Relentless
by Thomas A. Droleskey
7. It is with no less deceit, venerable brothers, that other enemies of
divine revelation, with reckless and sacrilegious effrontery, want to import the
doctrine of human progress into the Catholic religion. They extol it with the
highest praise, as if religion itself were not of God but the work of men, or a
philosophical discovery which can be perfected by human means. The charge which
Tertullian justly made against the philosophers of his own time "who brought
forward a Stoic and a Platonic and a Dialectical Christianity"[2] can very aptly
apply to those men who rave so pitiably. Our holy religion was not invented by
human reason, but was most mercifully revealed by God; therefore, one can quite
easily understand that religion itself acquires all its power from the authority
of God who made the revelation, and that it can never be arrived at or perfected
by human reason. In order not to be deceived and go astray in a matter of such
great importance, human reason should indeed carefully investigate the fact of
divine revelation. Having done this, one would be definitely convinced that God
has spoken and therefore would show Him rational obedience, as the Apostle very
wisely teaches.[3] For who can possibly not know that all faith should be given
to the words of God and that it is in the fullest agreement with reason itself
to accept and strongly support doctrines which it has determined to have been
revealed by God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived? (Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846.)
28. It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as
authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in
the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it
was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: "These enemies of divine
revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious
daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion
were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery
susceptible of perfection by human efforts." On the subject of revelation
and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We
find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these
terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and
indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason";and
condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the
faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be
perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit
entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly
interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually
retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense
ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the
truth."Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith,
barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained.
For the same Council continues: "Let intelligence and science and wisdom,
therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and
in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and
the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma,
the same sense, the same acceptation." (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
Would that they had but displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it!
But such is their activity and such their unwearying labor on behalf of their
cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them waste such energy in
endeavoring to ruin the Church when they might have been of such service to her
had their efforts been better directed. Their artifices to delude men's minds
are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to
devise and apply actively and patiently every resource that can serve their
purpose. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their
way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the
Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting
war. Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule
and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this
conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in
them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is
tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic
method. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned
by Pius IX: "The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of
scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies
of our time or the progress of science." They exercise all their ingenuity
in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as
to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove
the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare,
after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions,
to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow
any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the
declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to
preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic
Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils,
both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the
Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and
Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following
declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical
traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.'' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
The teaching of the Catholic Church is quite clear. Accommodating the spirit of the world in the name of "progress" has no place in Catholic Faith and Worship. Modernists, however, seek to "weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority." Behold the words of just such a Modernist, a man whose false beliefs are so perfectly described in the above passages from Pope Pius IX's Qui Pluribus and Pope Saint Pius X's Pascendi Dominci Gregis as to make one wonder if this holy pontiffs did not have a vision of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI before them as they wrote:
The liturgy, summit to which the action of the Church tends and at the
same time source from which her virtue springs (cf. Sacrosanctum
Concilium, 10), with its celebratory universe, thus becomes the great
educator in the primacy of the faith and of grace. The liturgy,
privileged witness of the living Tradition of the Church, faithful to
its original duty to reveal and make present in the hodie of human
vicissitudes the opus Redemptionis, lives from a correct and constant
relationship between healthy traditio and legitimate progressio, made
explicit lucidly by the conciliar constitution in No. 23. The conciliar
fathers wished to commit their program of reform with both terms, in
equilibrium with the great liturgical tradition of the past and the
future. Not infrequently tradition and progress are clumsily opposed. In
reality, the two concepts are integrated: tradition is a living
reality, which because of this includes in itself the principle of
development, of progress. It is as if saying that the river of tradition
has its source in itself and flows toward the outlet. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Address to Liturgical Institute, May 6, 2011.)
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is relentless in his promotion of each of the false tenets of conciliarism, including the vessel, the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service, into which those false tenets were poured so as to accustom Catholics to change and instability and impermanence as a regular feature of liturgical life and thus of the very tenets of what purports to be Sacred Doctrine Itself. Those who get accustomed to liturgical impermanence will conclude, quite logically, that doctrine itself is subject to such impermanence and reinterpretation according to this or that alleged "need."
The conciliar revolutionaries knew full well that the only contact that most Catholics had with the Faith is their assistance at Sunday Mass. The Immemorial Mass of Tradition conveyed permanence and stability of its very essence. This permanence and stability reflected the attributes of God Himself, Who is immutable and without a shadow of change or "progress." Possessed of the revolutionary spirit of Modernism, however, the conciliar revolutionaries believed that it was essential to enact a liturgical reform upon evolutionary principles in order to so bewilder the faithful that they would not be able to trust their Catholic senses, relying upon the "experts" of the revolutionaries in order to accept that "new" is good and pleasing to God.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has tried relentlessly to provide what he thinks is an "equilibrium" between what he thinks is "tradition" and "progress" in doctrine and in the liturgy throughout the course of the past six painful years of a "pontificate" filled with blasphemy and sacrilege and heresy and error and rank philosophical and theological madness. He explained in his address of two days ago that one of the goals of the "liturgical movement" that was hijacked by Modernists in the 1920s to make the liturgy into a vessel of false ecumenism was to find the right "balance" between "ritualism" and "subjectivism," meaning that the Immemorial Mass of Tradition was too "rigid" and "formal" while at the same time "presiders" must avoid turning the liturgy into a personal plaything for his own idiosyncratic predilections:
Blessed John XXIII, taking up the requests of a liturgical movement that
wished to give new impetus and breath to the prayer of the Church,
shortly before the Second Vatican Council and while it was being held,
wanted the Faculty of the Benedictines on the Aventine Hill to be a
center of study and research to ensure a solid basis for the conciliar
liturgical reform. On the eve of the Council, in fact, the urgency of a
reform in the liturgical field seemed ever more vital, put forward as
well by requests made by several episcopates. Moreover, the strong
pastoral demands that animated the liturgical movement called for
fostering and arousing a more active participation of the faithful in
liturgical celebrations through the use of national languages, and a
deepening in the topic of the adaptation of the rites in different
cultures, especially in mission lands. In addition, a need was revealed
clearly from the beginning to study more profoundly the theological
foundation of the liturgy, to avoid falling into ritualism or fostering
subjectivism, the celebrant showing off, and for the reform to be well
founded in the ambit of Revelation and in continuity with the tradition
of the Church. Animated by his wisdom and prophetic spirit, to respond
to these needs, Pope John XXIII created the Liturgical Institute, to
which he wished to attribute immediately the name "Pontifical" to
indicate its particular bond with the Apostolic See. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Address to Liturgical Institute, May 6, 2011.)
To avoid "the celebrant showing off"? You mean like the man you just "beatified," Benedict XVI, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II? Him? That fellow? How about Christoph "Cardinal" Schonborn in Austria with his balloon "Masses."
One of the ironies contained in this passage from the false "pontiff's" address of two days ago is that the new conciliar "beatus," John Paul II, who presided over some of the most scandalous and sacrilegious liturgical services ever witnessed in human history, used almost very similar language to justify the conciliar liturgical revolution by explaining it sought sought to strike a "balance" between "formalism" and "subjectivism:"
Furthermore we should follow the directives issued by the various
departments of the Holy See in this field: be it in liturgical matters, in the
rules established by the liturgical books in what concerns the Eucharistic
Mystery,(67) and in the Instructions devoted to this mystery, be it with regard
to communication in sacris, in the norms of the Directorium de re oecumenica(68)
and in the Instructio de peculiaribus casibus admittendi alios christianos ad
communionem eucharisticam in Ecclesia catholica.(69) And although at this stage
of renewal the possibility of a certain "creative" freedom has been
permitted, nevertheless this freedom must strictly respect the requirements of
substantial unity. We can follow the path of this pluralism (which arises in
part from the introduction itself of the various languages into the liturgy)
only as long as the essential characteristics of the celebration of the
Eucharist are preserved, and the norms prescribed by the recent liturgical
reform are respected.
Indispensable effort is required everywhere to ensure that within the
pluralism of eucharistic worship envisioned by the Second Vatican Council the
unity of which the Eucharist is the sign and cause is clearly manifested.
This task, over which in the nature of things the Apostolic See must keep
careful watch, should be assumed not only by each episcopal conference but by
every minister of the Eucharist, without exception. Each one should also
remember that he is responsible for the common good of the whole Church. The
priest as minister, as celebrant, as the one who presides over the eucharistic
assembly of the faithful, should have a special sense of the common good of the
Church, which he represents through his ministry, but to which he must also be
subordinate, according to a correct discipline of faith. He cannot consider
himself a "proprietor" who can make free use of the liturgical text
and of the sacred rite as if it were his own property, in such a way as to stamp
it with his own arbitrary personal style. At times this latter might seem more
effective, and it may better correspond to subjective piety; nevertheless,
objectively it is always a betrayal of that union which should find its proper
expression in the sacrament of unity.
Every priest who offers the holy Sacrifice should recall that during this
Sacrifice it is not only he with his community that is praying but the whole
Church, which is thus expressing in this sacrament her spiritual unity, among
other ways by the use of the approved liturgical text. To call this position "mere
insistence on uniformity" would only show ignorance of the objective
requirements of authentic unity, and would be a symptom of harmful
individualism. (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980.)
2. All of this makes clear the great responsibility which
belongs to priests in particular for the celebration of the Eucharist. It is
their responsibility to preside at the Eucharist in persona Christi and
to provide a witness to and a service of communion not only for the community
directly taking part in the celebration, but also for the universal Church,
which is a part of every Eucharist. It must be lamented that, especially in
the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a
misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many. A certain reaction
against “formalism” has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the “forms” chosen
by the Church's great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium as non-binding
and to introduce unauthorized innovations which are often completely
inappropriate.
I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the
liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great
fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial
nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never
anyone's private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which
the mysteries are celebrated. The Apostle Paul had to address fiery words to
the community of Corinth because of grave shortcomings in their celebration of
the Eucharist resulting in divisions (schismata) and the emergence of
factions (haireseis) (cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34). Our time, too, calls
for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms as a reflection
of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made present in every
celebration of the Eucharist. Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according
to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly
but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church. Precisely to bring out
more clearly this deeper meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the
competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document,
including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject.
No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands: it is
too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for
its sacredness and its universality. (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, April 17, 2003.)
Here is Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI still trying to "get right" what his "beatified" predecessor sought to do for over a quarter of a century, that is, to find the right "balance" between "ritualism" and "subjectivism" once and for all. This is simply alien to the history of any liturgical rite of the Catholic Church, no less that of the Roman Rite.
Pope Saint Pius V, whose feast day was celebrated three days ago now, issued the Missale Romanum on July 14, 1570, with the Papal Bull Quo Primum to place beyond the ability of innovators to tamper with the Holy Mass of the Roman Rite in any way whatsoever. He did so to standardize the offerings of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that varied from place to place according to local custom and usage and to put a stop to the efforts on the part of some priests, especially in the German states, who were seeking to win back apostate Catholics from Protestantism by adapting the Sacred Liturgy to appeal to them, which is, of course, one of very purposes of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service (see the appendix below). This is the very precise language used by Pope Saint Pius V:
Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic
authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading
of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed
absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty,
judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors,
administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of
whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as
enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced
or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be
revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force
notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well
as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal
councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches,
established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than
two hundred years' standing. . . .
Accordingly, since it would be difficult for this present pronouncement to be
sent to all parts of the Christian world and simultaneously come to light
everywhere, We direct that it be, as usual, posted and published at the doors of
the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, also at the Apostolic Chancery, and
on the street at Campo Flora; furthermore, We direct that printed copies of this
same edict signed by a notary public and made official by an ecclesiastical
dignitary possess the same indubitable validity everywhere and in every nation,
as if Our manuscript were shown there. Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted
to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept,
grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should know that he
will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. (Pope Saint Pius V, Quo Primum, July 14, 1570.)
Mere formalism or ritualism? Or a defense of the integrity of the Holy Faith? I report. You decide.
Active participation in the liturgy? The use of the vernacular? Appeals to the liturgy as "living" just as "tradition" is living? Pope Pius XII discussed these goals of the liturgical revolutionaries sixteen years before the issuance of the first document of the "Second" Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, November 1, 1963, in his encyclical letter entitled Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947. Pope Pius XII explained that the Church, as a living organism, rejects novel liturgical practices that have nothing to do--and actually impede--her ability to worship God and administer the Sacraments to the faithful:
59. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in
respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and
accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the
integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and
daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the
revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics,
deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren,
that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details
but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those
who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic
sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days -- which have been appointed
and established after mature deliberation -- to other dates; those, finally, who
delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old
Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.
60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the
Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective
antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the
mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage
to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this
permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this
nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred
liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of
the Holy See.
61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the
restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The
liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But
ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own
right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple
ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent
liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their
inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the
consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the
majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.
62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and
affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of
study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance
towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of
feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on
their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to
antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be
straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its
primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the
liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in
Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's
body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and
reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to
regulations issued by the Holy See.
63. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of
Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the
Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant
fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No
more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the
Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law.
Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters
liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new
patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of
circumstances and situation.
64. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless
antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise
attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling
of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to
souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the "deposit of
faith" committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason
to condemn.[53] For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze
and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs
the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls' salvation. (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.)
Yes, indeed. The perverse designs of the man who ignored Mediator Dei have very much paralyzed and weakened the process of sanctification" for those who are attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism with its barren sacramental rites.
Pope Pius XII went on to explain that true participation of the lay faithful in the Holy Mass involves their praying the Mass with their hand missals as they recollect themselves for a worthy reception of Our Lord in Holy Communion at the perfect prayer that is the Mass, the very unbloody re-presentation of His one Sacrifice to the Father in Spirit and in Truth on the wood of the Holy Cross. Our last true pope also explained that the vocal participation of the faithful at Holy Mass, although it had been permitted in 1922 in limited circumstances by Pope Pius XI whose wider use he authorized six days before his death in 1958, is not of the essence of the Mass and does have anything to do with the fulfillment of the its ends:
104. Let the faithful, therefore, consider to what a high dignity they are
raised by the sacrament of baptism. They should not think it enough to
participate in the eucharistic sacrifice with that general intention which
befits members of Christ and children of the Church, but let them further, in
keeping with the spirit of the sacred liturgy, be most closely united with the
High Priest and His earthly minister, at the time the consecration of the divine
Victim is enacted, and at that time especially when those solemn words are
pronounced, "By Him and with Him and in Him is to Thee, God the Father almighty,
in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honor and glory for ever and ever";[101] to
these words in fact the people answer, "Amen." Nor should Christians forget to
offer themselves, their cares, their sorrows, their distress and their
necessities in union with their divine Savior upon the cross.
105. Therefore, they are to be praised who, with the idea of getting the
Christian people to take part more easily and more fruitfully in the Mass,
strive to make them familiar with the "Roman Missal," so that the faithful,
united with the priest, may pray together in the very words and sentiments of
the Church. They also are to be commended who strive to make the liturgy even in
an external way a sacred act in which all who are present may share. This can be
done in more than one way, when, for instance, the whole congregation, in
accordance with the rules of the liturgy, either answer the priest in an orderly
and fitting manner, or sing hymns suitable to the different parts of the Mass,
or do both, or finally in high Masses when they answer the prayers of the
minister of Jesus Christ and also sing the liturgical chant.
100. These methods of participation in the Mass are to be approved and
recommended when they are in complete agreement with the precepts of the Church
and the rubrics of the liturgy. Their chief aim is to foster and promote the
people's piety and intimate union with Christ and His visible minister and to
arouse those internal sentiments and dispositions which should make our hearts
become like to that of the High Priest of the New Testament. However, though
they show also in an outward manner that the very nature of the sacrifice, as
offered by the Mediator between God and men,[102] must be regarded as the act of
the whole Mystical Body of Christ, still they are by no means necessary to
constitute it a public act or to give it a social character. And besides, a
"dialogue" Mass of this kind cannot replace the high Mass, which, as a matter of
fact, though it should be offered with only the sacred ministers present,
possesses its own special dignity due to the impressive character of its ritual
and the magnificence of its ceremonies. The splendor and grandeur of a high
Mass, however, are very much increased if, as the Church desires, the people are
present in great numbers and with devotion.
107. It is to be observed, also, that they have strayed from the path of
truth and right reason who, led away by false opinions, make so much of these
accidentals as to presume to assert that without them the Mass cannot fulfill
its appointed end. (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.)
Behold those who believe that what they think is the Holy Mass cannot fulfill its appointed end without the "full, active and conscious participation" of the lay faithful, namely, the conciliar revolutionaries, starting with Giovanni Montini/Paul VI and ending at the present time with Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.
These liturgical revolutionaries have ignored the following passage from Mediator Dei wherein Pope Pius XII praised those who, being unable to use a hand missal, meditated on the mysteries of Our Lady or performed "other exercises of piety" that were "still essentially in harmony with" the sacred rites of Holy Mass. In other words, Pope Pius XII was praising what stands condemned by the conciliar revolutionaries as "individualism," which is one of the reason the mania of the Novus Ordo service, so filled with responses and actions, leaves one almost no time for mental recollection:
108. Many of the faithful are unable to use the Roman missal even though it
is written in the vernacular; nor are all capable of understanding correctly the
liturgical rites and formulas. So varied and diverse are men's talents and
characters that it is impossible for all to be moved and attracted to the same
extent by community prayers, hymns and liturgical services. Moreover, the needs
and inclinations of all are not the same, nor are they always constant in the
same individual. Who, then, would say, on account of such a prejudice, that all
these Christians cannot participate in the Mass nor share its fruits? On the
contrary, they can adopt some other method which proves easier for certain
people; for instance, they can lovingly meditate on the mysteries of Jesus
Christ or perform other exercises of piety or recite prayers which, though they
differ from the sacred rites, are still essentially in harmony with them. (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.)
"Who, then,. would say, on the account of such a prejudice, that all these Christians cannot participate in the Mass nor share its fruits?" Well, let's see: Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, Albino Luciani/John Paul I, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, to name the four men who have been the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism since the end of the "Second" Vatican Council on December 8, 1965, omitting for the sake of time the names of "cardinals" and "bishops" and "priests" and "religious" and liturgists and theologians who do indeed have just such a prejudice as that denounced by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei.
One of the saddest ironies in all of this is that it was Pope Pius XII who appointed some of the leading revolutionaries to supervise the possibility of implementing liturgical reforms who made misrepresentations to him about what it is they were doing and who, after his death on October 9, 1958, proceeded under the conciliar "popes," starting with Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, to ignore the admonitions contained in Mediator Dei, which was reduced to but one footnoted reference, at Paragraph Twenty-two, in the "Second" Vatican Council's Sacrosanctum Concilium, thus giving us the very revolution that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is being relentless in institutionalizing and rationalizing before he dies.
Alas, nothing can change the fact that the liturgical revolutionaries who plied their dirty work between the end of World War I in 1918 and the dawning of the age of conciliarism forty years later with the "election" Roncalli/John XXIII was meant to enshrine false ecumenism in the liturgical life and pastoral praxis of what purported to be the Catholic Church. And that false ecumenism is indeed and will ever remain the enemy of the Immaculata:
"Only until all schismatics
and Protestants profess the Catholic Creed with conviction, when all
Jews voluntarily ask for Holy Baptism – only then will the Immaculata
have reached its goals.”
“In other words” Saint Maximilian insisted, “there
is no greater enemy of the Immaculata and her Knighthood than today’s
ecumenism, which every Knight must not only fight against, but also
neutralize through diametrically opposed action and ultimately destroy.
We must realize the goal of the Militia Immaculata as quickly as
possible: that is, to conquer the whole world, and every individual soul
which exists today or will exist until the end of the world, for the
Immaculata, and through her for the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.” (Father
Karl Stehlin, Immaculata, Our Ideal, Kansas City, Missouri, Angelus Press, 2007, p. 37.)
Take heart, however, the Catholic Church cannot be responsible for any of this. Who teaches us this? The Fathers of the Council of Trent, who, just by the way, you understand, guided infallibly by none other than God the Holy Ghost:
CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. (Session Twenty-Two, Chapter IX, Canon VII, Council of Trent, September 17, 1562, CT022.)
I rest as I need to get some rest. What more can be said? None of the travesties of the past forty years can be sanctioned or permitted in any way by Holy Mother Church, she is as spotless and immaculate as Our Lady herself.
We must pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, especially during this month of May, accepting with joy and with gratitude each of the sufferings and calumnies and difficulties that come our way as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
The path to Heaven can be trod only by those who are willing to bear the Cross and to lift it high in their daily lives. considering it our privilege to hear the Immemorial Mass of Tradition offered at the hands of truly good shepherds who care for their sheep, that is, the true bishops and priests who reject conciliarism, seeking only to live in such a way that we will be ready at all times to die in a state of Sanctifying Grace as a member of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.
It's the Faith that matters, the entire Faith without any compromises, now and for all eternity. And we must be as relentless in Its defense as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is in Its destruction in the name of reconciling "tradition" and "progress."
Aren't we willing to suffer some more for the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary?
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
Appendix A
From the Mouths of the Liturgical Revolutionaries Themselves
We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants." (Annibale Bugnini, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.)
"[T]he intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should coincide with the Protestant liturgy.... [T]here was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense, in the Mass, and I, repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass" (Dec. 19, 1993), Apropos, #17, pp. 8f; quoted in Christian Order, October, 1994. (Jean Guitton, a close friend of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI. The quotation and citations are found in Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, The Remnant Publishing Company, 2002, p. 317.)
Let it be candidly said: the Roman Rite which we have known hitherto no longer exists. It is destroyed. (Father Joseph Gelineau, an associate of Annibale Bugnini on the Consilium, quoted and footnoted in the work of a John Mole, who believed that the Mass of the Roman Rite had been "truncated," not destroyed. Assault on the Roman Rite)
