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.

With Mary at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

Some time ago, several readers asked for an article or two about the Mass. Today, we offer a few excerpts from an  essay that appeared in 1935, written by a little known Jesuit, Father John Sexton Kennedy.

At Mass With Mary

A glory of new stars, downward flung
And forged into seven swords, has stung
The heart of the Woman whom I pass
On my way to the altar for morning Mass.
There is no shrill crowd, there are no hoarse cries,
But I meet One bearing a cross in her eyes.

Those people who twenty centuries ago were present on Calvary because they hated Jesus Christ paid more attention to the sacrifice of the cross than do most of us who are Sunday after Sunday present at Mass because we love Jesus Christ. This is a fact at once startling and sobering. …

What is most difficult is to keep well focused the basic truth that the Sacrifice of the Mass is really the same sacrifice as that of Calvary. In the absence of glittering spears, strained and distorted faces, hideous cries, a grim cross we utterly forget that we attend the crucifixion of Christ.

Could we but sufficiently appreciate the fact, our problem of keeping attentive, devout at Mass would be solved. As a means to this end, a means not indeed perfect but if earnestly tried quite effective, we are suggesting the effort to hear Mass with Mary. The lessons which we can learn from Our Blessed Lady are quite beyond numbering; none of them is simpler or of greater value than that of worthy assistance at holy Mass. Herein we shall consider first the thorough excellence of Mary’s following of the first Mass, and then the value to us of her exceptional example.

Union Of Intentions

No one of us countless Christians who have come after her has ever heard Mass as well as Mary did on Calvary. No one of us has ever heard Mass under precisely the same circumstances as she. True the sacrifice of our altars is the same as that of the great, gaunt cross; but the rending of the body she had borne, delivered, nursed at her breast, the spilling of the Precious Blood which had had its fountain source in the quiet places of her heart were not screened from Mary’s eyes, as they are from ours, by the appearances of bread and wine. They were present to her in brutal, unescapable reality. However this fact contributed least to the perfection of Our Blessed Lady’s participation in the holy sacrifice. Contributing infinitely more were acts of her mind and of her will.

She realized that the exquisite fruit of her womb, utterly crushed by slow suffering, was God, only Son of the unsired Father. She realized that He was dying to undo the sins of the ages. She recognized here the culmination of the conflict between divine love and sin.Sin had been man’s answer to God’s love; love, abandoned to sacrifice, was now God’s answer to man’s sin. Penetrating the meaning, the worth of this sacrifice,

Mary bowed her will to that of God the Father, united her breaking heart with that of the dying Christ, and heroically prayed that the unimaginable agony of the cross might not be in vain. These acts of Our Blessed Lady we can profitably and without difficulty imitate in our assistance at holy Mass. We know that what takes place at the hands of the priests at our altars is what took place at the hands of the soldiers on the desolate hill outside Jerusalem twenty centuries ago.

We know that He who suffers so is God of very God. We know that He goes down silent to an appalling death to save us from sin. And so as we kneel in the presence of this great oblation of God to God, we shall be with Mary. Wherever, whenever the cross is set up, she stands beneath it. She will help us to attend well and profit by its surpassing mystery.

Confiteor

Mass begins with a solemn confession of guilt. In the Confiteor, said twice before the priest goes up to the spotless altar (once by him, once by the boy in the name of all of us present), the reason for the Mass is set forth; the tone, the chief quality of our participation is suggested.

The great sin of our day is the casual assumption that there is no sin.

But Mary, without sin though she was, appreciates its stinging reality. Sin it was which had torn the singing stars down from the Bethlehem night sky to beat them into seven swords and here to plunge the last of them into her wrung soul.

Sin it was, our sin, which alone separated sinless Son and Immaculate Mother, flinging Him on a cross to die, leaving her in tears at its foot. And as we kneel at the renewal of His staggering sacrifice, we know in our hearts that there is such a thing as sin. We know because we have been guilty of it. We have turned away from God Our Father.

The light has gone out of our lives, and we cannot find our way back to Him.

To light that way, a savage spear-thrust had to tear open the fierce furnace of love burning in the breast of a dying God. And only so was reconciliation made possible. That reconciliation is in the Mass about to be renewed in all its sufficiency, in all its fullness. While the priest mounts the altar steps, as Jesus did the arid hill, Mary reminds us of the treasures that are ours for the asking. Prompted by her, we acknowledge the sins which we so much regret; we heap them upon the back of the priest; we beg for forgiveness, for healing, for strength against future temptation.

Introit And Kyrie

The priest first reads the Introit. This varies from day to day. Generally it consists of a few words from the Old Testament; words rich in memories, often on the lips of God-fearing men during the long centuries before the coming of Christ; words which watered wilted hopes and fed those who looked with hungry eyes for the dawning of the day which would see the dominion of sin shattered and men reconciled with their Father; words familiar to Mary, lovingly repeated by her as she awaited the advent of the blessed Messias.

Moving to the centre of the altar, the priest gives utterance to an ancient prayer, simple but grave with significance: “Lord, have mercy on us!” It is the cry of the sin-oppressed, the cry of those who are lost in the night of human weakness and terrified by the realization, the voice of one saying:
Cry!
And I said: What shall I cry?
All flesh is grass, and the glory thereof as the flower of the field.
The grass is withered, and the flower fallen.
But the mercy of God endureth forever!

With Mary in her humble home we say,
“Lord, have mercy on us!”
And instant He is in mercy, instant and bountiful.
Be comforted, be comforted, my people, saith your God.
Speak ye to the heart of Jerusalem and call to her;
For her evil is come to an end; her iniquity is forgiven.
To save men from their fallen selves, God, so loving the world, promises salvation.

Gloria

And in the pregnant quiet of Nazareth a Virgin’s womb comes thrillingly alive with incarnate love. Mary is miraculously with child. She moves unknown, unnoticed down through the land of promise, through the very midst of those who are groaning for deliverance. And between the night’s end and the day’s beginning, under a roof of rock, in a lonely hillside cave Mary brings forth the Son of God, flesh-bound, and lays Him in a bin where oxen feed. High in the shining night wondering angels sing, and it is their song which the priest next takes up: “Glory to God in the highest and, at long last, peace to men. We adore thee; we bless thee.”

God has given us His only Son. Can we adequately phrase our gratitude? “We give thee thanks, O God the Father, and thee, Lamb of God, come to bear away the sins of the world.”

Epistle And Gospel

How to live in and by the eternal Son made man, as Mary did in the cloistered peace of the Holy Family, we learn from the Epistle. And as the Gospel is read, we stand with Mary on the fringe of the dusty, eager-faced throng that the words of the eternal Word rouse like lightning flashes or the shouts of a lusty wind.

Credo

After the Gospel comes the Creed, that sweeping, majestic act of faith in Christ and the truths He proclaimed by the lakeside. The awed Elizabeth had said to Mary: “Blessed art thou who hast believed.” And we, as soon as we have heard the magnificent message of Him whom Mary bore, are at once reminded that however naturally attractive the message may seem,  proper acceptance of it, worthy and fruitful living by it require divine faith. Our Blessed Lord Himself says:

For God so loved the world that He sent His only-begotten Son, That whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have everlasting life. He that believeth in me is not judged. He that believeth not is already judged: Because he hath not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.

Christ demands faith of us that we may carry Him into the sharp tests and crises of our every day, involving as they do temptation and sin. Christ demands faith of His Mother and His disciples that at the dramatic, humanly bewildering finish of His life they may stand firm and not fall miserably away.

Offertory

The finish of His life, the sacrifice that was to set the solemn seal on His mission of saving us from sin, is at once foreshadowed in the priest’s next action, the offering of the bread and the wine. Our thoughts seek out Gethsemani, the moon-swept garden where the Son of Mary, come to earth in a new and more humiliating sense, lies motionless under the crushing weight of human guilt there in the blood-wet grass. He is giving His all. God is yielding up His infinitude to the limits set by three nails and a thorny crown.

He is making to God the Father the surrender of His body to be broken, His blood to be poured out. This for us. Where Mary is during this endless night, we do not know. Wherever she is, her heart, ready now for the final thrust of that sword foreseen by Simeon as sunk deep into it, is upraised to the hidden face of God the Father; and she prays, as we must pray in all things trifling or tremendous:

“Thy will be done. That sin may be atoned for; that it may cease to stand as a barrier between us and Thee; that every sacrifice linked with that of Jesus Christ Thy Son may be availing unto life everlasting; Thy Will be done!”

Consecration

The accomplishment of that will is manifest as the Mass moves forward to the Consecration. With Mary we are silent, wrapped up in wordless prayer, as the body of Christ is breathed into the bread, His precious blood into the wine. * They are lifted up-the body and the blood of Jesus Christ, elements of sacrifice. The one is drained of the other, separated in the condition of redeeming death. We adore.

Pater Noster

Now that the Sacrifice has been outwardly realized, there pours from Mary’s lips, from our lips, the prayer taught us by Him slain for us, the perfect prayer to the offended Father placated by His obedient Son: “Our Father . . . Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done . . . forgive us our trespasses. . . .”

Agnus Dei

Under Mary’s brimming eyes, the spear is run through the Heart which has ceased to quiver with the agonizing urgency of its love, and the body of Christ is broken, the price of our peace. The priest says the Agnus Dei: “Lamb of God, who at such great cost dost bear away the sins of the world, have mercy on us; give us peace.”

Communion

As the disturbing dusk sets in, the body of Christ is taken down from the cross and laid in Mary’s arms. She looks into the wasted face with its mask of blood and sweat, spittle and dust and tears. She looks at the arms and legs, bloodless: and stiff and cold. The Victim is utterly destroyed. And Simeon’s sword is now thrust ruthlessly into her tender heart. She has nowhere to lay Him, this victim of sin, her first-born. From her aching arms He is hurried with scant ceremony into a stranger’s tomb. Mary has: recovered Him but briefly, and that only in death, only in her arms.

She who loves Him loses Him. And we, unworthy, receive Him in communion into our hearts, to live within us, to intensify the friendship of God so dearly bought by Him, to remain with us forever.

Thanksgiving

Communion finished, the priest reads prayers for our perseverance in the dispositions which attendance at Mass with Mary has fostered. Then with a blessing he bids us go-as the cross, bare but eloquent against the soft, spring twilight, bids Mary go – back to the everyday ways of life, with the remembrance of what we have shared driving us to Christian living. And the Mass will be with us through the monotonous days -as it was with Mary during the long years after the death of her Son-a source of strength, a principle of life.

It will be with us in the grey mornings when, perhaps ill, we go off to tiring occupation which may at any. time be taken from us; it will be with us in the moment of temptation, when we are seized and shaken and our whole being seems irresistibly drawn to ruinous evil; it will be with us in the time of misunderstanding and piercing disappointment, when our every act is misjudged and there is no one too lowly to cast at us a stone of rebuke or of ridicule; it will be with us in the hour of bottomless sorrow, when all that warms and colors life falls to dust and all that was wonderfully sweet becomes as gall to the taste.

Then will the Mass be with us, to soothe and solace, to save us from sin, to confirm us in the grace purchased by the quenching of the Light of the World.

Last Gospel

Finally there is the Last Gospel, a perfect resume of the purpose and meaning of the Mass just offered, set at the end to balance the Confiteor at its beginning. The Word was made flesh. The light shineth in darkness. . . . He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. . . . He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. . . .

Today He comes to us, His own, to us won back from perdition by His blood. May it never be said of us: “He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.” Rather, as we go forth, grateful and thoughtful, let us remember that we are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, Nor of the will of man, But of God . . . In Him is life.

[* Ed. Note: Father knows his theology, This is a reflection on Our Lord’s words, “This is My body”, etc. and not a denial of the dogma that the true body, blood, soul and divinity is present in both the consecrated host and wine.]

~~~

The above essay, “At Mass with Mary” may be found in several places online, and is also available in “The Catholic Collection”,, by Catholic Way Publishing, in Kindle and in print. The publishers have made the entire collection of over 700 articles available for only $2.99, if I recall correctly. Please support them if you can. They make beautiful Catholic writing easily available.

Please, pray the Rosary!

  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!

 

Archbishop Lefebvre on the Message of Fatima

 

We close the month of August, month of the Immaculate Heart  of Mary with a short sermon the good Archbishop  gave 30 years ago at Fatima. to a large crowd of pilgrims and priests on the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  There is so much to think on in these words!

Sermon by Archbishop Lefebvre in Fatima, August 22, 1987
Let us ask the Blessed Virgin then to unravel this mystery for us; it is a martyrdom for all who live in this era…

Let us give thanks to God and to the Most Blessed Virgin Mary for having gathered us today, on this feast of her Immaculate Heart, to sing her praises and to try for a few moments, for a few days, to live out our faith. For if the Virgin Mary wished to come to this land of Portugal, to Fatima, if She wished to appear to these few children to give them a message for the world, it is surely because She desired that our souls be lifted up toward heaven.

Let us try, then, my dear brothers and sisters, to place ourselves in the setting in which these little shepherds found themselves, like the persons who came to accompany them on the 13th of each month of that year 1917, until the month of October, when that extraordinary miracle took place, right here. Right here because, they say, this miracle was seen within a 40-kilometer [25-mile] radius of Fatima, and consequently, if we had been present on that day, October 13, 1917, we would have seen that extraordinary phenomenon of the spinning sun, shooting out lights of all colors, drenching the entire region with its magnificent colors. And it did this for thrice ten minutes! Finally, we would have seen the sun descending as it were from heaven to draw near to the faithful who were present, to manifest the truth of the apparition of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary to these children of Fatima.

So That Our Souls May be Saved
Once again, why this apparition of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary? It was so that our souls may be saved, it was so that our souls may go to join her one day in heaven. In a few extraordinary pictures, She manifested to these children of Fatima the whole reality of our faith. Indeed, the children admired Her and admired Her in such a way that they were as if in ecstasy, rapt, carried away, not knowing how to express the beauty of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary. However much anyone might have tried to provide them with comparisons, no comparison could be made in the sight of the beauty of the Virgin Mary whom they had seen.

And then the Virgin Mary was not the only one who was manifested. She wished to manifest something of heaven to them: Saint Joseph carrying Our Lord in his arms and blessing the world. She wished to appear also under the title of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Our Lady of Sorrows, and generally She appeared as Our Lady of the Rosary. This was because She wished to inculcate in the children the necessity of praying the Rosary, the necessity of suffering with Our Lord Jesus Christ and Our Lady of Sorrows. Thus She wished to manifest her interior sentiments so as to communicate them to these children, so that these children in turn might communicate these sentiments to all those who will have the opportunity to hear their message. Then the Archangel Michael appeared to them.

Our Lady spoke to them also about the souls in purgatory, when Lucia questioned her to find out where such-and-such a soul was, where a particular dead person was—“Was she in heaven? In purgatory?”—She sometimes told them: “No, that lady is not yet in heaven, she is in purgatory.” She wished also to show them the reality of hell. It is therefore right here, in this vicinity, that the Most Blessed Virgin wished to show what hell was to these horrified children, so as to encourage them to do penance, so as to encourage them to pray to save souls, thus showing that the Immaculate Heart of Mary is altogether directed toward the glory of Her Divine Son and toward the salvation of souls. To save souls is to cause them to go to heaven. Therefore it is our entire catechism in a way that these children saw in an image, and this happened through the grace of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary.

Prayer and Penance
Let us try then to put ourselves into this setting today too, because what happened in 1917 is still true today, and perhaps even more than at that time, because the situation in the world is even worse now than it was in 1917. The faith is disappearing, atheism is advancing everywhere, and the Most Blessed Virgin Herself announced it. For although She wished to show us a vision of heaven, She also wished to speak about the earth. She told these children essentially:

It is necessary to pray, it is necessary to do penance so as to stop the devastating effects of this terrible error, Communism, which will dominate the world if people do not do penance and if they do not pray and if they do not carry out my will.”

Her will was to broadcast the secrets that she had given to Lucia.
Alas, we are in fact obliged to note that since these secrets have not been broadcast, the error of Communism is spreading everywhere! Let us strive, then, my dear brothers and sisters, to put ourselves into this setting, in these dispositions so as to share the convictions of these children, so as to unite ourselves to the Heart of Mary, so that our hearts may burn with the desires that were in the Heart of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary and that still are there today, desires for the reign of her Son.

What else can She wish but to see Her Divine Son reign over the whole earth, over souls, over families, and over societies, as He reigns in heaven? This is why She comes down to earth, to beg us, every one of us: “It is necessary for Jesus to reign over you.” She wishes it, She desires it, and She gives us the means.

The first means is prayer. “It is necessary to pray.” The Blessed Virgin unceasingly repeated this to Lucia, because Lucia asked her the question each time: “O Lady, what do you want of me? What do you want me to do?” A fine question! There can be no better dispositions. Is this our disposition also? Mary! What do you want us to do? Then Mary said:

“It is necessary to pray, take your rosary, recite the rosary every day to sanctify yourselves and to save souls, to save the souls of sinners.”

She repeated this every time She came. She also encouraged Holy Communion, receiving the Holy Eucharist, since She even enabled the angel to come and give Communion to these children. Can Mary wish anything else but to give us Her Son, to give us Jesus in our hearts?

That We Might Keep the Faith and Grace in our Souls
Next: why these secrets? The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, in Her love for us, in Her gracious condescension toward us, wished to warn us. She wished to announce future events to us, so as to enable us to keep our faith, to keep grace in our souls. This is why She gave us Her secrets. The Most Blessed Virgin asked Lucia to broadcast the third secret as of 1960—and that this secret be broadcast by the Pope—and not without reason: it was because she knew that after 1960 the Church would have to go through the crisis of these very serious events in its history. She wished to warn us, and She wished to warn the authorities of the Church so as to avoid these misfortunes, so as to avoid the loss of faith and the perdition of souls. Thus we are warned, we know that after 1960 some serious events in Church history would cause a crisis, and particularly with regard to those who lead the Church. Unfortunately, this is probably why the leaders of Holy Church did not wish to broadcast the secret. They thought that it was not opportune to make it public. A great mystery, my dear brothers and sisters, a great mystery!

So you see, then, if the Most Blessed Virgin Mary wishes us to have in our souls dispositions of the love for God, dispositions of prayer, a readiness to unite ourselves to Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist, a willingness to sacrifice ourselves for the sinners of this world, well, then, let us ask for this grace today.

The Mystery of the Situation of Rome Today
Here you are, gathered around the Virgin Mary in Fatima, having in your hearts the dispositions of these little children who welcomed the Most Blessed Virgin Mary and saw Her: ask, let us ask the Most Blessed Virgin Mary to unravel this mystery, that She may come to our aid. The great mystery of Rome, the great mystery of the situation in the papacy today.

They often tell us: do not rend the Church, do not divide the Church, do not cause a schism; yet, my dear brothers and sisters, tell me: where is the unity of the Church? What causes the unity of the Church? Open all the theology books, open all the books by the saints, open all the books by the doctors and theologians: what causes the unity of the Church is the unity of faith. When someone no longer has the Catholic Faith, he separates himself from the Church. There you have it! And every person invested with authority in the Church since Our Lord founded it, every person who has some authority in the Church and particularly all the clergy, and particularly the bishops, and especially the Pope, all of them are at the service of this unity, they are at the service of this faith: “Go teach the Gospel,” not some other Gospel and not just any Gospel: “Go teach the Gospel.” Be at the service of this message that I have given you, but you must not change the message.

Well, then, we keep and cherish the whole faith; not for anything in the world would we want to remove one iota, the least bit of our faith; we want to keep it intact, absolutely intact. And it is because we want to keep this unity of faith that those who are losing it persecute us. This is the true current situation in which we find ourselves, a mysterious situation, probably announced by Our Lady of Fatima in Her third secret, saying that those who want to remain Catholics will be persecuted by those who, while having authority in the Church, stray from the faith; and since they stray from the Faith, they would like to drag us along with them. Because we disobey them by our unwillingness to lose the faith with them, they persecute us. But Our Lord said it, He predicted that there would be bad shepherds and said that we must not follow the bad shepherds; we must follow the good shepherds. This is the mystery that we are living through today.

Let us ask the Blessed Virgin then to unravel this mystery for us; it is a martyrdom for you, for us, for all who live in this era, a true moral martyrdom, perhaps worse than the martyrdom of blood, to see that those who ought to preach and defend the Catholic faith for the unity of the Church are abandoning this Catholic faith and seeking to get along with the world, with modern principles, with the principles of this society that is guided more by Satan than by the Good Lord.

Ask for the Grace of Fidelity
Let us make the resolution, here at the feet of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and let us ask her for the grace to keep the faith, to remain Catholics until the end of our days, to have this grace of final perseverance in the Catholic faith. Why did all the martyrs shed their blood? In order to keep the faith. If we must be martyrs, if we must be not martyrs by blood but martyrs in our souls, in our hearts, in our minds, well, then, we will be martyrs, and we will be the heirs of those who shed their blood so as not to deny their faith.

This is what we must promise the Most Blessed Virgin Mary and try to make everyone around us understand so that they might not lose the Faith… lest, in losing their faith, they lose their souls. These, my dear brothers and sisters, are the resolutions that we must make today: to pray, to sacrifice ourselves, to make the sacrifice of our life, to offer our life for the redemption of the world, for the salvation of souls, for the salvation of our souls, the salvation of the souls of our families, of the members of our family.

And Ask That the Church may Regain Her Splendor
And finally ask for the renewal of the Holy Catholic Church: that the Church might regain her splendor, that the Church might regain her unity in the faith, that the Church might regain her thousands and thousands of religious vocations as before, that once again novitiates might be filled, that seminaries might be filled so as to keep the Catholic Faith, so as to live the Catholic Faith! This is what we are striving to do, my dear brothers and sisters, together with those whom you see present here, these young priests, these young seminarians. As soon as people want to keep the faith, as soon as people want to keep the Sacrifice of the Mass and the true Eucharist, as soon as people are devoted body and soul to the Church, there are vocations, because we are in the truth. Let us ask the Most Blessed Virgin Mary to bless our seminaries, to bless our young priests so that they might be apostles; to bless our religious, the Sisters of the Society, all the sisters who devote themselves to Tradition, the Carmelites, the Dominicans, the Benedictines…all these nuns who want to keep the Catholic faith and want to spread it.

And may the Virgin Mary deign to bless us so that we might continue courageously, despite the trials, to serve the kingdom of Her Divine Son. Adveniat regnum tuum, may Thy kingdom come, yes, O Lord Jesus, may Thy reign extend over persons, over families and over societies, so that this reign may continue in eternity!

† .  † .  †

The above sermon is from the August 18, 2017 edition of  FSSPX News.

Please, 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!

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.

 

 

 

July 29, 2017

It is most important  to understand that the devotions to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, to Christ the King, and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary are all of a piece, as it were, and in no way are separate, disparate, or contradictory. And these are inseparable as well from the Mass and particularly, the Holy Eucharist.  Furthermore, it is essential to grasp that the requests, demands really, of the most Sacred Heart of Jesus, as relayed by St. Margaret Mary Alacoque in 1689, still stand today, more than three centuries after they were made known. Once God has uttered a request, it does not cease to be simply because centuries pass while Catholics turn an indifferent ear to them.

What I had hoped to do in the earlier post was demonstrate the reason Christ Our Lord made His request of the King of France. It was because of the importance of the French Monarchy, as a worldly force established by the will of God for the glory and protection of Christ’s Church. I refer readers to the writings of Solange Hertz as previously cited.

St. Pius X tells us in Vehementer, “The Creator of mankind is also the Founder of human societies, and He preserves them just as He maintains individuals in existence.”  God sent Joan of Arc to make this clear. Her mission was precisely to establish the fact that France was a nation constituted by God under a king who was Jesus Christ’s designated lieutenant. Thus, we see that God first sent St. Joan to aid France, then sent St. Margaret Mary with a message from His Sacred Heart. The engineer of destruction for the latter message was the deceitful Jesuit superior who refused to comply. I will not expand on this now, but it is documented by Hertz in Utopia Nowhere.

At the risk of oversimplifying, I will just state that if Pope Pius XI had only obeyed the commands of the Immaculate Mother of God at Fatima, instead of separating that requested devotion from devotion to the Sacred Heart and Christ the King, he would have been able to fulfill both the demands of the Immaculate Heart and the demands of her Son. Instead of the ever-expanding reign of the evils of satanic marxism, we could have had the glorious reign of Christ the King, through the Immaculata, as Our Lord Himself had so desired.

And what are we to think of France?  The Kingdom of France, established by King Clovis was consecrated by him to  Christ’s Kingship forever by constitutional law. The document’s preamble begins with, “The illustrious Nation of the Franks, having God for Founder,” and closes by praying that, “the Lord Jesus Christ direct those who govern in the way of piety.”  When France’s king failed to submit to the request of its true ruler, Christ the King, it fell to apostasy. Of this, Pope St. Pius X prophesied: “she who had made an alliance with God,” would one day repent and “bear My Name before all peoples and all the kings of the earth.” God’s gifts being without repentance, we may believe that the return to natural law will begin with the conversion of regicide France. (Solange Hertz, “Utopia Nowhere”, loc 1101-1105)

Continue reading “July 29, 2017”

My Brother’s Keeper

“Fear them not. For nothing is covered that shall not be revealed: nor hid, that shall not be known.”

Our natural inclination is to turn away from what is especially degrading. we want to cover our revered leaders when they appear before the world in shameful, naked disarray, protect them from the scorn of the hateful world.  And so Catholics have attempted, with little success to shore up the ruins as our “Holy Fathers” have continued to shelter and even promote the most pernicious evils within the bosom of the Church. The result has been disastrous, of that there can be no doubt and the evil within has grown in the shadows and now is bursting forth, as was inevitable.

In previous posts we have discussed the latest scandal at the Vatican, and suggested reference to St. Catherine of Siena. Today, we will close with considering the foregoing in light of the prophecies of Pope Leo XIII and Cardinal Manning.

The fact that Msgr. Capozzi partied in regal splendor in the same apartment that Cardinal Ratzinger lived in when he was head of the Congregation for the  Doctrine of the Faith, and drove a luxury car with the very prized Vatican plates, making him immune from police searches proves that he was highly regarded by powerful Vatican personages.  Without that indulgent support of a Prince of the Church, Capozzi could not have had his orgies, or the flat, or the luxury car he used for drug smuggling.  Thus, whether or not Pope Francis admits it, this scandal is laid at his humble feet. It would be a serious mistake to disregard the importance of this episode.

Edward Pentin has revealed that:

a reliable senior member of the curia has told the Register that he has heard from “multiple sources” that the story is true, including from another senior curial figure. He said the extent of homosexual practice in the Vatican has “never been worse,” despite efforts begun by Benedict XVI to root out sexual deviancy from the curia after the Vatileaks scandal of 2012.

“The precise details of the reported events in the CDF therefore remain open to question, but the substance of the story appears to be true. If so, many would find such behavior taking place in the Holy Office not only unconscionable but also highly sacrilegious.

And so, we see that under Pope Francis, homosexual activity in the Vatican “has never been worse” and that even to seasoned observers of the tragic auto-demolition of the faith, this latest sordid event is deemed sacrilegious. Yet most Catholic media either downplay the event or ignore it entirely. You see in so much of the coverage the unsubstantiated claim that “Pope Francis is furious!” Note that Bergoglio’s purported “fury” does not clarify whether Pope Francis is furious that homosexual prelates are dragging the Vatican into the gutters or whether he is furious because this sordid episode came to light. But since Bergoglio has chosen to live in the Guest House of his intimate friend Msgr. Ricca, and even to promote him to Prelate of the Vatican Bank, one must suspect it is the latter cause which perturbs his serenity.

So what are we to glean from all this?

Continue reading “My Brother’s Keeper”

July 5, 2017

When I am able, I hope to return to posting on the Apocalypse in light of the Bergoglian Reformation which is proceeding apace under the Pope of Affliction. For today we will revisit this previous post to prepare. I have added a few notes. evensong.

And there were given to them seven trumpets...
And there were given to them seven trumpets…

Looking at Apocalypse 9 in the light of the message of Fatima: In our earlier post, “Fatima, Vatican II and the Chastisement 2″, we posited that the Fallen Star, Wormwood, refers to the disobedient Pope John XXIII. This unfortunate man refused to obey the requests of Christ and His Mother and consequently brought a spiritual darkness and disorientation upon the Church from which she has not been able to recover. The Second Vatican Council, which Pope John XXIII so proudly convened has failed by every measure to bring the spiritual renewal he boasted of. Indeed, it has been an unmitigated disaster, or more precisely, chastisement. It cannot be remedied until the Pope and Bishops of the Church obey God’s command, given by the Blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima and emphasised by our Lord Jesus Christ in His apparition to Sister Lucia in Rianjo. (How Long, O Lord, How Long?)

Previously, “The Fifth Trumpet“, we looked at the second Fallen Star of Chapter 9, considering if it may be applied to Pope Paul VI. Although earlier commentators applied this prophecy to the arch-heretic Martin Luther, 500 years have passed since Martin Luther, and at this time, the figure of the Fallen Star of Chapter 9 appears most appropriate to Pope Paul VI for the reasons which we brought out in that earlier post. Martin Luther did immense harm to the Faith. However, the Catholic Church maintained her integrity despite his assaults; whereas, under the two Fallen Stars of Chapters 8 and 9, that is, Pope John XXIII and Paul VI, the Church has been ravaged by the enemy within, betrayed by her very “Holy Fathers”.

In earlier posts, we began considering the locusts, those apocalyptic monsters which have intrigued every generation for two millenia. The most popular theory of recent times has been to identify them with the muslim hordes, which do lend themselves to much speculation. Archbishop Fulton Sheen also believed that this was appropriate as we related in an earlier post, “Our Lady of Fatima and Islam” . As did Father Herman Bernard Kramer in his Book of Destiny. However, this popular premise is wrong, as we shall see.

Continue reading “July 5, 2017”

The Precious Blood of our Salvation

Not only is today the First Saturday of Reparation in July, it is the Feast of the Precious Blood of Jesus, the Month of the Precious Blood of Jesus! A day rich in beautiful reminders of God’s gracious providence for us, even though we do not deserve such generosity. For today we turn to Father Faber’s tender tribute to the Precious Blood.

Most Precious Blood of Jesus, save us, save our priests, save our Church!

 

Father Faber, in his beautiful essay, The Precious Blood, or the price of our Salvation“, remarks that the Angels wonder in awe as they adore this Precious Blood.

“Their superior intelligence ministers more abundant matter to their love. From the very first God invited the angels to adore It. He made their adoration a double exercise of humility,—of humility toward Himself, and of humility toward us their inferior fellow-creatures. It was the test to which He put their loyalty. He showed them His beloved Son, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, in His Sacred Humanity, united to a lower nature than their own, and in that lower nature crowned their King and Head, to be worshipped by them with absolute and unconditional adoration. The Son of a human Mother was to be their Head, and that Daughter of Eve to be herself their Queen. …

The Precious Blood belongs in an especial manner to men. Much more, therefore, does God invite them to come to Its heavenly baths, and receive therein, not only the cleansing of their souls, but the power of a new and amazing life. Every  doctrine in theology is a call to the Precious Blood. Every ceremony in the Church tells of it. Every sermon that is preached is an exhortation to the use of it. Every Sacrament is a communication of it. Every supernatural act is a growth of it. Every thing that is holy on the earth is either leaf, bud, blossom, or fruit of the Blood of Jesus.

To its fountains, God calls the sinner, that he may be lightened of his burdens. There is no remission for him in any thing else. Only there is his lost son-ship to be found. But the saints are no less called by God to these invigorating streams. It is out of the Precious Blood that men draw martyrdoms, vocations, celibacies, austerities, heroic charities, and all the magnificent graces of high sanctity. The secret nourishment of prayer is from those fountains. They purge the eye for sublime contemplations. They kindle the inward fires of self-sacrificing love. They bear a man safely, and even impetuously, over the seeming impossibilities of perseverance. It is by the Blood of Jesus that the soul becomes ever more and more radiant. It is the secret source of all mystical transformations of the soul into the likeness of its Crucified Spouse. …

All the new nature of the man, who is “renewed in Christ Jesus,” comes from this Blood, whether it be his love of suffering, his delight in shame, his grace of prayer, his unworldly tastes, his strange humility, his shy concealment, his zeal for souls, his venturous audacity, or his obstinate perseverance. Sinner, saint, and common Christian, all in their own ways, require the Precious Blood each moment of their lives; and, as the manna in the mouths of the Israelites had the savor which each man wished it to have, so is it with the sweetness, the variety, and the fitness of the graces of the Precious Blood.

Father Faber reminds us that Our Savior’s Precious Blood came  from Mary.

Mary’s blood was the material out of which the Holy Ghost, the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity, the artificer of the Sacred Humanity, fashioned the Blood of Jesus. Here we see how needful to the joy and gladness of our devotion is the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Who could bear to think that the matter of the Precious Blood had ever been itself corrupted with the taint of sin, that it had once been part of the devil’s kingdom, that what was to supply the free price of our redemption was once enslaved to God’s darkest, foulest enemy?

Continue reading “The Precious Blood of our Salvation”

Who is Jorge Mario Bergoglio?

Who is Jorge Mario Bergoglio?  Who is this man who has succeeded in making such a mess of the Church?  In a recent discussion, this question arose and after some lively exchanges, a consensus was reached. To understand it, let’s return to Father Malachi Martin’s writings from back in the final decade of the last century.

Father Malachi Martin has certainly been a sign of contradiction and yet even today, despite the efforts of his many detractors, much of what he wrote has proved prescient, especially under the current occupant of the See of Peter.  One of Martin’s most sensational claims  was that in an occult masonic ceremony performed on June 29, 1963, Lucifer was enthroned in the Vatican. The event was described in Martin’s book, Windswept House, which was published in the late 1990’s. In an interview with Bernard Janzen,  published in The Tempter’s Hour”, Father Martin spoke about the book and its message:

“95% of the events (related in the book) are factual, but they are cloaked in novelistic form.” He stated that the primary theme of the book is “The Roman Catholic Church …. is in apostasy.” Father explained that  an apostate is one who denies basic truths of the Church, such as hell, divine grace, or personal sin, such as in reducing sin to merely social offenses, [as the present occupant does].

Father Martin then stated:

“At the present moment  (1997) a sizable majority of Catholics are in apostasy. They have been led into apostasy by churchmen in apostasy. At least a sizable minority of cardinals, bishops, priests and religious are in apostasy. They no longer profess the basic truths of Christianity, let alone Catholicism….They are apostates and yet they are in charge. They are in charge of the Church.”

Now, nearly a generation later, it is clear that the “sizable minority” of apostate cardinals and bishops has become the vast majority. Father Martin then explained that a sub-theme of Windswept House is that,

“In a short time, humanly speaking, there will be no visible holy Roman Catholic Church organization.” Further, “This is referred to as auto-demolition. [See here for more on this.] In the 1960’s there was this diabolical consecration, this enthronement of Satan within the Vatican. … It is a historical fact. … done by Luciferians from all over the world and therefore, in a certain sense, Lucifer has power in Rome. He doesn’t own Rome yet (in 1997), but I’m sure he hopes to own some future Pope so that the house will be truly his. The only man who can expel Lucifer from Rome is the owner of the house. And that owner is the Pope. It is the Pope that must carry out the exorcism, the cleaning of the house.”

“The Luciferians have a very tight schedule. They have an inner Luciferian prophecy that says that unless the prince is properly installed in the citadel, namely in the Vatican, they have lost. Now in order to install the prince and complete the enthronement, they have to get rid of this Pope.”

Note that Martin said this in 1997. So you can see how impatient the Danneels/Kasper faction must have been when not only did Pope John Paul II hang on, but then Benedict took office and issued his Moto Proprio for the perpetuation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Despite Pope Benedict’s many shortcomings, this freeing-up of the Holy Sacrifice was a great blessing for the faithful seeking to find Christ amidst the conciliar wreckage.

Now, we must be clear: According to Father Martin, the enemy required that the initial enthronement of June 29, 1963 must be completed within fifty years by the Installation of their Prince  in the Citadel. That Prince is the person to whom it is given to complete the irreversible changes of the Catholic Faith; someone with a hardened resolve to totally eclipse the true Church with the necessary church of this world.

Best Friends Forever!

With the June 29, 2013 deadline approaching,  those serving the ancient enemy within the Church  had to force Benedict’s resignation. We discussed the forced resignation in our post, “Was Pope Benedict SWIFTed?”  Once he was properly “installed” one of the first decisions Pope Francis made was to live with his dear friend, the notorious sodomite Mgsr. Ricca, and also to appoint him to a prestigious post at the Vatican Bank (IOR). Thus another link with the forces of international finance and the Lavender Mafia/St. Gallen Group.

I expect many readers will recoil at all that I have written above. There was a time when I would have too! I was repelled by Father Martin’s writing on the Enthronement of Lucifer in the Vatican when I first read it. But that was before Jorge Mario Bergoglio.  Now, I completely agree that there is some evil force behind all this, and that it serves the power-brokers of this world, powers that hate human life, hate Our Lord Jesus Christ and wish to destroy any sign of Him in this world. I have stated often that I believe Pope Francis intends nothing less than the abolition of the Mass. But he is also forging ahead with his demolition of the structures of the faith.

Many other bloggers have documented how Bergoglio has dismantled the Pontifical Academy for Life and now has begun demolishing the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, Sandro Magister has a most informative article on just this subject here.

Father Malachi Martin wrote much  about what he thought might happen, but that was before the turn of the century. What would he think about our situation now? Would he recognise in Jorge Mario Bergoglio the man called forth by the dark ceremonies of 1963?  What do you think? And what do you think will happen next?

As always, please,  Pray the Rosary and confound Satan and all 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.