Words Really Do Matter

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The human propensity to avoid facing truth, including the truth about ourselves and our sins, is vast. Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, the late Soviet dissident who was imprisoned for eight years (from 1945 to 1953) in various Soviet prisons and spent another three years in internal exile in Kazakhstan (about which I learned so very much when taking a summer session course in Soviet Politics with the late Dr. Tadeusz N. Cieplak during the first summer session at Saint John's University in 1971), explained the difficulty that most people have in accepting truth when he addressed the 1978 graduating classes of Harvard University on June 8, 1978:

Harvard's motto is "Veritas." Many of you have already found out and others will find out in the course of their lives that truth eludes us if we do not concentrate with total attention on its pursuit. And even while it eludes us, the illusion still lingers of knowing it and leads to many misunderstandings. Also, truth is seldom pleasant; it is almost invariably bitter. There is some bitterness in my speech today, too. But I want to stress that it comes not from an adversary but from a friend. (Solzhenitsyn's Harvard Address)

 

Very few traditionally-minded Catholics attached to the counterfeit church of conciliarism wanted to face the cold, hard truth when Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI issued Summorum Pontificum and his accompanying explanatory letter to the world's conciliar "bishops" on Saturday, July 7, 2007. The truth was staring them right in the face. They preferred not to admit that it was there. They preferred to believe that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI just "had" to write the Missale Romanum of Pope Saint Pius V and the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service were but two "forms" of the "one" Roman Rite, that there had been "growth and progress" but no "rupture" between the two even though this represented a complete contradiction of what he had written in the French language preface to Monsignor Klaus Gamber's The Reform of the Roman Liturgy and and in his own memoirs, Milestones:

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage 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 (Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum".)

What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it--as in a manufacturing process--with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, oppose this falsification, and thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a true liturgy. As a man who knew and loved history, he showed us the multiple forms and paths of liturgical development; as a man who looked at history form the inside, he saw in this development and its fruit the intangible reflection of the eternal liturgy, that which is not the object of our action but which can continue marvelously to mature and blossom if we unite ourselves intimately with its mystery. (Joseph Ratzinger, Preface to the French language edition of Monsignor Klaus Gamber's The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.)

The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic. It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.

But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth. thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer living development but the produce of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused an enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something "made", not something given in advance but something lying without our own power of decision. (Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones.)

One will also note that Ratzinger/Benedict wrote in his Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum" that the 1962 Missal "was never judicially abrogated" even though he had written in Milestones the exact opposite:

The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic.

 

The conciliar party line that there was "growth and progress," not rupture, in the years after the "Second" Vatican Council, a party line that the very words of Joseph Ratzinger himself, is a lie. While God can and does bring good out of evil, He does NOT sanction evil be done to accomplish the good that might be brought out of it. A lie is never the foundation of any kind of legitimate "reform" or "renewal." That which is false leads always to bad consequences.

We have only to look at the emptied Catholic church buildings now in control of the conciliar authorities, many of which have been or are being sold off to pay for the moral crimes of conciliar clergymen who have lost their sense of sin in no small measure because of the Novus Ordo's dearth of reference to the horror of personal sin and the reality of a God Who judges us at the moment of our deaths. Those Catholic church buildings have emptied in many, many cases because the children and the grandchildren and the great-grandchildren of the people who used to go there have lost the Faith entirely. This is not an accident. This is a direct result of the Protestant and Masonic ethos of the "Second" Vatican Council and of its Novus Ordo worship service, based on one falsehood after another as a matter of principle.

Thus it is is not possible that the "restoration" of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition as normative in the life of every Latin Rite Catholic will be effected on the basis of lies and misrepresentations Indeed, the belief expressed by many in the Motu world that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict wanted to use Summorum Pontificum as the means to preserve even the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, which was the norm in the conciliar church's Latin Rite for all of three years, has been and will ever be delusional as Ratzinger/Benedict himself told us that he wanted to incorporate elements from the Novus Ordo into the "extraordinary form of the Roman Rite:"

It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal. (Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum".)

 

This has been what all of the ink has been spilled for in the past forty years? This? To implement the same sort of changes in the offerings/simulations of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that were introduced in the years between 1964 and 1969?

"Oh," some defenders of all things Benedict protested in 2007, "the pope doesn't really mean that this is going to happen. He just has to appease the bishops." Ratzinger/Benedict means this all right. It has long been his goal to merge elements of the "two forms of the one Roman Rite" as he mutes all criticism of the apostasies and blasphemies and sacrileges of conciliarism from what is considered to be his "right" flank. He admitted this to a German scholar in 2003, and it was repeated almost verbatim by his spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, S.J., in 2007:

From this point of view, then, the new prayer for the Jews in the liturgy in the ancient rite does not weaken, but postulates an enrichment of the meaning of the prayer in use in the modern rite. Exactly like in other cases, it is the modern rite that postulates an enriching evolution of the ancient rite. In a liturgy that is perennially alive, as the Catholic liturgy is, this is the meaning of the coexistence between the two rites, ancient and modern, as intended by Benedict XVI with the motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum."

This is a coexistence that is not destined to endure, but to fuse in the future "in a single Roman rite once again," taking the best from both of these. This is what then-cardinal Ratzinger wrote in 2003 – revealing a deeply held conviction – in a letter to an erudite representative of Lefebvrist traditionalism, the German philologist Heinz-Lothar Barth. (Sandro Magister, A Bishop and a Rabbi Defend the Prayer for the Salvation of the Jews.)

"Neither the Missal of Pius V and John XXIII -- used by a small minority -- nor that of Paul VI -- used today with much spiritual fruit by the greatest majority -- will be the final 'law of prayer' of the Catholic Church." (Father Federico Lombardi, Zenit, July 15, 2007.)

 

Much spiritual fruit? (See Aborting Reality, They Like It!, and Spotlight On The Ordinary.)

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict believes that almost everything about the Faith is subject to adjustment and reinterpretation according to his philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity." The liturgy of the Missal of 1961/1962 is no exception, something that the past president of the "Pontifical" Commission Ecclesia Dei, Dario Castrillon "Cardinal" Hoyos, and the current president, William "Cardinal" Levada, a Modernist in his own right (Red Carpet For A Modernist), have reiterated, thus making it impossible for any rational, sane defender of Summorum Pontificum to contend that that document was not intended to serve as a vehicle of incorporating Novus Ordo elements into the Missal of 1961/1962:

 

Let me say this plainly: the Holy Father wants the ancient use of the Mass to become a normal occurrence in the liturgical life of the Church so that all of Christ’s faithful – young and old – can become familiar with the older rites and draw from their tangible beauty and transcendence. The Holy Father wants this for pastoral reasons as well as for theological ones. In his letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum Pope Benedict wrote that:

"In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place."

3. This brings me to my third point. You are rightly convinced that the usus antiquior is not a museum piece, but a living expression of Catholic worship. If it is living, we must also expect it to develop. Our Holy Father is also of this conviction. As you know, he chose motu proprio – that is on his own initiative – to alter the text of the prayer pro Iudæis in the Good Friday liturgy. The intention of the prayer was in no way weakened, but a formulation was provided which respected sensitivities.

Likewise, as you also know, Summorum Pontificum has also provided for the Liturgy of the Word to be proclaimed in the vernacular without being first read by the celebrant in Latin. Today’s Pontifical Mass, of course, will have the readings solemnly chanted in Latin, but for less solemn celebrations the Liturgy of the Word may be proclaimed directly in the language of the people. This is already a concrete instance of what our Holy Father wrote in his letter accompanying the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum:

"the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard."

Naturally we will be happy for your input in this important matter. I simply ask you not to be opposed in principle to the necessary adaptation which our Holy Father has called for.

This brings me to another important point. I am aware that the response of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” with regard to the observance of Holy Days of obligation has caused a certain amount of disturbance in some circles. It should be noted that the dates of these Holy Days remain the same in both the Missal of 1962 and the Missal of 1970. When the Holy See has given the Episcopal Conference of a given country permission to move certain Holy Days to the following Sunday, this should be observed by all Catholics in that country. Nothing prevents the celebration of the Feast of the Ascension, for example, on the prior Thursday, but it should be clear that this is not a Mass of obligation and that the Mass of the Ascension should also be celebrated on the following Sunday. This is a sacrifice which I ask you to make with joy as a sign of your unity with the Catholic Church in your country. (Dario Castrillon"Cardinal" Hoyos, Address to Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, June 14, 2008, Full text of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos Address.)

The vision we see in the New Jerusalem and the vision we see in Jesus at table in the home of Zacchaeus, is ultimately a vision of communion. Our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI, in his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, mentioned that the two forms of the usage of the Roman Rite, the Extraordinary and the Ordinary Forms, can be mutually enriching to each other. As one example he mentioned “the new prefaces can and should be introduced into the old Missal”. In the Missal of Paul VI, there is a beautiful preface to be used on the anniversary of a dedication of a church which can help to enrich our understanding of the celebration today as a vision of communion. Being designated for the anniversary of a dedication, it can indicate to us what we should still be able to pray years from now when we will commemorate today’s dedication.

The second part of a preface, as we know, always states in specific terms the precise motives why it is right and just to give the Father thanks and praise. In this preface the motive states:

For in the visible house that you let us build, you, Father, wonderfully manifest and accomplish the mystery of your communion with us.

As the new President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, I want to seize on this phrase, “the mystery of your communion with us”. The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter has a special charism to assist the Holy Father in preserving the unity of the Church for those attached to the traditional form of the Mass, through the implementation of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. The different Rites of the Church in the East and West testify to the diversity of liturgical traditions that have grown up in and with the Church since apostolic times. Yet, as St. Paul insists, there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. This is why the Holy Father stressed the continuity that we can see between the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms of the Roman Rite. Whenever and wherever the Church celebrates the Eucharist according to whatever Rite or form of that Rite, it is always the same mystery of communion that is being wonderfully manifest and accomplished.

Liturgical diversity is not inconsistent with the unity of the Catholic faith. This has been clear through the centuries through the diversity of Rites, East and West, and it is clear with special relevance to your priestly fraternity in Summorum Pontificum. It is also the same principle that is operative in the new Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, establishing Ordinariates for former Anglicans who desire full communion with the Catholic Church while at the same time preserving some of the richness of their liturgical and spiritual patrimony.

We know that it is, above all, by means of the celebration of the Eucharist that this chapel is now consecrated, and the preface I am citing beautifully reminds us that the Eucharist accomplishes communion, between God and ourselves, and between one part of the Church and another. The generous steps that the Holy Father has taken in his Motu Proprio to grant a more widespread use of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, is a move that he earnestly hopes will both repair and build up a damaged communion in the Church. The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter must always celebrate the Eucharist with this concern and desire of the Holy Father in mind.

The different forms, the Ordinary and Extraordinary, must not be a cause or motive of division in the Church, for the same Eucharist is always and everywhere celebrated. The fact that we are here to dedicate a seminary chapel in honor of SS. Peter and Paul gives me occasion to recall that every priest is ordained for the service of the Church. It is true and perfect worship of the all-holy God, its mission to proclaim the Gospel to every creature, to baptize all in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. It is this service for which we are ordained. In fulfillment of this mission given by Christ to His Church, a mission implying the unity of the whole human family and its destiny to be one with its loving Creator and God, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter has as its special charism to labor lovingly for the unity of Christ’s Church by ensuring that those who follow the Extraordinary Form of the liturgy of the Latin Rite understand that the unity of faith cannot be found outside the testimony of the Apostolic College under its head, the successor of Peter, the Pope. In this way, the tear in the fabric of unity evidenced by those who would reject the Second Vatican Council as the work of the Holy Spirit, must be repaired by the loyal testimony to the living Tradition of the Church in accord with the directives of our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI.  (William "Cardinal" Levada, Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary, Denton, Nebraska, March 3, 2010, Rorate Caeli)

 

This is very interesting. "The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter has as its special charism to labor lovingly for the unity of Christ's Church by ensuring that those who follow the Extraordinary form of the liturgy of the Latin Rite understand that the unity of faith cannot be found outside the testimony of the Apostolic College under its head the success of Peter, the Pope. In this way, the tear in the fabric of unity evidenced by those who would reject the Second Vatican Council as the work of the Holy Spirit, must be repaired by the loyal testimony to the living Tradition of the Church in accord with the directives of our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI." Yes, indeedy, my few readers, the role of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter is to give loyal testimony to the directive of "Pope" Benedict XVI, the man who has esteemed the symbols of false religions with his own priestly hands, the man who has said that "Christians and Jews pray to the same Lord," the man who endorses religious liberty and separation of Church and State as matters of principle, not as concessions in the practical order that need to be made to continue the life of the Church in a given country. This is nothing other than a manifest betrayal of Christ the King.

Many of those in the Motu crowd made much of the fact that Summorum Pontificum had lifted the specific conditions imposed by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II in Quattuor abhinc annos, October 3, 1984, and Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, July 2, 1988, that obliged those offering/simulating and those assisting at indult Masses to affirm the doctrinal soundness of the Novus Ordo worship service and of the "Second" Vatican Council itself. This, we were told by some, "liberated" the deformed version of the Mass of the ages that was but a stepping stone to the Novus Ordo and is being used now as a means to introduce elements from Annibale Bugnini's liturgical handiwork.

This  liberation was just another delusion on the part of some in the Motu world. Both Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and William Levada have insisted over and over again that the original indult helped to "pacify" traditionally-minded Catholics in such a way that should give the conciliar "bishops" hope that the bishops and the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X will be "pacified" as well as they come to accept the Novus Ordo, the "Second" Vatican Council, and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes." What need is there for formal conditions when the "pope" himself has explained that there is no "wiggle" room. Those who are attached to "extraordinary form of the Roman Rite" must evidence an acceptance of conciliarism "in light of the Church's living tradition" (go tell that to the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council and to Pope Saint Pius X himself) as all signs of opposition to conciliar decrees are eclipsed by a sense of contentment produced by having a decorous liturgy that cannot be used to defend the integrity of the Deposit of Faith:

Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith - ecumenism - is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light - this is inter-religious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love 'to the end' has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity - this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical 'Deus caritas est'.

"So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who 'has something against you' and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. (LETTER ON REMISSION OF EXCOMMUNICATION LEFEBVRE BISHOP)

The outstanding points of contention with the Lefebvre followers center on what Levada calls "obedience to the magisterium," or teaching authority, of the Pope, and specific decrees of the Second Vatican Council. "The Council is vast, and not all decrees are on the same level," Levada says. "The decree on religious liberty is one of the key issues that the Society has problems with." Lefebvre always opposed the reforms aimed at reaching out to other faiths. Levada insists there is much ground to cover in order to find out if the breakaway group is ready to rejoin the fold. "We will want to review the entire catechism of the Church with them," Levada adds, referring to the far-reaching document approved under the reign of Pope John Paul II that outlines fundamental Catholic teaching.

As the man in charge of Church orthodoxy, Levada will take over the reins of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, which has for nearly two decades been responsible for dealing with the Lefebvre followers. The Cardinal says the process will benefit from his congregation's body of some 30 theological advisers as well as from regular consultations with other key Vatican offices.

Levada will replace Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, who had spearheaded the talks that led to the lifting of the excommunications. Castrillon has been criticized by many inside and outside Rome, including Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi, who said the Colombian Cardinal should have known about Bishop Williamson's troubling views on the Holocaust. Levada does not take sides in the dispute but concedes that the Vatican was "a human structure, with its limitations and possibilities for improvement." Levada is quick to add that his own congregation, which was run for 24 years by the future Pope, was functioning like clockwork when he took over. (Schism with Lefebvrites Not Healed Yet, Says Vatican - TIME)

 

Accepting the "Second" Vatican Council and the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service are essential elements in one's ability to maintain his "good standing" as a traditionally-minded Catholic in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, with or without formal conditions.

There will be no "restoration" of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition effected by Summorum Pontificum, which has been a trap from the very beginning to accustom loud-mouthed traditionally-minded Catholics to silence in the face of the conciliar travesties they used to deplore with logic, precision, and justifiable vehemence.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his hand-picked head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and of "Pontifical" Commission Ecclesia Dei, William "Cardinal" Levada, only want to accommodate traditionally-minded Catholics in the name of liturgical "diversity," not in the name of preserving the Catholic Faith whole and entire as It has been transmitted to us unchanged from the time that God the Holy Ghost descended in tongues of flames upon Our Lady and the Apostles in the same Upper Room in Jerusalem where Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had instituted the priesthood and the Eucharist for our sanctification and salvation just fifty-three days before. This accommodation, as Levada noted six days ago now, is exactly what is being done in the case of those Anglicans who are "converting" to the conciliar church as they are permitted to keep liturgical rites that were declared heretical by Pope Saint Pius V four hundred forty years ago now, that is, on March 5, 1570 (see Defaming The English Martyrs and Still Defaming The English Martyrs).

There was a time when the bishops and the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X criticized what was called the "indult mentality" that conditioned traditionally-minded Catholics eager for the "recognition" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II to be silent about such things as false ecumenism and separation of Church and State and religious liberty and the belief that the "Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church" while having a decorous liturgy without being considered schismatic or "disloyal" to the "pope." Consider one such criticism that can still be found on the website of the Society of Saint Pius X:

Now, what about attending a Tridentine Mass celebrated under the indult?

First of all, it constitutes a danger for the faith of the faithful, a danger which comes from the priests themselves who are celebrating it. Because to obtain this indult from the official hierarchy, these priests must fulfill the following conditions: "That it should be very clear that these priests have nothing to do with those who place in doubt... the doctrinal soundness of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI, in 1970 and that their position should be without any ambiguity and publicly known." 15 Thus is it necessary that these priests prove publicly by their behavior, their words and writings, shorn of ambiguities, that they admit "the doctrinal soundness" of the New Mass. No question in any way whatsoever of criticizing the Protestant and definitely non-Catholic look of Pope Paul VI's New Mass.

Cardinal Mayer, former president of Ecclesia Dei placed in charge of re-integrating the Traditionalists in the Conciliar Church, added the following condition: these same priests "can obtain" this indult "on the condition that they be in normal juridical standing with their bishops or religious superiors." 16 One remembers that dozens of priests have been unjustly put out of their churches or their religious houses for the simple fact of continuing to say without change the Tridentine Mass, except for a good number of those who were favored by certain circumstances (age, distance etc.). May we ask these indult favored priests at what cost or compromise with the integral Catholic Faith have they kept or obtained "normal legal relations" with the hierarchy? Compromise which, for example, could appear in the fact of giving hosts doubtfully consecrated during a previous conciliar Mass or even through the manner of celebrating the traditional Mass full of hesitations and mistakes, sometimes even cause of scandal.

There is a danger too for the Faith, that comes from the proximity of the faithful who attend exclusively these indult Masses, because they also have to fulfill the conditions of not placing in doubt the "doctrinal soundness" of the New Mass.15 Characteristically, these type of faithful, unfortunately too often, are concerned with reconciling in thought and in action the truth with heresy, Tradition with the conciliar spirit.

Secondly from the very nature of the indult: an indult is "a concession from the authority which dispenses its subjects from the obligation of keeping a law." 17 "The indult is an exception. It can always be withdrawn. It confirms the general rule" 18 which is the New Mass, the conciliar liturgy. Because, to use a special permission, is this not to recognize and legitimize ipso facto the general law, that is to say the legal suppression of the two thousand year-old traditional rite?

Indeed, to obtain the indult of 1984, one must fulfill the following conditions: "that it should be quite clear that those priests and those faithful have nothing to do with those who place in question the legitimacy of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970." 15 Furthermore "this concession... should be utilized without prejudice to the observance of the liturgical reform (of Pope Paul VI) in the life of ecclesiastical communities" 15 of the Conciliar Church. (Father Marc Von Es, (THE INDULT MASS:  SHOULD ONE ATTEND IT AT ALL?, The Angelus, June, 1994.)

 

Where has been the criticism of Bishop Bernard Fellay and the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X about the introduction of elements from the Novus Ordo service into the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition to which they are so ineluctably attached? There has been complete silence as various rubrics from the 1967 Missal have found their way into some offerings of High Mass in a few chapels of the Society. The leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X have indeed become what they once opposed. Words really do matter. And those who have refused to believe that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has indeed

Having a decorous, "reverent" liturgy is meaningless when one must be silent, mute in the face of one offense against the honor and majesty and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity after another committed by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his band of conciliar "bishops." The 1984 and 1988 indults and Summorum Pontificum are not designed to restore Catholicism. They are designed to create what could be called a "neo-Anglican" spirit amongst traditionally-minded Catholics so that they will be content with their liturgy and accept the "little" changes that take place over time to bring them closer and closer to the spirit of the Novus Ordo itself.

Alas, the Novus Ordo has given rise to spectacles and sacrileges unprecedented in the history of the Catholic Church. The Faith of our Fathers teaches us that the Catholic Church cannot give us defective liturgies that are offensive to God and that her true pontiffs cannot give us error on matters of Faith and morals. It is this Faith, the true Faith, that has been maintained in the Catholic catacombs by true bishops and true priests who have made no concessions to conciliarism or to the nonexistent "legitimacy" of its false shepherds  This teaching has been presented in very clear terms:

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.)

 

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did not became Incarnate in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost so that we could live our Catholic lives in the midst of obfuscation and uncertainty about what is authentically Catholic and what is not. The Catholic Faith is meant to be clear and easy for the mind to grasp as we give the assent of the mind and the will to all that she teaches as her Divine Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, has revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.

Pope Pius XI made this point abundantly clear in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928:

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained.

 

Can it get any clearer? There is never any need to "reconcile" the Faith and Worship of the Catholic Church with the false beliefs and blasphemous liturgical rites of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI must be taken at his word, however, when he says that he wishes to "merge" elements of the Novus Ordo service into the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition so as to "legitimize" the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "pontiffs," including himself, in the minds of those who have an attached to the Mass of Tradition but who have thus far refused to concede that the Catholic Church cannot in any way be responsible for the ambiguities and blasphemies and sacrileges of conciliarism.

What I wrote on the very day of the issuance of Summorum Pontificum is just as relevant now as when it was published:

No amount of argumentation is going to convince anyone that Summorum Pontificum is a trap to lead people into the Novus Ordo, that it has many pitfalls on a practical level and is designed of its nefarious nature to produce a synthesis between the "two forms" of the "one" Roman Rite. Summorum Pontificum and the accompanying letter by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to the world's conciliar "bishops" contain one gratuitous claim after another, going so far, as noted above, to call for the "re-education" of those traditionally-minded Catholics in the conciliar structures whose scholastic philosophy teaches them that it is impossible to see "continuity in discontinuity." No, no amount of argumentation will convince those who have been waiting to rejoice for so long over this non-liberation of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that they are being treated in exactly the same way as the Catholics of Red China who have suffered for long in the underground but must pretend that it is possible to work within the framework of a Communist-dominated clergy for the advancement of the Faith. (Mister Potter's Big Cigar.)

Words really do matter. And those who have refused to believe up until now that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has indeed desired to "modernize" that which is in and of itself a modernization of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, the 1962 Missal, have only themselves to blame for not realizing that the "Pontifical" Commission Ecclesia Dei's affinity for Father Carlos Urrutigoity's desire to use his corrupt Society of Saint John to "see where the liturgy would have moved if it had not been for the 'polemics' of the 1960s" was for real. Ratzinger/Benedict is a theistic evolutionist. He is a doctrinal evolutionist. He is a liturgical evolutionist. He is a Modernist.

We pray to Our Lady during these days of Lenten penances, confident that the Triumph of her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart will vanquish the foes of the Faith in the world and in the counterfeit church of conciliarism once and for all. Every Rosary we pray, offered to the Most Holy Trinity through that same Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, will plant a few seeds for this triumph, especially as we spend time in prayer before her Divine Son's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

What are we waiting for?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

 

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

 

Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, 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.

Saint Frances of Rome, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?