St. Teresa of Avila, 2017

Today we honor St. Teresa of Avila, one of the greatest saints, yet, like St. Joseph, to whom she was devoted, one of the most approachable saints. Like all our greatest saints, ,we often find in her writings and life, wisdom to help us understand the challenges we face; though centuries pass, her words ring just as clear today, her wisdom fresh and appropriate as always.Plus, we close with a poem St. Teresa wrote that is quite lovely.

Lord, I am Thine, for I was born for Thee! Reveal what is it Thou dost ask of me.
Lord, I am Thine, for I was born for Thee!
Reveal what is it Thou dost ask of me.

 

In her work, The Way of Perfection, she discusses the ‘Our Father’, Our Lord’s own prayer. She especially recommends it as part of thanksgiving after Communion. In Chapter 35, St. Teresa remarks on the evils of the protestant attacks on the Blessed Sacrament and the Mass that were even then occurring.   As you read this, consider what her response would be to Pope Bergoglio’s enthronement of Luther in the Vatican in our times.   One portion of her commentary strikes us as most appropriate to these times in which we suffer with Christ the Passion of His Church. St. Teresa, remarking of the Lord’s Prayer,

“Let us rely on Our Lord’s command to us to pray to Him, and in fulfillment of our obedience to Him, let us beseech His Majesty, in the name of the good Jesus, … that He prevent Him from being so ill-treated. Since His Holy Son has given us this excellent way in which we can offer Him up frequently as a sacrifice, let’s make use of this precious gift so that it may stay the advance of such terrible evil and irreverence as is paid in many places to this Most Holy Sacrament.

For as those Lutherans seem to want to drive Him out of the world again: they destroy churches, cause the loss of many priests and abolish the sacraments. And there is something of this even among Christians, who sometimes go to church meaning to offend Him rather than to worship Him.”

She then goes on to importune the Heavenly Father to spare Our Lord the offenses He suffers against His Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, begging Him, although she is unworthy,

“Indeed, it may perhaps be for my sins, and because I have so greatly offended Thee, that so many evils come. What then can I do, my Creator, but present to Thee this most Holy Bread which, though Thou gavest it to us, I return to Thee, beseeching Thee, by the merits of Thy Son, to grant me this favor, which on so many counts, He has merited. Do Thou, Lord, calm this sea, and no longer allow this ship, which is Thy Church, to endure so great a tempest. Save us, my Lord, for we perish.” (Way of Perfection, p. 234-236).

It is as if she was anticipating the Angel of Fatima’s Prayer,  isn’t it?

Here in closing, is a poem of hers that recently came to our attention, thanks to Rorate Caeli:

Lord, I am Thine, for I was born for Thee!

Lord, I am Thine, for I was born for Thee!
Reveal what is it Thou dost ask of me.
O sovereign Lord, of majesty supreme!
O Wisdom, that existed from all time!
Bounty, showing pity on my soul!
God, one sole Being, merciful, sublime.
Behold this basest of created things.
As thus, with hardihood its love it sings.
And tell me, Lord, what Thou dost ask of me!

Lo, I am Thine ! Thou hast created me.
And I am Thine, Thou hast redeemed me.
And I am Thine, for Thou dost bear with me.
And Thine, for Thou hast called me to Thee,
And Thine, Who dost preserve me at Thy cost
Nor leavest me to perish ‘mid the lost
Say what it is, Lord, Thou dost will of me.

Declare what dost decree, O Master kind!
If serf so vile have any fitting task,
And tell what office by Thy will ordained
Is work that from so base a slave dost ask!
Behold, sweet Love, I wait for Thy command,
Behold me. Lord, before Whose face I stand!
Do Thou reveal what Thou dost will of me?

Behold my heart, which here I bring, and in
Thine hand as glad entire free-offering lay,
Together with my body, life, and soul,
The love, the longings that my being sway!
To Thee, Redeemer and most gentle Spouse,
In willing holocaust I pledge my vows.
What is there. Lord, that I may do for Thee?

Bestow long life, or straightway bid me die;
Let health be mine, or pain and sickness send,
With honour or dishonour ; be my path
Beset by war, or peaceful till the end.
My strength or weakness be as Thou shalt choose.
For naught Thou askest shall I e’er refuse,
I only wish what Thou wilt have of me.

Assign me riches, keep in poverty,
And let me cherished or neglected dwell,
In joy or mourning as Thou wilt, upraised
To highest heaven, or hurled down to hell!
Whether the sky be bright, from cloudlets free,
It matters not, I leave the choice to Thee,
What lot, Lord, wilt Thou decide for me?

Give contemplation if Thou wilt, or let
My lonely soul in dryness ever pine;
Abundance and devotion be the gift
Thou choosest, or a sterile soul be mine!
Majesty supreme, in naught apart
From Thy decree can I find peace of heart!
Say what it is, Lord, Thou dost wish of me?

Lord, give me wisdom, or, if love demand.
Leave me in ignorance ; it matters naught
If mine be years of plenty, or beset
With famine direful and with parching drought!
Be darkness over all or daylight clear.
Despatch me hither, keep me stationed here,
Say what it is, Lord, Thou wilt have of me?

If Thou shouldst destine me for happiness,
For Love’s sake, joy and happiness I greet;
Bid me endure and labour till I die.
Resigned, in work and pain my death I’ll meet,
Reveal the how, the where, the when; for this
Is the sole boon, O Love, I crave of Thee,
That thou declare what Thou wouldst have of me!

Let Calvary or Thabor be my fate,
A desert or a fertile land of rest;
Like Job, in sorrow let me mourning weep,
Or lie, like John, in peace upon Thy breast;
Bear fruit and flourish, or, a withered vine
I’ll perish fruitless, so the choice be Thine!
Reveal, O Lord, what Thou dost ask of me!

Like Joseph as he lay in shackles bound.
Or holding over Egypt first command;
David chastised, atoning for his sins,
Or David crowned as ruler o’er the land;
With Jonas struggling, ‘mid the raging sea
Submerged, or set from ills and tempests free
Declare, O Lord, what Thou wilt have of me!

Then bid me speak or bid me silence keep,
Make me a fecund or a barren land;
Expose my wounds by the stern Law’s decree
Or comfort me by Gospel message bland.
Let me in torture lie or comfort give,
I crave alone that Thou within me live,
And shouldst reveal what Thou wilt have of me!

Lord, I am Thine, for I was born for Thee!
Reveal what is it Thou dost ask of me.

Pray the Rosary for the Love of Mary!

  Immaculate Heart of Mary, Queen of our hearts, Mother of the Church, do thou offer to the Eternal Father the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the conversion of poor sinners, especially our Pontiff.
  Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Thy kingdom come! Viva Cristo Rey!
  Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.
  St. Joseph, protect us, protect our families, protect our priests.
  St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.

Please pray for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary!

~ by evensong for love of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ, King.
Vouchsafe that I may praise thee, O Sacred Virgin! Give me strength against thine enemies!

A Friend of the Devil is a Friend of Mine…

By their friends…

 

We have often discussed the role of the “errors of Russia” in relation to the Message of Fatima, the Apocalypse and the current papacy. Lately, the Bergoglian avalache has been picking up speed and this morning, Sandro Magister pointed out some interesting developments in the reign of this unfortunate pope. The following excerpts are brief, for the full article please see Sandro Magister,  The Communists the Pope Likes. And Vice Versa“.

Magister begins by noting

… the collaboration with “Avvenire,” the newspaper of the Italian episcopal conference, of the satirical comics author Sergio Staino, with a Sunday strip entitled “Hello, Jesus!”

Here the surprise lies in the fact that Staino is an unwavering communist, was a “flower child” and a champion of free love, was until a few months ago the director of “L’Unità,” the defunct newspaper of the Italian communist party and then of the parties that succeeded it, and is the honorary president of the UAAR, the Union of Atheists and Rationalist Agnostics.

The absentminded Jesus of his strips still lives in Nazareth with Joseph and Mary, gives his father a hand in the woodshop, but his head is already elsewhere, looking to the time when he will leave to finally become – in Staino’s words – “the first of the socialists, the first to fight for the poor.”

Interviewed in “Avvenire” on the day of his debut, Staino recounted that some time ago, when Pope Francis, during a “long telephone conversation” with Slow Food founder Carlo Petrini, was told that back in 1948 Staino’s mother had been denied sacramental absolution for having voted for the communist party, the pope burst out laughing: “Tell the mother of this friend of yours that I will give her that absolution.”

This does not change the fact that his arrival has provoked a deluge of protests. Including that of the newspaper’s editor, in the person of the secretary general of the Italian episcopal conference, Bishop Nunzio Galantino, whose words were reported to the readers of “Avvenire” by the paper’s director, Marco Tarquinio: “I do not agree, because I do not understand just what added value comes to our newspaper from Staino’s strips.”

And it is precisely here that the instructive part of the affair can be grasped. Because now there is proof that Galantino’s power over the episcopal conference and over its newspaper no longer counts like it did when Pope Francis appointed him secretary general and de facto his sole lieutenant, with the effect that every word and decision of his came down as if from the pope himself.

Today the episcopal conference has a new president in the person of Cardinal Gualtiero Bassetti, who indeed for his part is very close to Francis and much more skillful in understanding and seconding his wishes.

While Galantino’s fall from the pope’s graces is still more evident, and the Staino case is glaring proof of this.

Not only, in fact, did the director of “Avvenire” decide on his own, without having “asked for authorization beforehand from the editor,” but he defended in the pages of “Avvenire” the justice of this decision of his, moreover making public the uninfluential contrary opinion of Bishop Galantino.

To whom he said goodbye at the very moment he was welcoming Staino, for his part “absolved” by Pope Francis.

*

The second episode saw another newspaper in the leading role, “Il Manifesto,” the only one in Italy that proclaims alongside its masthead: “Communist daily.”

On Thursday, October 5 – such a coincidence, right at the hundredth anniversary of the “October Revolution” – “Il Manifesto” went to the newsstands with a book containing three speeches by Pope Francis to the “popular movements,” which he convened for the first time in Rome in 2014, then in Bolivia in 2015, and then again in Rome in 2016.

Interviewed by “Avvenire,” the director of “Il Manifesto,” Norma Rangeri, explained the decision:

“We feel these messages of the pope to be our own, and we want to bring to our readers the radicality and simplicity of these words of his. […] They contain a new idea of politics, the pope also cites Esther Ballestrino de Careaga, for her conception of politics. She is a communist of Paraguayan origin.” (And she was a chemistry teacher of the young Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who met her two daughters during his visit to Paraguay, in July of 2015).

Sandro Magister,  “The Communists the Pope Likes. And Vice Versa”.

Evensong comment: I added the emphasis in red above. And will just note that Galantino appears to have been simply another “useful idiot” as the marxists are wont to call the liberals they use and then discard when they have served their purpose. There is a lesson for them in this episode, but they are unable to learn.

In numerous posts, we have discussed the role of the “errors of Russia” in the context of the message of Fatima, the Apocalypse, and the papacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

For instance, see:
Fatima, Francis and the Errors of Russia
Islam and the Errors of Russia
The Sixth Angel

Pray the Rosary with confidence, she will not fail!

  Immaculate Heart of Mary, Queen of our hearts, Mother of the Church, do thou offer to the Eternal Father the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the conversion of poor sinners, especially our Pontiff.
  Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Thy kingdom come! Viva Cristo Rey!
  Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.
  St. Joseph, protect us, protect our families, protect our priests.
  St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.

Please pray for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary!

~ by evensong for love of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ, King.
Vouchsafe that I may praise thee, O Sacred Virgin! Give me strength against thine enemies!

St. Bridget

Today,  October 8, is the feast day of St. Bridget,  From the Prophecies and Revelations of St. Bridget (Birgitta) of Sweden:

In Chapter 5, St. Bridget offers a parable of the Church as a Castle, lovingly built by God, which was betrayed by His enemies who undermined the foundations of the Castle and destroyed God’s friends, that is, the consecrated souls who were faithful to God. In her Revelations, God explains:

“The castle I spoke about previously is the Holy Church and the souls of Christians, which I built with my own blood and that of the saints. I cemented and joined it with my love and placed my friends and chosen men in it. The foundation is true faith, that is, to believe that I am a righteous and merciful judge. Now, however, this foundation is undermined because all believe and preach that I am merciful, but almost no one preaches or believes me to be a righteous judge. They view me as an unjust judge!

How long before He cleanses His Temple?

 

Unjust and unrighteous, indeed, would the judge be who, out of mercy, allowed the unrighteous to go unpunished, so that they could oppress the righteous even more! But I am a righteous and merciful judge; for I do not let even the least sin go unpunished, nor the least good go unrewarded. By the undermining of this wall’s foundation, there entered into the Holy Church people who sin without fear, who deny that I am a righteous judge, and who torment my friends as severely as those who are placed in the stocks. My friends have no joy or consolation given to them but, instead, every kind of mockery and torment are inflicted upon them as if they were possessed by the devil. When they tell the truth about me, they are rejected and accused of lying. They have a fervent desire to hear or speak the truth about me, but there is no one who listens to them or speaks the truth to them.

And I, the Lord and Creator of all things, am being blasphemed and rejected, for they say: ‘We do not know if He is God and, if He is God, we do not care!’ They overthrow my banner and trample it under their feet calling out: ‘Why did He suffer? What benefit is it to us? If He wants to satisfy our lust and will, it is enough for us. He may keep His kingdom and heaven!’

I want to go into them, but they say: ‘We would rather die before giving up our own will!’

Behold, my bride, what kind of people they are! I made them, and could destroy and damn them with a word if I wanted to. How bold and arrogant they are toward me! But because of the prayers of my Mother and of all the saints, I am still so merciful and patient that I will send them the words of my mouth and offer them my mercy. If they want to accept it, I will be appeased. Otherwise, they will come to know my justice and be publicly humiliated like thieves in front of all angels and men, and be judged by every one of them. For just as the men who are hanged on gallows are devoured by ravens, they will also be devoured by demons, yet not die. Just as those who are punished in the stocks have no rest, they too, will have pain and bitterness all around them. The most burning river will flow into their mouths, but their bellies will not be filled, and their punishment will be renewed each day.

But my friends will be redeemed and consoled by the words that come from my mouth. They will see my justice joined with my mercy. I will clothe them in the weapons of my love and make them so strong that the adversaries of the faith will fall back like filth and feel ashamed for all eternity when they see my justice. Yes, they will surely be ashamed for having abused my patience.”

I send out my friends in order that they might separate the devils from my members, for they are truly my enemies. I send my friends like knights to war. Anyone who mortifies and subdues his flesh and abstains from forbidden things is my true knight. For their lance, they will have the words that I spoke with my own mouth and, in their hands, the sword of the true faith. Their breasts will be covered with the armor of love, so that no matter what happens to them, they will love me no less. They shall have the shield of patience at their side, so that they may suffer and endure all things patiently. I have enclosed them like gold in a vessel; they should now go forth and walk in my ways.

According to the ways of justice, I could not enter into the glory of majesty without suffering tribulation in my human nature, so then, how else will they enter into it? If their Lord endured pain and suffering, it is not surprising that they also suffer. If their Lord endured beatings and torture, it is not too much for them to endure words and contradictions. They should not fear, for I will never abandon them. Just as it is impossible for the devil to touch and divide the heart of God, so it is impossible for the devil to separate them from me. And since they are like the purest gold in my sight, I will never abandon them, even though they are tested with a little fire, for the fire is given to them for their greater reward and happiness. (Saint Bridget, The Prophecies and Revelations of Saint Bridget (Birgitta) of Sweden, Kindle Edition)

In the above quotation, we have yet another prophecy, this time from the early 14th century, of the corruption of the Church by a false mercy, which we are experiencing now. Notice too, that Our Lord, in the quote above, says that there are in His Church those who blaspheme Him and say:

“We do not know if He is God, and if He is, we do not care…We would rather die before giving up our own will!”

The above quote from Our Lord to St. Bridget sums up the heretical attitude of Pope Francis and his cadre.  They sow uncertainty in the Faith, preferring to focus on what to them is more important, that is, social justice, population control, unemployment, the environment; indeed, everything under the sun except for Jesus Christ, our Savior, who purchased for us the rewards of eternal life with His suffering, death and resurrection. Ah, but that is a subject of no interest today! For indeed, they prefer their own opinion. In fact, heresy is actually the assertion of one’s own opinion against the unchanging dogma of the faith.  It is what Bergoglio’s Reformation consists of, his own opinion in place of, that is, eclipsing the true teaching of the Holy Catholic Faith.

The current occupant of the See of Peter is working tirelessly to completely, irreversibly deconstruct the Church,  using his own brand of atheistic humanism to defy Christ Himself, abolishing the Holy Sacrifice and the Sacred Priesthood.  We shall soon see the fulfillment of Fatima’s long ignored prophecy.  For the faithful remnant, Our Lord’s words to St. Bridget are a clarion call across the ages just for precisely these times:

They should not fear, for I will never abandon them. Just as it is impossible for the devil to touch and divide the heart of God, so it is impossible for the devil to separate them from me. And since they are like the purest gold in my sight, I will never abandon them, even though they are tested with a little fire, for the fire is given to them for their greater reward and happiness.

Please, Pray the Rosary and confound satan and those who serve him.

†  Immaculate Heart of Mary, Queen of our hearts, Mother of the Church, do thou offer to the Eternal Father the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the conversion of poor sinners, especially our Pontiff.
†  Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Thy kingdom come! Viva Cristo Rey!
†  Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.
†  St. Joseph, protect us, protect our families, protect our priests.
†  St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.

Please pray for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary!

~ by evensong for love of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ, King.
Vouchsafe that I may praise thee, O Sacred Virgin! Give me strength against thine enemies!

© All Content Copyright 2013-2017 ReturntoFatima.org. All Rights Reserved.

Archbishop Lefebvre and the Filial Correction

The recent Filial Correction is a welcome step  towards calling the attention of all the faithful to the tragic destruction being attempted by Pope Francis in his  reformation of the Church. What Luther achieved outside the Church, Francis attempts to achieve within: a church which is hollowed out, emptied of Our Lord Jesus Christ, His Virgin Mother, His sacraments, His teachings; a church of man to eclipse the true Church of Christ the King.

Even more encouraging than the Filial Correction itself is the reaction to it.  The partisans of error who have attempted to defend Pope Francis have demonstrated for all the world to see that there is in fact, absolutely no Catholic defense of this Pope’s destructive actions. Logic, reality, and the Faith itself must be discarded if one is to accept Pope Francis’s “irreversible changes”.

Another encouraging aspect of this is the excellent reporting being done by several Catholic blogs, many of whom were less than supportive of the Society of St. Pius X until rather recently. To see them defend Bishop Fellay and the Society has been most gratifying. Perhaps in time they will grasp the fact that it is the Society,  the work of Archbishop Lefebvre, which laid the groundwork for the defenders of the Faith today.

It is important that we understand that the driving force behind the Filial Correction is the grace of God, beseeched by thousands of faithful Catholics who offered their prayers and sacrifices daily, participating the the Society’s Crusade of Rosaries and Reparation.

Note well: It is grace.  Our Lady has promised us that nothing we ask through her Rosary will be denied.  For over a year, throughout the world, the faithful remnant of Catholics knelt and prayed the Rosary. They reinforced their Rosaries with sacrifices and penances, obeying St. Michael, the  Angel of Fatima to

 “Make of everything you can a sacrifice, and offer it to God as an act of reparation for the sins by which He is offended, and in supplication for the conversion of sinners.”

The generosity of Our Lady of the Rosary is unfailing! When the Rosary and Reparation Crusade began, many were losing heart as it seemed that this Pope of destruction would soon  triumph over the weak and scattered forces trying to defend the Faith. However, we have seen that Our Lady of the Rosary does answer prayers.  Do not fail to note the role of the faithful recitation of the rosary, the continuous daily offering of our simple, mundane duties of state in all this.  Our Lady hears her children, We know this is true, as has been shown from Lepanto to Vienna and down even to these times today.

When Archbishop Lefebvre stood against the partisans of error who had gained control of the Vatican, he did not do so as a rebel, although he was often smeared with that label. He did so as a devoted servant of Christ the King. His honest explanations of his reasons, his criticism offered with the utmost respect for the role of the papacy, is actually the groundwork for the defense of the faith being undertaken today by those who signed the Filial Correction. We offer several quotes from the saintly Archbishop.

In June, 1987, after acknowledging that he had been waiting for a sign that he should take the initiative in providing for the continuation of his work of preserving the Faith, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Sacred Priesthood,  Archbishop Lefebvre explained that the Vatican’s reply to his objections on religious liberty is the sign which convinced him of the need to take action.

“We adhere, with all our heart, with all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary for the preservation of that faith, to Eternal Rome, teacher of wisdom and truth.
On the other hand we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of the neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendency that clearly manifested itself in the Second Vatican Council and after the Council in all the reforms that resulted from it.”

“It is one thing to commit a grave and scandalous action; it is quite another to state false and erroneous principles which work out in practice in utterly disastrous conclusions!”

“… It is providential that by a particular set of circumstances we wrote the book that appeared just a few days ago, entitled: “They Uncrowned Him.”  Who? Who did the uncrowning and who was uncrowned? Who was uncrowned? Our Lord Jesus Christ. Who uncrowned him? The authorities in Rome today. . . . From end to end of the Liturgical year we chant:

“King of Kings, Lord of Lords,” Our Lord Jesus Christ. But now instead of extolling the kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, here they are instituting a pantheon of all religions. . . . (It) is being constructed by the church authorities of Rome! What an immense scandal for souls, for Catholics who already question the universal kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ!

Rome is in darkness, in the darkness of error. There is no denying it. Impossible to deny it. How can we as Catholics, and all the more as priests, bear to look on the spectacle placed before our eyes in Assisi, in St. Peter’s Church given over for the practice of their pagan worship to the Buddhists who put their idol on the tabernacle of Jesus Christ, King of Kings, and performed their pagan ceremony in front of this tabernacle, empty no doubt, but capped with a Buddha, their idol. Is it conceivable? In a Catholic Church, a church of Our Lord Jesus Christ? These are facts which speak by themselves. We cannot conceive of an error more grave.

How is it possible? Let us leave the good Lord to answer. He guides all things, He is the master of events, Our Lord Jesus Christ, He knows what will come of this triumph of error over Rome and over the highest authorities, from the Pope to the cardinals and bishops of the entire world following these ideas; for indeed the bishops of the whole world are following the false ideas of the Council with their ecumenism and liberalism. God alone knows where it is all going to end.

For our part, however, if we wish to remain Catholic and to continue the Church, we have the grave and imprescriptible duty binding us firstly to increase the number of priests, priests believing in Our Lord Jesus Christ, in His Kingship, in His kingship over society, according to the Church’s doctrine. That is why I am happy that the book on liberalism has appeared today, my dear friends, so that you may nourish your minds on it and grasp in depth what our combat is all about. It is not a human combat! We are at grips with Satan! It is a combat requiring all the supernatural strength we need to fight against the adversary who means to destroy and uproot the Church, who means to destroy everything Our Lord Jesus Christ did. He meant to destroy Our Lord from the moment He was born, and now he means to continue destroying His Mystical Body, to destroy the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to destroy all His institutions whatsoever. . .

So we must be aware of this dramatic and apocalyptic combat through which we are living, . . .

Are we going to quit the Church presently undergoing her Passion, and not come to her aid? And what will become of souls if nobody dares any longer proclaim the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ? And what will become of souls if we no longer provide them with the true grace they need? All this is cryingly obvious, and so let us be convinced of it.

And that is the reason why it is likely that I shall give myself some successors to be able to continue the work of our Society. Because Rome is in darkness, because Rome at present can no longer hear the voice of truth – Rome no longer hears the voice of truth. Then what are we to do? What answer has there been to our appeals? For 20 years now I have been going to Rome. I have been writing, I have been speaking, I have been sending documents to say to them: – “Follow Tradition, come back to Tradition, otherwise the Church will be ruined. You, the appointed successors of those who built the Church, you must continue to build and not to demolish!” They are deaf, stone deaf to our appeals.

Of the liberals infesting the Vatican then (and now!): They are shutting themselves up in their errors, they are shutting themselves up in darkness, and they are quite simply going to lead souls into apostasy, the ruination of the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the ruination of the Catholic and Christian Faith.

We are living in a quite unique age, we must realize that. The situation is not normal, least of all in Rome.. . .  the situation in Rome, a perfectly incredible situation, unparalleled in all history! Never has there been anything like it!

Never! – The Pope making himself, . , into a sort of guardian of the Pantheon of all religions, making himself the Pontiff of Liberalism! Tell me, tell me, pray – has such a situation ever existed in the Church? What are we to do, faced with such a reality? Weep, no doubt. Oh. weep, we do! Our heart is grieved, our heart is crushed by this situation! We would give our life, we would shed our blood to turn it around – but there it is.

When Archbishop Lefebvre determined that it would be necessary to consecrate bishops in order to preserve his work – the work of saving the faith,  he knew that he would be condemned and even today his opponents do not cease condemning him even though every action of Pope Francis and his partisans . proves the authenticity of the Archbishops position.  He responded to the attacks:

. . . Faced with this darkness in Rome, faced with the Roman authorities’ pertinacity in error, faced with this refusal to return to Truth or Tradition on the part of those who occupy the seats of authority in Rome, faced with all these things, it seems to us that the good Lord is asking for the Church to continue. This is why it is likely that before I give account of my life to the good Lord, I shall have to consecrate some bishops.

My dear friends, my dear brethren, let us pray. Let us pray with all our hearts, let us pray to the Blessed Virgin Mary! We shall go to Fatima on August 22nd to ask Our Lady of Fatima to help us. They would not reveal her Third Secret, they buried the message of the Virgin Mary. No doubt this message was meant to prevent what is happening today. Had her message been made known, most likely we would not be where we are today, the situation in Rome, would not be what it is today.

The Pope refused to make public the Virgin Mary’s message: well, the punishments foretold by Mary are coming: the apostasy announced in Scripture is on its way; the coming of the Anti-Christ draws near, as is perfectly obvious. So, faced with this quite exceptional situation, we too must take exceptional means.

There you have it, my dear brethren, my dear friends, during this Mass we shall pray, especially to the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, guardians of the Church: may they enlighten us! May they help us! May they obtain for us the Gift of Strength and the Gift of Wisdom to continue their work, to carry on the work of Peter and Paul and all their successors. Let us ask for this from the Blessed Virgin Mary above all, and let us consecrate our persons, our families, our cities to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

From the above quotes, it is undeniable that Our Lady of the Rosary was the guiding light for Archbishop Lefebvre and his work; true devotion to her Immaculate Heart was inherent in all his actions.  Insofar as the current defenders of the faith base their defense on the Message of Fatima, and consecrate their efforts to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart, they will not fail. Let us take up our Rosaries and support them, placing all our trust in the most Blessed Mother of God. She will not fail us. We are her children after all.

Pray the Rosary with confidence and joy!

  Immaculate Heart of Mary, Queen of our hearts, Mother of the Church, do thou offer to the Eternal Father the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the conversion of poor sinners, especially our Pontiff.
  Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Thy kingdom come! Viva Cristo Rey!
  Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.
  St. Joseph, protect us, protect our families, protect our priests.
  St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.

Please pray for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary!

~ by evensong for love of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ, King.
Vouchsafe that I may praise thee, O Sacred Virgin! Give me strength against thine enemies!

Cardinal Ottaviani’s Intervention

Today marks the 48th anniversary of Cardinal Ottaviani’s heroic attempt to save the beautiful Mass of all time, the Mass of so many saints and martyrs.

This  year, with only the barest nod to the Centenary of Fatima, Pope Francis  has continued to deconstruct the Church irreversibly – as he himself has often said, thus forging the Bergoglian Reformation, which may well come to a head with the Vatican’s proposed celebration of the 500th anniversary of  Martin Luther’s  Revolution.  Recently, he declared with magisterial authority that the liturgical “reforms” were “irreversible”. LINK.

Cardinal Ottaviani, Defender of the Faith

Therefore, we provide Cardinal Ottaviani’s Intervention for your reflection and prayers. Brace yourselves for this Pope of Desolation’s “October Surprise” to complete the dissolution of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Cardinal Bacci contributed to the letter and the document was the product of a group of theologians, including most notably, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. At the time, it may have seemed like their efforts were doomed, but within that little resistance the entire edifice of tradition was contained as a mighty oak in a lowly acorn. In tribute to the efforts of Cardinal Ottaviani and the brave prelates who fought to preserve the traditional liturgy and dogma of the faith, it is fitting to revisit what is referred to as The Ottaviani Intervention.

~ ~ ~

 

Letter from Cardinal Ottaviani to His Holiness Pope Paul VI

Rome
September 25, 1969

Most Holy Father,

Having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of others, the Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium ad exequdam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel it to be our bounden duty in the sight of God and towards Your Holiness, to put before you the following considerations:

1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted, which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.

2. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicion, already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith. Amongst the best of the clergy the practical result is an agonizing crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come to our notice daily.

3. We are certain that these considerations. which can only reach Your Holiness by the living voice of both shepherds and flock, cannot but find an echo in Your paternal heart, always so profoundly solicitous for the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. It has always been the case that when a law meant for the good of subjects proves to be on the contrary harmful, those subjects have the right, nay the duty of asking with filial trust for the abrogation of that law. Therefore we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness, at a time of such painful divisions and ever-increasing perils for the purity of the Faith and the unity of the Church, lamented by You our common Father. not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness and so deeply loved and venerated by the whole Catholic World.

A. Card. Ottaviani
A. Card. Bacci
Feast of St. Pius X

 

A Brief Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae
by a group of Roman Theologians

I
In October 1967, the Episcopal Synod called in Rome was requested to pass a judgment on the experimental celebration of a so-called “normative Mass,” devised by the Consilium for implementing the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. This Mass aroused the most serious misgivings. The voting showed considerable opposition (43 non placet), very many substantial reservations (62 juxta modum), and 4 abstentions out of 187 voters. The international press spoke of a “refusal” on the proposed “normative Mass” on the part of the Synod. Progressively-inclined papers made no mention of this.

In the Novus Ordo Missae lately promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, we once again find this “normative Mass,” identical in substance, nor does it appear that in the intervening period, the Episcopal Conferences, at least as such, were ever asked to give their views about it.

In the Apostolic Constitution, it is stated that the ancient Missal promulgated by St. Pius V, July 13, 1570, but going back in great part to St. Gregory the Great and to still remoter antiquity,[3] was for four centuries the norm for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice for priests of the Latin rite, and that, taken to every part of the world, “it has moreover been an abundant source of spiritual nourishment to may holy people in their devotion to God.”

Yet, the present reform, putting it definitely out of use, was claimed to be necessary since “from that time the study of the Sacred Liturgy has become more widespread and intensive amongst Christians.”

This assertion seems to us to embody a serious equivocation. For the desire of the people was expressed, if at all, when—thanks to St. Pius X—they began to discover the true and everlasting treasures of the liturgy. The people never on any account asked for the liturgy to be changed or mutilated so as to understand it better. They asked for a better understanding of a changeless liturgy, and one which they would never have wanted changed.

The Roman Missal of St. Pius V was religiously venerated and most dear to Catholics, both priests and laity. One fails to see how its use, together with suitable catechesis, should have hindered a fuller participation in, and greater knowledge of, the Sacred Liturgy, nor why, when its many outstanding virtues are recognized, this should not have been considered worthy to continue to foster the liturgical piety of Christians.

Since the “normative Mass,” now reintroduced and imposed as the Novus Ordo Missae, was in substance rejected by the Synod of Bishops, was never submitted to the collegial judgment of the Episcopal Conference, nor have the people—least of all in mission lands—ever asked for any reform of Holy Mass whatsoever, one fails to comprehend the motives behind the new legislation which overthrows a tradition unchanged in the Church since the fourth and fifth centuries, as the Apostolic Constitution itself acknowledges. As no popular demand exists to support this reform, it appears devoid of any logical grounds to justify it and make it acceptable to the Catholic people.

The Vatican Council did indeed express a desire (para. 50, Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium) for the various parts of the Mass to be reordered “so that the distinctive character of each single part and its relationship to the other part may appear more clearly.” We shall now see how the Ordo recently promulgated corresponds with this original intention.

An attentive examination of the Novus Ordo reveals changes of such magnitude as to justify in themselves the judgment already made with regard to the “normative Mass.” Both have in many points every possibility of satisfying the most modernistic of Protestants.

II
Let us begin with the definition of the Mass given in n. 7 of the Institutio Generalis at the beginning of the second chapter of the Novus Ordo: De structura Missae:

The Lord’s Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.[4] Thus the promise of Christ, “where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them,” is eminently true of the local community in the Church (Mt. 18, 20).

The definition of the Mass is thus limited to that of a “supper,” and this term is found constantly repeated (nos. 8, 48, 55d, 56). This “supper” is further characterized as an assembly presided over by the priest and held as a memorial of the Lord, recalling what He did on the first Maundy Thursday. None of this in the very least implies either the Real Presence, or the reality of the sacrifice, or the Sacramental function of the consecrating priest, or the intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independently of the people’s presence.[5] It does not, in a word, imply any of the essential dogmatic values of the Mass which together provide its true definition. Here the deliberate omission of these dogmatic values amounts to their having been superseded and therefore, at least in practice, to their denial.[6]

In the second part of this paragraph 7 it is asserted, aggravating the already serious equivocation, that there holds good, “eminenter,” for this assembly Christ’s promise that “Ubi sunt duo vel tres congregati in nomine meo; ibi sum in medio eorum” (Mt. 18, 20). This promise, which refers only to the spiritual presence of Christ with His grace, is thus put on the same qualitative plane, save for the greater intensity, as the substantial and physical reality of the Sacramental Eucharistic Presence.

In no. 8 a subdivision of the Mass into “liturgy of the word” and Eucharistic liturgy immediately follows, with the affirmation that in the Mass is made ready “the table of God’s word” as of “the Body of Christ,” so that the faithful “may be built up and refreshed”—an altogether improper assimilation of the two parts of the liturgy, as though between two points of equal symbolic value. More will be said about this point later.

The Mass is designated by a great many different expressions, all acceptable relatively, all unacceptable if employed, as they are, separately and in an absolute sense. We cite a few:

the Action of Christ and of the People of God;
the Lord’s Supper or Mass;
the Paschal Banquet;
the Common participation in the Lord’s Table;
the memorial of the Lord;
the Eucharistic Prayer;
the Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharistic Liturgy;
etc.
As is only too evident, the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the supper and the memorial instead of upon the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary. The formula “the Memorial of the Passion and Resurrection of the Lord” is, besides, inexact, the Mass being the memorial or the Sacrifice alone, in itself redemptive whilst the Resurrection is the consequent fruit of it.[7]

We shall later see how, in the same consecratory formula, and throughout the Novus Ordo such equivocations are renewed and reiterated.

III
We come now to the ends of the Mass.

I. Ultimate end. This is that of the Sacrifice of praise to the Most Holy Trinity according to the explicit declaration of Christ in the primary purpose of His very Incarnation: “Coming into the world he saith: sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst not but a body thou has fitted me” (Ps. 34, 7-9 in Heb. 10, 5).

This end has disappeared from the Offertory, with the disappearance of the prayer Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas; from the end of the Mass with the omission of the Placet tibi Sancta Trinitas; and from the Preface, which on Sunday will no longer be that of the Most Holy Trinity, as this Preface will be reserved only to the Feast of the Trinity, and so in future will be heard but once a year.

2. Ordinary end. This is the propitiatory Sacrifice. It too has been deviated from; for instead of putting the stress on the remission of sins of the living and the dead it lays emphasis on the nourishment and sanctification of the present (no. 54). Christ certainly instituted the Sacrament of the Last Supper putting Himself in the state of Victim in order that we might be united to Him in this state but this self-immolation precedes the eating of the Victim, and has an antecedent and full redemptive value (the application of the bloody immolation). This is borne out by the fact that the faithful present are not bound to communicate, sacramentally.[8]

3. Immanent end. Whatever the nature of the Sacrifice, it is absolutely necessary that it be pleasing and acceptable to God. After the Fall no sacrifice can claim to be acceptable in its own right other than the Sacrifice of Christ. The Novus Ordo changes the nature of the offering, turning it into a sort or exchange of gifts between man and God: man brings the bread, and God turns it into the “bread of life”; man brings the wine, and God turns it into a “spiritual drink.”

Thou art blessed Lord, God of the Universe, because from Thy generosity we have received the bread [or “wine”] which we offer Thee the fruit of the earth [or “vine”] and of man’s labor. May it become for us the bread of life [or “spiritual drink.”].[9]

There is no need to comment on the utter indeterminateness of the formulae “panis vitae” and “potus spiritualis,” which might mean anything. The same capital equivocation is repeated here, as in the definition of the Mass: there, Christ is present only spiritually among His own: here, bread and wine are only “spiritually” (not substantially) changed.[10]

In the preparation of the offering, a similar equivocation results from the suppression of two great prayers. The “Deus qui humanae substantiae dignitatem mirabiliter condidisti et mirabilius reformasti” was a reference to man’s former condition of innocence and to his present one of being ransomed by the Blood of Christ: a recapitulation of the whole economy of the Sacrifice, from Adam to the present moment. The final propitiatory offering of the chalice, that it might ascend “cum odore suavitatis,” into the presence of the divine majesty, Whose clemency was implored, admirably reaffirmed this plan. By suppressing the continual reference to God in the Eucharistic prayers, there is no longer any clear distinction between divine and human sacrifice.

Having removed the keystone, the reformers have had to put up scaffolding; suppressing real ends, they have had to substitute fictitious ends of their own: leading to gestures intended to stress the union of priest and faithful, and of the faithful among themselves; offerings for the poor and for the Church superimposed upon the offerings of the Host to be immolated. There is a danger that the uniqueness of this offering will become blurred, so that participation in the immolation of the Victim comes to resemble a philanthropical meeting, or a charity banquet.

IV
We now pass on to the essence of the Sacrifice.

The mystery of the Cross is no longer explicitly expressed. It is only there obscurely, veiled, imperceptible for the people.[11] And for these reasons:

1. The sense given in the Novus Ordo to the so-called prex eucharistica [12] is: “that the whole congregation of the faithful may be united to Christ in proclaiming the great wonders of God and in offering sacrifice” (no. 54, the end).

Which sacrifice is referred to? Who is the offerer? No answer is given to either of these questions. The initial definition of the prex eucharistica is as follows: “The center and culminating point of the whole celebration now has a beginning, namely the Eucharistic Prayer, a prayer of thanksgiving and of sanctification” (no. 54, pr.). The effects thus replace the causes, of which not one single word is said. The explicit mention of the object of the offering, which was found in the Suscipe, has not been replaced by anything. The change in formulation reveals the change in doctrine.

2. The reason for this non-explicitness concerning the Sacrifice is quite simply that the Real Presence has been removed from the central position which it occupied so resplendently in the former Eucharistic liturgy. There is but a single reference to the Real Presence (a quotation—in a footnote—from the Council of Trent), and again the context is that of “nourishment” (no. 241, note 63).

The Real and permanent Presence of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the transubstantiated Species is never alluded to. The very word transubstantiation is totally ignored.

The suppression of the invocation to the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity (Veni Sanctificator) that He may descend upon the oblations, as once before into the womb of the Most Blessed Virgin to accomplish the miracle of the divine Presence, is yet one more instance of the systematic and tacit negation of the Real Presence.

Note, too, the eliminations:

of the genuflections (no more than three remain to the priest, and one, with certain exceptions, to the people, at the Consecration);
of the purification of the priest’s fingers in the chalice; of the preservation from all profane contact of the priest’s fingers after the Consecration;
of the purification of the vessels, which need not be immediate, nor made on the corporal;
of the pall protecting the chalice;
of the internal gilding of sacred vessels;
of the consecration of movable altars;
of the sacred stone and relics in the movable altar or upon the mensa—when celebration does not occur in sacred precincts (this distinction leads straight to “eucharistic suppers” in private houses);
of the three altar cloths, reduced to one only;
of thanksgiving kneeling (replaced by a thanksgiving, seated, on the part of priest and people, a logical enough complement to Communion standing);
of all the ancient prescriptions in the case of the consecrated Host falling, which are now reduced to a single, casual direction: “reverenter accipiatur” (no. 239);

all these things only serve to emphasize how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated.

3. The function assigned to the altar (no. 262). The altar is almost always called mensa.[13] “The altar or table of the Lord, which is the center of the whole Eucharistic liturgy” (no. 49, cf. 262). It is laid down that the altar must be detached from the walls so that it is possible to walk round it and celebration may be facing the people (no. 262); also that the altar must be the center of the assembly of the faithful so that their attention is drawn spontaneously toward it (ibid). But a comparison of nos. 262 and 276 would seem to suggest that the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament on this altar is excluded. This will mark an irreparable dichotomy between the presence, in the celebrant, of the eternal High Priest and that same Presence brought about sacramentally. Before, they were one and the same presence.[14]

Now it is recommended that the Blessed Sacrament be kept in a place apart for the private devotion of the people (almost as though it were a question of devotion to a relic of some kind) so that, on going into a church, attention will no longer be focused upon the tabernacle but upon a stripped bare table. Once again the contrast is made between private piety and liturgical piety: altar is set up against altar.

In the insistent recommendation to distribute in Communion the Species consecrated during the same Mass, indeed to consecrate a loaf[15] for the priest to distribute to at least some of the faithful, we find reasserted a disparaging attitude toward the tabernacle, as toward every form of Eucharistic piety outside of the Mass. This constitutes yet another violent blow to faith in the Real Presence as long as the consecrated Species remain.[16]

4. The formulae of consecration. The ancient formula of consecration was properly a sacramental, not a narrative one. This was shown above all by three things:

a. The Scriptural text not taken up word for word: the Pauline insertion “mysterium fidei” was an immediate confession of the priest’s faith in the mystery realized by the Church through the hierarchical priesthood.

b. The punctuation and typographical lettering: the full stop and new paragraph marking the passage from the narrative mode to the sacramental and affirmative one, the sacramental words in larger characters at the center of the page and often in a different color, clearly detached from the historical context. All combined to give the formula a proper and autonomous value.

c. The anamnesis (“Haec quotiescumque feceritis in mei memoriam facietis”), which in Greek is “eis tén emèu anàmnesin” (directed to my memory). This referred to Christ operating and not to the mere memory of Him, or of the event: an invitation to recall what He did (“haec… in mei memoriam facietis”) in the way He did it, not only His Person, or the Supper. The Pauline formula (“Hoc facite in meam commemorationem”) which will now take the place of the old—proclaimed as it will be daily in vernacular languages—will irremediably cause the hearers to concentrate on the memory of Christ as the end of the Eucharistic action, whilst it is really the beginning. The concluding idea of commemoration will certainly once again take the place of the idea of sacramental action.”[17]

The narrative mode is now emphasized by the formula “narratio institutionis” (no. 55d) and repeated by the definition of the anamnesis, in which it is said that “The Church recalls the memory of Christ Himself” (no. 556).

In short: the theory put forward by the epiclesis, the modification of the words of Consecration and of the anamnesis, have the effect of modifying the modus significandi of the words of Consecration. The consecratory formulae are here pronounced by the priest as the constituents of a historical narrative and no longer enunciated as expressing the categorical and affirmative judgment uttered by Him in whose Person the priest acts: “Hoc est Corpus Meum” (not, “Hoc est Corpus Christi”).[18]

Furthermore the acclamation assigned to the people immediately after the Consecration: (“we announce Thy death, O Lord, until Thou comest”) introduces yet again, under cover of eschatology, the same ambiguity concerning the Real Presence. Without interval or distinction, the expectation of Christ’s Second Coming at the end of time is proclaimed just as the moment when He is substantially present on the altar, almost as though the former, and not the latter, were the true Coming.

This is brought out even more strongly in the formula of optional acclamation no. 2 (Appendix): “As often as we eat of this bread and drink of this chalice we announce Thy death, O Lord, until Thou comest,” where the juxtaposition of the different realities of immolation and eating, of the Real Presence and of Christ’s Second Coming, reaches the height of ambiguity.[19]

V
We now come to the realization of the Sacrifice, the four elements of which were:

Christ,
the priest,
the Church,
the faithful present.
In the Novus Ordo, the position attributed to the faithful is autonomous (absoluta), hence totally false from the opening definition—“Missa est sacra synaxis seu congregatio populi”—to the priest’s salutation to the people which is meant to convey to the assembled community the “presence” of the Lord (no. 28). “Qua salutatione et populi responsione manifestatur ecclesiae congregatae mysterium.”

A true presence, certainly, of Christ but only spiritual, and a mystery of the Church, but solely as assembly manifesting and soliciting such a presence.

This interpretation is constantly underlined: by the obsessive references to the communal character of the Mass (nos. 74-152); by the unheard of distinction between “missa cum populo” and “missa sine populo” (nos. 203-231); by the definition of the “oratio universalis seu fidelium” (DO. 45), where once more we find stressed the “sacerdotal office” of the people (“populus sui sacerdotii munus excercens”) presented in an equivocal way because its subordination to that of the priest is not mentioned, and all the more since the priest, as consecrated mediator, makes himself the interpreter of all the intentions of the people in the Te igitur and the two Memento.

In Prex Eucharistica III (Vere sanctus, p. 123) the following words are addressed to the Lord: “from age to age you gather a people to Thyself, in order that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of Thy name,”  in order that making it appear that the people, rather than the priest[20] are the indispensable element in the celebration; and since not even here is it made clear who the offerer is, the people themselves appear to be invested with autonomous priestly powers. From this step it would not be surprising if, before long, the people were authorized to join the priest in pronouncing the consecrating formulae (which actually seems here and there to have already occurred).

The priest’s position is minimized, changed and falsified. Firstly in relation to the people for whom he is, for the most part, a mere president, or brother, instead of the consecrated minister celebrating in persona Christi. Secondly in relation to the Church, as a “quidam de populo.” In the definition of the epiclesis (no. 55), the invocations are attributed anonymously to the Church: the part of the priest has vanished.

In the Confiteor which has now become collective, he is no longer judge, witness and intercessor with God; so it is logical that he is no longer empowered to give the absolution, which has been suppressed. He is integrated with the fratres. Even the server addresses him as much in the Confiteor of the “Missa sine populo.”

Already, prior to this latest reform, the significant distinction between the Communion of the priest—the moment in which the Eternal High Priest and the one acting in His Person were brought together in closest union—and the Communion of the faithful had been suppressed.

Not a word do we now find as to the priest’s power to sacrifice, or about his act of consecration, the bringing about through him of the Eucharistic Presence. He now appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister.

The disappearance, or optional use, of many sacred vestments (in certain cases the alb and stole are sufficient—n. 298) obliterates even more the original conformity with Christ: the priest is no more clothed with all His virtues, becoming merely a “graduate” whom one or two signs may distinguish from the mass of people:[21] “a little more a man than the rest” to quote the involuntarily humorous definition by a Dominican preacher.[22] Again, as with the “table” and the altar, there is separated what God has united: the sole Priesthood of the Word of God.

Finally, there is the Church’s position in relation to Christ. In one case, namely the “missa sine populo” is the Mass acknowledged to be “Actio Christi et Ecclesiae” (no. 4, cf. Presb. Ord. no. 13), whereas in the case of the “missa cum populo” this is not referred to except for the purpose of “remembering Christ” and sanctifying those present. The words used are: “In offering the sacrifice through Christ in the Holy Ghost to God the Father, the priest associates the people with himself.” (no. 60), instead of words which would associate the people with Christ Who offers Himself “per Spiritum Sanctum Deo Patri…”

In this context the following are to be noted:

The very serious omission of the phrase “Per Christum Dominum Nostrum,” the guarantee of being heard given to the Church in every age (John 14, 13-14; 15; 16; 23; 24;);

The all-pervading “paschalism,” almost as though there were no other, quite different and equally important aspects of the communication of grace;

The very strange and dubious eschatologism whereby the communication of supernatural grace, a reality which is permanent and eternal, is brought down to the dimensions of time: we hear of a people on the march, a pilgrim Church—no longer militant against the Potestas tenebrarum — looking toward a future which having lost its link with eternity is conceived in purely temporal terms.

The Church—One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic—is diminished as such in the formula that, in the Prex Eucharistica IV, has taken the place of the prayer of the Roman Canon “on behalf of all orthodox believers of the Catholic and apostolic faith.” Now they are no more nor less than: “all who seek you with a sincere heart.”

Again, in the Memento of the dead, these have no longer passed on “with the sign of faith and sleep the sleep of peace,” but only “who have died in the peace of Thy Christ,” and to them are added, with further obvious detriment to the concept of visible unity, the host of all the dead “whose faith is known to Thee alone.”

Furthermore, in none of the three new Eucharistic Prayers is there any reference, as has already been said, to the state of suffering of those who have died, in none the possibility of a particular Memento: all of this, again, must undermine faith in the propitiatory and redemptive nature of the Sacrifice.[23]

Desacralizing omissions everywhere debase the mystery of the Church. She is not presented above all as a sacred hierarchy: angels and saints are reduced to anonymity in the second part of the collective Confiteor: they have disappeared, as witnesses and judges, in the person of St. Michael, from the first.[24] The various hierarchies of angels have also disappeared (and this is without precedent) from the new Preface of Prex II. In the Communicantes the reminder of the pontiffs and holy martyrs on whom the Church of Rome is founded and who were, without doubt, the transmitters of the apostolic traditions, destined to be completed in what became, with St. Gregory, the Roman Mass, has been suppressed. In the Libera nos the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and all the Saints are no longer mentioned: her and their intercession is thus no longer asked, even in time of peril.

The unity of the Church is gravely compromised by the wholly intolerable omission from the entire Ordo, including the three new Eucharistic Prayers, of the names of the Apostles Peter and Paul, Founders of the Church of Rome, and the names of the other Apostles, foundation and mark of the one and universal Church, the only remaining mention being in the Communicantes of the Roman Canon.

A clear attack upon the dogma of the Communion of Saints is the omission, when the priest is celebrating without a server, of all the salutations, and the final blessing, not to speak of the Ite missa est[25] now not even said in Masses celebrated with a server.

The double Confiteor showed how the priest—in his capacity of Christ’s Minister, bowing downplay and acknowledging himself unworthy of his sublime mission, of the “tremendum mysterium” about to be accomplished by him and of even (in the Aufer a nobis) entering into the Holy of Holies—invoked the intercession (in the Oramus te, Domine) of the merits of the martyrs whose relics were sealed in the altar. Both these prayers have been suppressed; what has been said previously in respect of the double Confiteor and the double Communion is equally relevant here.

The outward setting of the Sacrifice, evidence of its sacred character, has been profaned. See, for example, what is laid down for celebration outside sacred precincts, in which the altar may be replaced by a simple mensa without consecrated stone or relic, and with a single cloth (nos. 260, 265). Here too all that has been previously said with regard to the Real Presence applies, the disassociation of the convivium and of the sacrifice of the supper from the Real Presence Itself.

The process of desacralization is completed thanks to the new procedures for the offering: the reference to ordinary not unleavened bread; altar servers (and lay people at Communion sub utraque specie) being allowed to handle sacred vessels (no. 244d); the distracting atmosphere created by the ceaseless coming and going of priest, deacon, subdeacon, psalmist, commentator (the priest becomes a commentator himself from his constantly being required to “explain” what he is about to accomplish)—of readers (men and women), of servers or laymen welcoming people at the door and escorting them to their places whilst other carry and sort offerings. And in the midst of all this prescribed activity, the “mulier idonea”[26] (anti-scriptural and anti-Pauline) who for the first time in the tradition of the Church will be authorized to read the lesson and also perform other “ministeria quae extra presbyterium peraguntur” (no. 70). Finally, there is the concelebration mania, which will end by destroying Eucharistic piety in the priest, by overshadowing the central figure of Christ, sole Priest and Victim, in a collective presence of concelebrants.[27]

VI
We have limited ourselves to a summary evaluation of the new Ordo where it deviates most seriously from the theology of the Catholic Mass and our observations touch only those deviations that are typical. A complete evaluation of all the pitfalls, the dangers, the spiritually and psychologically destructive elements contained in the document—whether in text, rubrics or instructions—would be a vast undertaking.

No more than a passing glance has been taken at the three new Canons, since these have already come in for repeated and authoritative criticism, both as to form and substance. The second of them[28] gave immediate scandal to the faithful on account of its brevity. Of Canon II it has been well said, amongst other things, that it could be recited with perfect tranquility of conscience by a priest who no longer believes either in transubstantiation or in the sacrificial character of the Mass—hence even by a Protestant minister.

The new missal was introduced in Rome as “a text of ample pastoral matter” and “more pastoral than juridical” which the Episcopal Conferences would be able to utilize according to the varying circumstances and genius of different peoples. In this same Apostolic Constitution we read: “we have introduced into the new missal legitimate variations and adaptations.” Besides, Section I of the new Congregation for Divine Worship will be responsible “for the publication and constant revision of the liturgical books.” The last official bulletin of the Liturgical Institutes of Germany, Switzerland and Austria[29] says:

The Latin texts will now have to be translated into the languages of the various peoples: the “Roman” style will have to be adopted to the individuality of the local Churches: that which was conceived beyond time must he transposed into the changing context of concrete situations in the constant flux of the Universal Church and of its myriad congregations.
The Apostolic Constitution itself gives the coup de grace to the Church’s universal language (contrary to the express will of Vatican Council II) with the bland affirmation that “in such a variety of tongues one [?] and the same prayer of all… may ascend more fragrant than any incense.”

The demise of Latin may therefore be taken for granted; that of Gregorian chant—which even the Council recognized as “liturgiae romanae proprium” (Sacros. Conc., no. 116), ordering that “principem locum obtineat” (ibid.)—will logically follow, with the freedom of choice, amongst other things, of the texts of Introit and Gradual.

From the outset therefore the new rite is launched as pluralistic and experimental, bound to time and place. Unity of worship, thus swept away for good and all, what will now become of the unity of faith that went with it, and which, we were always told, was to be defended without compromise?

It is evident that the Novus Ordo has no intention of presenting the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent, to which, nonetheless, the Catholic conscience is bound forever. With the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, the loyal Catholic is thus faced with a most tragic alternative.

VII
The Apostolic Constitution makes explicit reference to a wealth of piety and teaching in the Novus Ordo borrowed from the Eastern Churches. The result—utterly remote from and even opposed to the inspiration of the oriental Liturgies—can only repel the faithful of the Eastern Rites. What, in truth, do these ecumenical options amount to? Basically to the multiplicity of anaphora (but nothing approaching their beauty and complexity), to the presence of the deacons, to Communion sub utraque specie. Against this the Ordo would appear to have been deliberately shorn of everything which in the Liturgy of Rome came close to those of the East.[30] Moreover, in abandoning its unmistakable and immemorial Roman character, the Ordo lost what was spiritually precious of its own. Its place has been taken by elements which bring it closer only to certain other reformed liturgies (not even to those closest to Catholicism) and which debase it at the same time. The East will be ever more alienated, as it already has been by the preceding liturgical reforms.

By way of compensation the new Liturgy will be the delight of the various groups who, hovering on the verge of apostasy, are wreaking havoc in the Church of God, poisoning her organism and undermining her unity of doctrine, worship, morals and discipline in a spiritual crisis without precedent.

VIII
St. Pius V had the Roman Missal drawn up (as the present Apostolic Constitution itself recalls) so that it might he an instrument of unity among Catholics. In conformity with the injunctions of the Council of Trent it was to exclude all danger, in liturgical worship of errors against the Faith, then threatened by the Protestant Reformation. The gravity of the situation fully justified, and even rendered prophetic, the saintly pontiff’s solemn warning given at the end of the bull promulgating his missal: “Should anyone presume to tamper with this, let him know that he shall incur the wrath of God Almighty and of his Blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul” (Quo Primum, July 13, 1570).[31]

When the Novus Ordo was presented at the Vatican Press Office, it was asserted with great audacity that the reasons which prompted the Tridentine decrees are no longer valid. Not only do they still apply, but there also exist, as we do not hesitate to affirm, very much more serious ones today. It was precisely in order to ward off the dangers which in every century threaten the purity of the deposit of faith (“depositum custodi, devitans profanas vocum novitates.”—I Tim. 6:20) that the Church has had to erect under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost the defenses of her dogmatic definitions and doctrinal pronouncements. These were immediately reflected in her worship, which became the most complete monument of her faith. To try and bring the Church’s worship back at all cost to the ancient practice by refashioning, artificially and with that “unhealthy archeologism” so roundly condemned by Pius XII,[32] what in earlier times had the grace of original spontaneity means—as we see today only too clearly—to dismantle all the theological ramparts erected for the protection of the Rite and to take away all the beauty by which it was enriched over the centuries.

And all this at one of the most critical moments—if not the most critical moment—of the Church’s history! Today, division and schism are officially acknowledged to exist not only outside of but within the Church.[33] Her unity is not only threatened but already tragically compromised.[34] Errors against the Faith are not merely insinuated but positively imposed by means of liturgical abuses and aberrations which have been equally acknowledged.[35] To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries was both the sign and the pledge of unity of worship[36] (and to replace it with another which cannot but be a sign of division by virtue of the countless liberties implicitly authorized, and which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic religion) is, we feel in conscience bound to proclaim, an incalculable error.

Footnotes

1 Available from Angelus Press.

2 A presentation given in Kansas City, Missouri, on the 25th anniversary of the founding of the Society of St. Pius X and reprinted from the January 1996 issue of The Angelus.

3 The Prayers of our Canon are found in the treatise De Sacramentis (4th-5th centuries)… Our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the epoch in which it developed for the first time from the most ancient common liturgy. It still preserves the fragrance of that primitive liturgy, in times when Caesar governed the world and hoped to extinguish the Christian faith: times when our forefathers would gather together before dawn to sing a hymn to Christ as to their God… (cf. Pl. Jr., Ep. 96)… There is not, in all Christendom, a rite so venerable as that of the Roman Missal. (Dr. Adrian Fortescue; The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy)

The Roman Canon, such as it is today, goes back to St. Gregory the Great. Neither in the East nor West is there any Eucharistic prayer remaining in use today that can boast such antiquity. For the Roman Church to throw it overboard would be tantamount, in the eyes not only of the Orthodox, but also Anglicans and even Protestants having still to some extent a sense of tradition, to a denial of all claim any more to be the true Catholic Church. (Rev. Louis Bouyer).

4 For such a definition, the Novus Ordo refers one in a note to two texts of Vatican II. But rereading these texts one finds nothing to justify the definition.

The first text referred to (Decree Presbyterorum Ordinis, no. 51 runs as follows:

…through the ministry of the Bishop, God consecrates priests so that they can share by a special title in the priesthood of Christ. Thus, in performing sacred functions they can act as ministers of Him who in the liturgy continually exercises His priestly office on behalf by the action of His Spirit… And especially by the celebration of Mass, men offer sacramentally the sacrifice of Christ. (Documents of Vatican II, Ed. Walter M. Abbot, S.J.)
The second text runs thus, and is from the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 33: “…in the liturgy God speaks to His people and Christ is still proclaiming His Gospel. And the people reply to God both by song and by prayer.”

“Moreover, the prayers addressed to God by the priest presiding over the assembly in the person of Christ are said in the name of the entire holy people as well as of all present.” (Ibid.—our emphasis)

One is at a loss to explain how, from such texts as these, the above definition could have been drawn.

We note, too, the radical alteration, in this definition of the Mass, of that laid down by Vatican II (Presbyterorum Ordinis, 1254): “The Eucharist is therefore the very heart of the Christian Community.” The centrum having been spirited away, in the Novus Ordo the congregatio itself has usurped its place.

5 The Council of Trent reaffirms the Real Presence in the following words:

Principio docet Sancta Synodus et aperte et simpliciter profitetur in almo Sanctae Eucharistiae sacramento post panis et vini, consacrationem Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum verum Deum atque hominem vere, realiter ac substantialiter (can. I) sub specie illarum rerum sensibilium contineri. (DB, no. 874)
In session XXII, which interests us directly (De sanctissimo Missae Sacrificio), the approved doctrine (Dz [Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma], nos. 937a-956) is clearly synthesized in nine canons:

1. The Mass is a true and visible Sacrifice—not a symbolic representation—“quo cruentum illud semel in cruce peragendum repraesentaretur atque illius salutaris virtus in remissionem eorum, quae a nobis quotidie committuntur peccatorum applicaretur.” (Dz, no. 938)

2. Jesus Christ Our Lord:

sacerdotem secundum ordinem Melchisedech ac in aeternum (Ps. 109, 4) constitutum declarans, corpus et sanguinem suum sub specibus panis et vini Deo Patri obtulit ac sub earundem rerum symbolis Apostolis (quos tunc Novi Testamenti sacerdotes constituebat), ut sumerent tradidit, et eisdem eorumque in sacredotio successoribus, ut offernt, praecaepit per haec verba: “Hoc facite in meam commemorationem” (Lk. 22, 19; I Cor. 11, 24) ut semper catholica Ecclesia intellexit et docuit. (Dz, ibid.).

The celebrant, the offerer, the sacrificer is the priest consecrated for this, not the people of God, the assembly. “Si quis dixerit, illis verbis: ‘Hoc facite’ etc. Christum non istituisse Apostolos sacerdotes, aut non ordinasse, ut ipsi alique sacerdotes offerent corpus et sanguinem suum: anathema sit.” (Can. 2, Dz, 949)

3. The Sacrifice of the Mass is a true propitiatory Sacrifice and not a “bare commemoration of the sacrifice accomplished on the Cross.”

Si quis dixerit: Missae sacrificium tantum esse laudis et gratiarum actiones aut nudam commemoratinem sacrificii in cruce peracti, non autem prpitiatorum; vel soli prodesse sumenti, neque pro vivis et defunctis, pro peccatis, poenis, satisfactionibus et aliis necessitatibus offeri debere, anathema sit. (Can. 3: Dz, 95)
Can. 6 will also be recalled: “Si quis dixerit Canon Missae errores continere ideoque abrongandum esse, anathema sit.” (Dz, 953); and Can. 8: “Si quis dixerit Missae, in quibus solus sacerdos sacramentaliter communicat, illicitas esse, ideoque abrogandas, anathema sit.” (Dz, 955)

6 It is superfluous to assert that, if a single defined dogma were denied, all dogma would ipso facto fall, insofar as the very principle of infallibility of the supreme hierarchical Magisterium, whether papal or conciliar, would thereby be destroyed.

7 The Ascension should be added if one wished to recall the Unde et memores which furthermore does not associate but clearly and finely distinguishes: “…tam beatae Passioni, nec non ab inferis Resurrectionis, sed et in caelum gloriosae Ascensionis.”

8 This shift of emphasis is met with also in the surprising elimination, in the new Canons, of the Memento of the dead and of any mention of the sufferings of the souls in Purgatory, to whom the propitiatory Sacrifice was applied.

9 Cf. Mysterium Fidei in which Paul VI condemns the errors of symbolism together with the new theories of “transignification” and “transfinalization”:

…Nor is it right to be so preoccupied with considering the nature of the sacramental sign that the impression is repeated that the symbolism—and no one denies its existence in the most Holy Eucharist—expresses and exhausts the whole meaning of Christ’s presence in this sacrament. Nor is it right to treat of the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning the marvelous change of the whole of the bread’s substance into Christ’s body, and the whole of the wine’s substance into His blood, of which the Council of Trent speaks, and thereby make these changes consist of nothing but a ‘transignification’ or a ‘transfinalization,’ to use these terms. (Catholic Truth Society translation of Mysterium Fidei, art. II)

10 The introduction of new formulae, or expressions, which, though occurring in texts of the Fathers and Councils, and of the Church’s magisterium, are used in a univocal sense, not subordinated to the substance of doctrine with which they form an inseparable whole (e.g., “spiritualis alimonia,” “cibus spiritualis,” “potus spiritualis,” etc.) is amply denounced and condemned in Mysterium Fidei. Paul VI states that: “When the integrity of faith has been preserved, a suitable manner of expression has to be preserved as well. Otherwise our use of careless language may, though it is to be hoped that it will not, give rise to false opinions on belief in very deep matters,” and quotes St. Augustine:

There is a claim on us to speak according to a fixed rule so that unchecked words do not give rise also to an impious view of the matters which we express. (He continues) This rule of speech has been introduced by the Church in the long work of centuries with the protection of the Holy Spirit. She has confirmed it with the authority of the Councils. It has become more than once the token and standard of orthodox faith. It must be observed religiously. No one may presume to alter it at will, or on the pretext of new knowledge… it is equally intolerable that anyone on his own initiative should want to modify the formulae with which the Council of Trent has proposed the eucharistic doctrine of belief. (Idem, art. 23).

11 Contradicting what is prescribed by Vatican II. (Sacros. Conc., no. 48)

12 “Eucharistic Prayer”—Ed.

13 The altar’s primary function is recognized once (no. 259): “the altar on which the sacrifice of the Cross is renewed under the sacramental signs.” This single reference does not seem to remove to any extent the equivocations of the other repeated designation.

14 “To separate the tabernacle from the altar is tantamount to separating two things which of their very nature must remain together.” (Pius XII, Allocution to the International Liturgy Congress. Assisi-Rome, Sept. 18-23, 1956) Cf. also Mediator Dei, I, 5, note 28.

15 Rarely in the Novus Ordo is the word “hostia” used, a traditional one in liturgical books with its precise significance of “victim.” This needless to say is part of the reformers’ plan to emphasize only the aspects “supper,” “food.”

16 In accordance with the customary habit of the reformers of substituting and exchanging one thing for another, the Real Presence is made equivalent to the Presence in the word (no. 7, 54). But this latter presence is really of quite another nature, having no reality except in usu: whilst the former is, in a stable manner, objective and independent of the communication that is made of it in the Sacrament. The formulae “God speaks to His people… By His word Christ is present in the midst of the faithful” (no. 33, cf. Sacros. Conc. no. 33 and 7), are typically Protestant ones, which strictly speaking, have no meaning, as the presence of God in the word is mediated, bound to an act of the spirit, to the spiritual condition of the individual and limited in time. This error has the most serious consequences; the affirmation (or insinuation) that the Real Presence is bound to the usus, and ends together with it.

17 The sacramental action of the institution is emphasized as having come about in Our Lord’s giving the Apostles His Body and Blood “to eat” under the species of bread and wine, not in the act of consecration and in the mystical separation therein accomplished of the Body from the Blood, essence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. (Cf. the whole of chapter I, part II, “The cult of the Eucharist” in Mediator Dei)

18 The words of Consecration as inserted in the context or the Novus Ordo can be valid by virtue of the minister’s intention. They could also not be valid because they are no longer so ex vi verborum, or, more precisely, by virtue of the modus signifcandi they had in the Mass up to the present time.

Will priests of the near future who have not received the traditional formation, and who rely on the Novus Ordo with the intention of “doing what the Church does” consecrate validly? One may be allowed to doubt it.

19 Let it not be said, according to the well-known Protestant critical procedure, that these phrases belong to the same scriptural context. The Church has always avoided their juxtaposition and superimposition precisely in order to avoid any confusion of the different realities here expressed.

20 As against the Lutherans who affirmed that all Christians are priests and hence offerers of the Supper, see A. Tanquerey: Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae, vol. III, Desclee, 1930: “Each and every priest is strictly speaking, a secondary minister of the sacrifice of the Mass. Christ Himself is the principal minister. The faithful offer through the intermediary of the priest but not in the strict sense.” (Cf. Conc. Trid. XXII, Can. 2)

21 We note in passing an incredible innovation which is sure to have the most serious psychological effects: the Good Friday liturgy in red vestments instead of black (no. 308b)—the commemoration, that is of any martyr, instead of the mourning of the whole Church for her Founder. (Cf. Mediator Dei, I, 5, note 28)

22 Fr. Roquet, O.P., to the Dominicans of Bethany, at Plesschenet.

23 In some translations of the Roman Canon, the “locus refrigerii lucis et pacis” was rendered as a simple state (“blessedness, light, peace”). What is to be said then of the disappearance of every explicit reference to the Church Suffering?

24 In all this welter of curtailment a single enrichment only: the mention of omission in the accusation of sins at the Confiteor.

25 At the press conference introducing the Ordo, Fr. Lecuyer, in what appears to be, objectively speaking, a profession of purely rationalistic faith, spoke of converting the salutationes in the “Missa sine populo” into “Dominus tecum,” “Ora, frater,” etc., “so that there should be nothing which does not correspond with the truth.”

26 Meaning in Latin: “suitable woman”—Ed.

27 We note in this connection that it seems lawful for priests obliged to celebrate alone either before or after concelebration to communicate again sub utraque specie during concelebration.

28 It has been presented as “The Canon of Hippolytus” but in fact nothing remains of this but a few remembered words.

29 Gottesdiesnt, no. 9, May 14, 1969.

30 One has only to think of the Byzantine liturgy, for example, with its reiterated and lengthy penitential prayers; the solemn rites of vesting of the celebrant and deacon: the preparation of the offerings at the proscomidia, a complete rite in itself: the continual presence in the prayers, even those of the offerings, of the Blessed Virgin, the Saints and Choirs of Angels (who are actually invoked, at the entrance with the Gospel, as “invisibly celebrating,” the choir identifying itself with them in the Cherubicon): the iconostasis which divides the sanctuary from the rest of the church, the clergy from the people; the hidden Consecration, symbolizing the divine mystery to which the entire liturgy alludes; the celebrant’s position versus ad Deum, never versus ad populum; Communion given always and only by the celebrant; the continual marks of profound adoration shown to the Sacred Species; the essentially contemplative attitude of the people. The fact that these liturgies, even in their less solemn forms, last for over an hour, and are constantly defined as “tremendous and unutterable… celestial, life-giving mysteries…” need no elaborating. It is finally worth noting how in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, and in that of St. Basil, the concept of “supper” or “banquet” appears clearly subordinate to that of sacrifice, as it did in the Roman Mass.

31 In Session XXIII (decree on the Most Holy Eucharist), the Council of Trent manifested its intention:

ut stirpitus convelleret zizania execrabilium errorum et schismalum, quae inimicus homo… in doctrina fidei usu et cultu Sacrosanctae Eucharistiae superseminavit (Mt. 13, 25 et seq.) quam alioqui Salvator noster in Ecclesia sua tamquam symbolum reliquit eius unitatis et caritatis, qua Christianos omnes inter se coniunctos et copulatos, esse voluit. (Dz, 873)

32 To go back in mind and heart to the sources of the sacred liturgy is wise and praiseworthy. The study of liturgical origins enables us to understand better the significance of festivals and the meanings of liturgical formulas and ceremonies. But the desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition is neither wise nor praiseworthy. It would be wrong. for example, to want the altar restored to its ancient form of table, to want black eliminated from liturgical colors, and pictures and statues excluded from our churches, to require crucifixes that do not represent the bitter suffering of the Divine Redeemer… This attitude is to attempt to revive the “archeologism” [i.e., the error of “antiquarianism”—Ed.] to which the pseudo-synod of Pistoia gave rise; it seeks also to reintroduce the many pernicious errors which to that synod and resulted from it and which the Church in her capacity of watchful guardian of the “deposit of faith” entrusted to her by her Divine Founder, has rightly condemned. (Mediator Dei, CTS trans., arts. 66 and 68)

33 “A practically schismatic ferment divides, subdivides, splits the Church…” (Paul VI, Homily, Holy Thursday 1969)

34 “There are also amongst us those ‘schismata,’ those ‘scissurae’ which St. Paul in I Corinthians sadly denounces.” (Cf. Paul VI, ibid.)

35 It is well-known how Vatican II is today being “contested” by the very men who gloried in being its leaders, those who—whilst the Pope in closing the Council declared that it had changed nothing—came away determined to “explode” the content in the process of actual application. Alas that the Holy See, with a haste that is really unexplainable, should appear to have given approval and even encouragement, through the Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Litugia, to an ever increasing infidelity to the Council, from such apparently formal aspects as Latin, Gregorian, the suppression of venerable rites and ritual, to the substantial ones now sanctioned by the Novus Ordo, To the disastrous consequences, which we have endeavored to set out, must be added those which, with psychologically even greater effect, will make themselves felt in the fields of discipline and of the Church’s teaching authority, by undermining, with the standing of the Holy See, the docility due to its rulings.

36…Do not let us deceive ourselves with the suggestion that the Church, which has become great and majestic for the glory of God, as a magnificent temple of His, must be brought back to its original and smallest proportions, as though they were the only true ones, the only good ones… (Paul VI, Ecclesiam suam)

Recently, Father Bouyer revealed that Eucharistic Prayer II which was attributed to antiquity as the “Prayer of Hippolytus” was actually a fabrication hastily composed late at night in a Roman restaurant. For Source, see Rorate Caeli, “Original Sins, Eucharistic Prayer II, composed in a  few hours in a Roman Trattoria“. What a diabolical deception!

Now, more than ever, Pray the Rosary with confidence and joy!

  Immaculate Heart of Mary, Queen of our hearts, Mother of the Church, do thou offer to the Eternal Father the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the conversion of poor sinners, especially our Pontiff.
  Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Thy kingdom come! Viva Cristo Rey!
  Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.
  St. Joseph, protect us, protect our families, protect our priests.
  St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.

Please pray for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary!

~ by evensong for love of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ, King.
Vouchsafe that I may praise thee, O Sacred Virgin! Give me strength against thine enemies!

© All Content Copyright 2013-2017 ReturntoFatima.org. All Rights Reserved.

Reap the Whirlwind

Recently, a long-time reader, a subscriber for more than 5 years, became irate after my disrespectful comments about Pope Benedict XVI in a recent post.  Although I am sorry to see him – and others – leave, I will not change a post that reflects what I believe to be the truth. Pope Benedict is perceived by many as a martyr, and I have honored him for freeing the true Mass, and for asserting the truth, that is, that the true Mass could never rightly be suppressed.  However, before he was Pope, Father Josef Ratzinger was a modernist through and through, and he has never properly recanted his harmful books.

Today, Sandro Magister posted an article which is at once fascinating and frightening in its implications. But also, it contains a small passage remarking on Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI that I believe, sheds light on my “obnoxious” comments on both popes. Some excerpts follow, with my brief note below it. The entire article here: ” ‘Magnum Principium’ At Work. The Incredible ‘Credo’ of Professor Melloni.”

A discussion has been prompted by the motu proprio “Magnum Principium” with which Pope Francis a few days ago redefined the responsibilities of the bishops and of the episcopal conferences in the translations of liturgical texts.

Meanwhile, however, there are those who are going rogue, without even being bishops. Like Professor Alberto Melloni, who on September 13 offered in grand style to the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew – on a visit to Bologna, to the foundation created by Giuseppe Dossetti and Giuseppe Alberigo, the captain of which today is Melloni – his own brand-new Italian translation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan “Credo,” the one that is recited or sung at every Mass.

In presenting this creature of his, “ruminated over for a long time among several scholars and discussed with a philologist of the caliber of Silvia Ronchey,” Melloni said that he wanted “to leave the Latin Credo to its history,” along with that divisive “Filioque” which has never been part of the original Greek text. As if to resolve on his own in this way, by magic, centuries of schism between the Church of Rome and the Churches of the East.

In reality, without much horn-tooting over unlikely ecumenical miracles, John Paul II and Benedict XVI  had already, on several occasions, recited the “Credo” in the original Greek text without the “Filioque,” together with patriarchs of Constantinople.

But here comes Melloni with his own “Credo,” translated from the Greek into a very bizarre Italian, capable according to him of finally “reviving the hidden rhymes of the common faith and the thrum of that ‘One’ which seems like a refrain.”

It has to be read to be believed.

Sandro Magister has an audio file of the recitation of the Creed by those John Paul and Benedict and also a copy of the Creed they recited, omitting the objectionable ” filioque”.

The earlier actions of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI were directly responsible for the scandal we have today with Bergoglio and Melloni.  We have reaped what was sown by the revolutionaries of Vatican II, and this destructive whirlwind will not be halted  until there is a return to obedient faith. This faith, once rejected must be begged for with humble, contrite hearts.

Please pray for the Pope and the Church, and especially our priests. And please consider doubling down on your prayers and acts of reparation between now and October 13. Thank you for reading! I pray for you always.

†  Immaculate Heart of Mary, Queen of our hearts, Mother of the Church, do thou offer to the Eternal Father the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the conversion of poor sinners, especially our Pontiff.
†  Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Thy kingdom come! Viva Cristo Rey!
†  Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.
†  St. Joseph, protect us, protect our families, protect our priests.
†  St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.

Please pray for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary!

September 1, 1910

Today, we begin September by celebrating Pope Francis!

Yes, it is time that we honor the man, his deep and merciful thoughts and his actions by which it is said a man may best be known. On this day 107 years ago, in his Oath Against Modernism, Pope St. Pius X foretold this man, Pope Francis, our first truly humble and merciful pope, and wrote of him. Indeed, his great encyclical Pascendi Domenici Gregis, written in September, 1907 is filled with prophecies about our little Argentinian treasure – reading the words of St. Pius X, it is hard to believe that he did not have our beloved Bergoglio’s illustrious words on Love, “Amoris Laetitia” in mind as he wrote it.

Forgive my sarcasm; I arose this morning to find yet another update on the assault to the faith by Pope Francis the Humble® – covered in articles by Edward Pentin here and Rorate here . One would think that after four hellish years, I would learn to avoid news of this pope before my coffee….

Let’s take a look at at better time, when we had the brave and clear truths spoken by our truly Holy Father, one worthy of the name, Pope St. Pius X, who presciently warned of the False Prophet and his followers who prowl about the Church seeking  the ruin of souls.

“The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.” (Pope St. Pius X)

The last truly saintly Pope was Pius X, who promulgated the Oath Against Modernism on September 1, 1910, 107 years ago today. It is instructive to review this oath, which was abolished by Paul VI and is so widely scorned, reviled or simply ignored by those who currently occupy the visible Church today.

Saint Pius X, pray for us, pray for our priests!

With the death of this holy pope, the dark force of modernism was once again free to poison the faith, While ostensibly orthodox, Pope Benedict XV dismantled St. Pius’s Sodalitium Pianum, the network established to assure orthodoxy in the seminaries. Subsequent popes also contributed their efforts to undermining orthodoxy in sundry ways. Although these popes gave lip service to Our Lady’s message at Fatima, none actually went so far as to obey her. And so, modernism flourished under even those pre-Vatican II popes who appeared to be orthodox, until it burst into florid putrescence in the revolutionary Second Vatican Ecumenical Council.

As you review the Oath Against Modernism that follows, bear in mind that every single Conciliar Pope from John XXIII through Benedict XVI had originally sworn this solemn oath, which of course, was violated by those same popes during and after Vatican II. Every single pope until Francis, the quintessential modernist pope. The very apotheosis of Vatican II.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit, and the evil tree brings forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.” (Matt 7, 15-18)

In the re-presentation below, we have taken the liberty of numbering the points and emphasising some of the more pertinent. The original is available here.

 THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

“I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day.

  1. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, His existence can also be demonstrated.
  2. Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time.
  3. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when He lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time.
  4. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.
  5. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.
  6. Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas.
  7. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion.
  8. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful.
  9. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm.
  10. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.
  11. Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and His apostles.
  12. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles.

The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God.”

After Vatican II, Pope Paul VI (who had, himself, sworn this very Oath) abolished the Oath. The post-Vatican Catholic Church then, is built on the shifting sands of Modernism, which is a heresy. 

This is the Age of Apostasy, and Pope Francis is bringing us to its calamitous close. The chastisement will only be ended by the Immaculate Mother of God, through a pope who is chastened, truly humble and obedient in performing the long-awaited  Consecration of Russia with the surviving Bishops.

 Please remember, pray the Rosary and confound satan and all his works and pomps.

  Immaculate Heart of Mary, Queen of our hearts, Mother of the Church, do thou offer to the Eternal Father the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the conversion of poor sinners, especially our Pontiff.
  Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Thy kingdom come! Viva Cristo Rey!
  Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.
  St. Joseph, protect us, protect our families, protect our priests.
  St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.

Please pray for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary!

~ by evensong for love of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ, King.
Vouchsafe that I may praise thee, O Sacred Virgin! Give me strength against thine enemies!

© All Content Copyright 2013-2017 ReturntoFatima.org. All Rights Reserved.

 

 

The Destroyer Pope

I am not able to post at present but reprint an earlier post which was occasioned by the insightful remarks of a reader, Terry McCarthy.  With the passage of time, his assessment has proved quite accurate, don’t you think?

Regarding the current pontiff, I see the purpose of his almost daily heretical pronouncements as a way to destroy the concept of papal infallibility, and along with it, the immutability of doctrine. The fact that most Catholics do not seem to be much concerned about his heresies shows that they probably have already lost faith in the Church’s unchanging doctrine and are heretics themselves. The pope will soon be declared just another fallible church leader like the Anglicans’ Archbishop of Canterbury and all his declarations will be considered mere personal opinions subject to challenge by the “faithful”. Without the umbrella of infallibility, there is no genuine Vicar of Christ to unify the Church, thus Father Martin’s prophecy of the scattering of the sheep will be fulfilled.”

“…not a true pastor, but a destroyer.”

We wholeheartedly agree. This pope is the “destroyer pope” of prophecy.  Earlier this year, we covered a bit of it in our post, “The Judas Complex and Pope Francis”, where we remarked on this apostate pope’s “homily” wherein he described Judas as a “poor, repentant man”.

Thinking on this strange Pope’s even stranger affinity for Judas recalled to mind Father Malachi Martin’s writing about the Judas Complex among the Modernist Churchmen who infest the Church. His 1990 book, “The Keys of This Blood”, has a final portion titled “Coda, the Protocol of Salvation” which contains a fascinating analysis of the precise situation in which we find ourselves today, under a pope who asserts himself as more merciful and practical than Jesus Christ, whom he insists he represents. Indeed, as he himself reminds us, he is “by the will of Christ Himself – the supreme Pastor and Teacher of all the faithful”. And that he enjoys, “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church”.

In the earlier post, “The Judas Complex and Pope Francis”, we said,

Malachi Martin states, “the essence of the Judas complex: (is) the compromise of one’s basic principles in order to fit in with the modes of thought and behavior that the world regards as necessary for its vital interests”, and he asserts that this compromise was both the specific sin wherein Judas expressed his pride and also the sure norm we can use to identify the work of the “anti-church” which has infested the Church for generations now.

Fr. Martin asserts that,
“The greatest single act of malfeasance in high ecclesiastical and ecclesial office has been the tolerance and propagation of confusion about key beliefs among the Catholic rank and file, this tolerated confusion being a direct result of a tolerated dissidence by Catholic theologians and bishops concerning those same key beliefs. For to tolerate confusion is to propagate confusion.

“A primary and fundamental duty of every ecclesiastical office … (is) the clear, unmistakable teaching and enforcement of the basic rules and fundamental beliefs the Church holds and declares to be necessary for eternal salvation. There can be no compromise on both points: teaching and enforcement. If Roman Catholics have any rights in the Church, they have a primary right to receive such unequivocal teaching and to be the subjects of such forthright and unhesitating enforcement.”

Fr. Martin identifies four key areas that have been effectively undermined by this confusion:

  • The Eucharist. This means the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, undermined by Paul VI’s Novus Ordo, and now demolished at the hands of the Humble Pope of Mercy®
  • The oneness and trueness of the Roman Catholic Church, undermined by false ecumenism, now being brought to its logical conclusion under Pope Francis.
  • The Petrine Office of the Bishop of Rome, undermined by collegiality.
  • The morality of Christian reproductive activity undermined by protestant heresy of the sovereignty of individual conscience.

This last point has been carried farther than even Father Martin foresaw with the Bergoglio/Kasper agenda of asserting the “rights” of those living in persistent mortal sin, such as sodomy, fornication and adultery, to receive Holy Communion.

Each of the above four points is becoming ever more clear as Pope Francis pushes his agenda with brutal determination while the sycophant catholic media abet him and our weak and effeminate prelates look away.

Martin explains that these modernist Judases intend to eliminate the Primacy of the Pope and replace the Petrine Privilege with a gaggle of national churches, each attuned their their own local culture and needs. In order to achieve the liquidation of the Petrine Office they require the consent of its occupant,

” and the easiest way in which that could happen would be the election to the throne of Peter of a papal candidate who, prior to his election, is known as favoring such a liquidation. Domination of a papal Conclave by that sort of mind would be a prerequisite for success in this epoch-making venture. For epoch-making it is: to transform the almost two-thousand-year-old tradition of the Roman Catholic Church by ending officially and once and for all the papal primacy such as it has evolved over the centuries and has been asserted by every ecumenical council of the Church, including the Second Vatican Council.”

The current occupant fits this description perfectly, wielding the full power of the papacy in order to abolish it by means of collegiality and synodality.”

There really can be no doubt any longer that we have in the current occupant an apostate pope who serves his master, the Lord of this world and is quite literally hell bent on destroying the Church. The St. Gallen Group, or if you will, by their own name, the St. Gallen Mafia of Cardinal Danneels and his ilk elected him, with the complicity of Benedict XVI. He serves his masters well, and as others have remarked, we are perhaps on the cusp of the greatest persecution of Christians the world has ever seen.

Again and again, Pray the Rosary and confound the devil!

†  Immaculate Heart of Mary, Queen of our hearts, Mother of the Church, do thou offer to the Eternal Father the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the conversion of poor sinners, especially our Pontiff.
  Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Thy kingdom come! Viva Cristo Rey!
  Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.
  St. Joseph, protect us, protect our families, protect our priests.
  St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.

Please pray for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary!

~ by evensong for love of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ, King.
Vouchsafe that I may praise thee, O Sacred Virgin! Give me strength against thine enemies!

© All Content Copyright 2013-2017 ReturntoFatima.org. All Rights Reserved.

 

 

 

The Dragon, the Beast from the Sea and the False Prophet

Sister Lucia of Fatima encouraged us to read Chapters 8-13 of the Apocalypse if we would understand the message of Fatima. That is, she implied that the message is Apocalyptic. And indeed,  we see ourselves, not without a bit of fright, caught up in an unprecedented rush of events that seem to be sweeping the entirety of Christian civilization away, and increasingly replacing the Church with something strange and hideous.

Today, we refer to The Whole Truth About Fatima, Volume III by Frere Michel de la Trinite and will also refer to the writings of Father Herman Bernard Kramer’s Book of Destiny and Father Sylvester Berry’s Apocalypse of St. John. Links will be found in notes at  end of post.

The Message of Fatima is usually broken into three “Secrets”, which are not a sequence, but rather, like the Apocalypse are inter-related. Hence the First Secret, represented by the vision of hell, forms a basis for the remainder. So we begin by considering this First Secret in the light of the Apocalypse as Sister Lucia indicated.

When she showed the children the brief but intense vision of hell, Our Lady solemnly remarked,

“You have seen hell, where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart.”

This apocalyptic vision of the sea of fire sets the stage for the battle between the dragon, the ancient enemy who bears an implacable hatred for the Woman, that is the Virgin who, he knows, will vanquish him. The Apocalypse is the beautiful story of the triumph of this Immaculate Virgin, full of the grace and love of God,  over Satan, full of the darkness and hatred of the denial of God.  This battle of Hell against heaven, of Satan against the Virgin, of hatred against the love and truth of God, this is the basis of the message of Fatima, the battle for souls.

The First Beast and the Second Secret

Now, the Second Secret involves the First beast, that is, the Beast from the Sea. As we have discussed earlier, Satan always ever mocks God, and has his own diabolic mockery of the most Holy Trinity, that is, the Dragon as the Father, the Beast from the Sea as the Son and the Second Beast, the Beast from the earth, as the Holy Ghost. Thus, all the diabolical trinity are actually one, as are all the Holy Trinity. Also note that the First Secret may be said to represent Satan himself in his implacable hatred for God and for God’s most blessed creature, the Immaculata, Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ. And so we see that the Second Secret will show us the working of the First Beast. This First Beast, from the “Sea”, is atheistic marxism, the error of Russia, but also the error of all the nations which comprise the “Sea” of the Prince of the World.  Thus, the Second Secret is about the material chastisement,  the wars and plagues that arise from the evil machinations of the Beast from the Sea. The last part of the Secret, that is, the Third Secret is regarding the Second Beast, the False Prophet who reigns through the spiritual chastisement, attempting to set up the reign of Satan within the Church.

This first Beast, then, is the political power – supreme and totalitarian, impious and persecuting the Church. We have been seeing this power spread out all over the earth in this past century as the only power which could stop it, that is, a Pope humbly obedient to the Mother of God, refused to use the spiritual graces and power given to him, preferring instead to “combat” it by earthly diplomacy and other such  trivial and useless means.

Continue reading “The Dragon, the Beast from the Sea and the False Prophet”

The Transfiguration, 2017

Nisi Solum Jesum

Today, August 6th, the Church recalls to us the Transfiguration of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is also the subject for the Second Sunday in Lent. However, now in the heat of August, there is a slight difference. Today’s epistle is from St. Peter, the first Vicar of Christ. Despite his flaws, Our Lord chose him to lead His fledgling Church. What does St. Peter tell us in today’s epistle?

“Dearly beloved, we have not followed artificial fables, when we made known to you the power and presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ; but having been made eyewitnesses of His greatness. For He received from God the Father honour and glory; this voice coming down to Him from the excellent glory: ‘This is My beloved Son in Whom I am well pleased, Hear ye Him.’ And this voice we heard brought from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mount. And we have the more firm prophetical word, whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star rise in your hearts.” (II Peter, 1, 16-19)

Thus, today’s epistle reminds us that the Word of God is no fantastic fable, it is a true history of actual historical occurrences. As our first Pontiff reminds us, we “do well to attend, as to a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawn and the day-star rise in (our) hearts.”

And so, we move to the glorious moment of the Transfiguration itself. Jesus took Peter, James and John up on Mount Tabor and revealed to them the very slightest bit of His infinite glory for a few brief moments in order to confirm their faith; knowing as He did, that the events of His passion were to shake their faith utterly.

Nisi solum Jesum

“His face did shine as the sun and His garments became white as snow.” (Matthew 17, 2) In this vision the Apostles saw Moses and Elias speaking with Jesus. St. Luke tells us that, “they spoke of His decease that He should accomplish in Jerusalem”. (Luke 9, 31) By placing the Transfiguration narrative in this timeframe, the Church wishes to illustrate the close connection between the Transfiguration and the Passion and Death of Jesus. By revealing this brief glimpse of His glory, Jesus was showing His Apostles that it was impossible for Him as well as for them to reach the full glory of the Transfiguration without passing through suffering. After the Resurrection, He would confirm that lesson as He met them at Emmaus, “Ought not Christ to have suffered these things and so to enter into His glory?” (Luke 24, 26).

Peter, ever the impetuous one, became so caught up in the rapture of the moment, that he cried out, “It is good for us to be here!”. And then he offered to make three tabernacles, one each for Jesus, Moses and Elias, but as he was speaking the Lord God interrupted him peremptorily, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear ye Him!”

There is much to learn from this gospel. Peter was understandably impressed with the splendor of the moment and strongly desired to remain right there, in such a spiritually satisfying place. His response was so typical of us: How many times have we responded to an influx of grace with a new spurt of “busy-work”, bustling around like Martha instead of allowing ourselves to be absorbed in Jesus alone! But if Peter had done as he wished, that would have been to miss the whole point of it, which was to prepare them for the immense scandal of the Passion, the terrible spectacle of their Master humbled even to the lowest imaginable specter of a common criminal, mocked and spit upon, stripped of all dignity and nailed to a cross to die in ignominy.

And so, God by His reply told Peter firmly to listen to Jesus and follow Him. if Peter was to lead the Church, he must learn to follow Christ all the way to Golgotha, up to the place of the skull. In time, he must even follow Him to his own crucifixion. Father Gabriel in his meditations on the Transfiguration assures us, “God does not console us for our entertainment but rather for our encouragement, for our strengthening, for the increase in our generosity in suffering for love of Him.” (Divine Intimacy)

Abruptly, the glorious vision ended, “And they lifting up their eyes saw no one but only Jesus.” In the Vulgate, “Levantes autem oculos suos, neminem viderunt, nisi solum Jesum.” (Matthew 17, 8). Nisi solum Jesum, with Jesus alone, they came down from the mountain. Nisi solum Jesum, Jesus alone is sufficient for us. Everything else, even friends, family, encouragement, approval, may be stripped away; yet Jesus alone remains. If He in His wisdom withdraws all else, yet He abides with us, even when we “know Him not”. And we must affirm this, even though He choose for us to follow Him through His suffering, being faithful even unto the awful moment when we cry out in our soul’s desolation, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?”

Not as the world gives, does Jesus give. When it seems to the soul that He has withdrawn His love, withdrawn all consolation, it is only so that we follow Him with love and absolute trust as He endures the darkness of His Passion in order that He may bring about the glory of His true and lasting Transfiguration and share His glory with us eternally. This is as true for the Church as it is for us personally.

We are now  only months away from the October culmination of the Visits of Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima in 1917. On this memorable occasion of the Centenary of Fatima, Pope Bergoglio is  planning to honor another anniversary, that of the arch-heretic Martin Luther who ripped so many hapless souls away from the Church and swept them down with him to eternal damnation. Why on earth would a Catholic, much less the man who presents himself to the world as the very Vicar of Christ on earth, why would he honor such a man?

We know that no matter what the media, even the supposedly Catholic media report, the Bergoglio/Kasper/Danneels agenda  is hell-bent on achieving irreversible change in the practice of the faith. But we know without a doubt that Our Lord Jesus Christ will not forsake His Church. Let us hold firm to the faith, as St. Peter tells us,

“attend,  as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star rise in our hearts.”

Just as the Transfiguration was only a momentary glimpse of His glory, so too the passion and death of Our Lord in His Mystical Body the Church, are destined to pass and yield to His glorious Resurrection. Let us keep our perspective then, even in these chaotic times, and abide “with Jesus alone”, “Nisi solum Jesum”  accepting all that is given to us from His wounded hands, trusting in Jesus alone.

Pray the Rosary with confidence and joy!
  Immaculate Heart of Mary, Queen of our hearts, Mother of the Church, do thou offer to the Eternal Father the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the conversion of poor sinners, especially our Pontiff.
  Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Thy kingdom come! Viva Cristo Rey!
  Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.
  St. Joseph, protect us, protect our families, protect our priests.
  St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.

Please pray for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary!

~ by evensong for love of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ, King.

Vouchsafe that I may praise thee, O Sacred Virgin! Give me strength against thine enemies!

© All Content Copyright 2013-2017 ReturntoFatima.org. All Rights Reserved.