and this world. The New Mass is not from Christ through Apostolic Tradition and it points us toward the Apocalypse as being the Abominable Desolation."
"This book is totally, completely, without exceptionCatholic!" says Lila Karpf, agent of the late Malachi Martin.
Fr. Paul Trinchard, ordained a Jesuit priest on June 7, 1966, except for his ordination day, celebrated the New Mass all the years of his ministry. Father Trinchard is now a retired diocesan priest, who began to pray the Canonized Mass upon his retirement in 1989. He experienced a conversion rejecting the New Mass entirely, finding it even more nonsensically disedifying when prayed without a congregation. After his conversion, he began to study and pray and has since written 15 books and numerous other works about the Mass. Besides having written for major Catholic periodicals, Father Trinchard holds a licentiate in Sacred Theology and graduate degrees in philosophy and physics.
Some of his books are Apostasy Within, God's Word, New Mass in Light of the Old, New Age New Mass, My Basic Missal, The Mystery of Faith, The Abbot & Me on Liturgy, The Mass That Made Padre Pio, The Awesome Fatima Consecrations, Fatima Apocalypse Now and Latin Mass Prayers Explained.
"NEW MASS" CONCLUSIVELY INVALID According to the Preponderance of Evidence is published by MAETA, which publishes Catholic books, many of which focus on the Canonized Latin Mass. For more information about "NEW MASS" CONCLUSIVELY INVALID contact Vera Muller at 1-888-577-4428.
# # #
CHRONOLOGY OF THE DEVOLUTION OF THE DIVINE INSTITUTION OF THE HOLY MASS
The following time-line highlights certain important happenings with regard to Christ's Mass and its preservation as the Mass of the Latin Rite. It shows how the Mass of priceless worth was upheld and preserved until the Bishops' Revolt in the 1960's and then devolved into the mere "novelty," the New Mass.
88 A.D. Pope St. Clement professes that Our Lord gave us the Mass in its principle parts.
600 A.D. Pope St. Gregory the Great reaffirms the canonization of Christ's Latin Mass Text, which in 1570, is again "explicitly and word for word," declared canonical in perpetuity by the Council of Trent, through the dogmatic Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V.
1896 A.D. Pope Leo XIII declares Anglican orders and services to be "null and void." Pope Leo explains the Catholic principles in his document, Apostolicae Curae, which more specifically evidence the invalidity of the New Mass.
1907 A.D. Pope St. Pius X condemns Modernism and requires priests to take the Oath Against Modernism.
1962 A.D. Pope John XXIII, eight months before Vatican II, declares in his Veterum Sapientia that Latin is the language of the Church, that the Mass must be in Latin and that Latin must be taught to all seminarians.
1966 A.D. In the 1960's, American Bishops twice petition Rome for a "new vernacular Mass" and twice Rome refuses to allow it. Despite Rome's refusal, Cardinal Deardon (President of the American Catholic Bishops) publicly announces in Rome that it will be mandatory in all American public Masses "as soon as the books can be printed."
1969 A.D. Pope Paul VI has printed three new Mass prayers for the Missal. remarking that we are giving up something of priceless worth in order for laymen to have their own prayer. Shortly afterward, he observes that the smoke of Satan has entered the Catholic sanctuary. At this time, the Bishops had already been celebrating their New Mass for more than 3 years, even though the Roman Missal then as now remains intact.
|
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 |