In a previous blog post, I described how the Novus Ordo (new mass, ordinary mass) whichever one prefers to call it, is full of various Traditional abuses towards the Holy Roman Catholic Church.  I find it odd, how many Roman Catholics can sit through such a service knowing that it breaks the Tradition of the Church.  And half of what it means to be Catholic means being “traditional”.  However, if one has no other option than to attend an ordinary mass to meet either Sunday obligations or Holy Days of Obligations, bear through the madness of Paul VI and receive Christ in the Eucharist and draw closer to him and the true Church.  Even Pope Benedict XVI, then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote in “Spirit of the Liturgy” that the new mass is banal, yet all Sacraments celebrated under the new missal are still valid.  The issue is not with the Priest and his ability to confect the Sacraments of Christ (the only holy catholic and apostolic church) but it has to do with how they are celebrated.  It is more than an issue of preference but the true issue is the preservation of our 2000 year old Tradition.  I also find it odd, that this drastic change has only occurred in the Roman Rite, and not in any Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church.  Do no misunderstand me, by no means am I saying that the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (Traditional Latin Mass) should be the “true Mass” or the only Mass of the Church.  That would be complete madness-although SPPX wouldn’t mind-simply because there are various Eastern Rite Catholics.  The Divine Liturgy for example is not part of the Roman Rite, yet it still remains true to the Tradition of the Holy Catholic Church.  I am afraid, the Novus Ordo does not in many respects.  Be that as it may.

The Confiteor is probably one of my most favorite part of the Mass.  It invokes the intercessions of the Saints and the Blessed Virgin, it is heartfelt, and in the Traditional Latin Mass it is said on ones knees facing the Tabernacle where Christ is truly present.  In the Novus Ordo, it is mere dialogue between Priest and Congregation completely disregarding the Tabernacle of Our Blessed Lord and is done standing up.  Also in the Traditional Latin Mass, the congregation strike their breasts three times showing true contrition for our sins, in the new missal this is omitted (of course).

Confiteor is a penitential prayer where we acknowledge our sinfulness and seek God’s mercy and forgiveness. Confiteors have been part of Christianity from the beginning. St. Augustine notes that it was traditionally recited while striking the breast as a sign of humility, such as is the custom we have today of doing so during Mass when it is recited. The prayer below is the traditional form of the prayer. It was partially composed in the 8th century and then added to the Mass in the 11th century. The Confiteor in use in the Missal of Paul VI is a shortened version of this one.

I CONFESS to almighty God, to blessed Mary ever Virgin, to blessed Michael the Archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy apostles Peter and Paul, and to all the saints that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault. Therefore, I beseech blessed Mary ever Virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy apostles Peter and Paul, and all the saints, to pray for me to the Lord our God. Amen.

Of course in the Mass it is said in Latin:

CONFITEOR Deo omnipotenti, beatae Mariae semper Virgini, beato Michaeli Archangelo, beato Ioanni Baptistae, sanctis Apostolis Petro et Paulo, et omnibus Sanctis, quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo et opere: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Ideo precor beatam Mariam semper Virginem, beatum Michaelem Archangelum, beatum Ioannem Baptistam, sanctos Apostolos Petrum et Paulum, et omnes Sanctos, orare pro me ad Dominum Deum nostrum. Amen.

Now just for fun I will post the Confiteor of the New Missal of Paul VI and compare it to that of the Lutheran “I confess” of their “Divine Service”:

Divine Service:

Most merciful God, we confess that we are by nature sinful and unclean. We have sinned against you in thought, word, and deed, by what we have done and by what we have left undone. We have not loved You with our whole heart; we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves. We justly deserve Your present and eternal punishment. For the sake of Your Son, Jesus Christ, have mercy on us. Forgive us, renew us, and lead us, so that we may delight in Your will and walk in Your ways to the glory of your Holy Name. Amen

Enjoy the following Confiteor’s celebrated in the Solemn Mass in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.  Celebrated at the Church of the Holy Innocents in NYC:

The Magnificat shows us that Mary is one of the human beings who is an altogether special way belong to the name of God, so much so, in fact, that we cannot praise him rightly if we leave her out of account.  In doing so we forget something about him that must not be forgotten.

In order to praise Mary correctly and this to glorify God correctly, we must listen to all that Scripture and tradition say concerning the Mother of the Lord and ponder it in our hearts.  Thanks to the praise of “all generations” since the beginning, the abundant wealth of Mariology has become almost too vast to survey.

“From henceforth all generations will call me blessed”- these words of the Mother of Jesus handed on for us by Luke (1:48) are at once a prophecy and a charge laid upon the Church of all times.  This phrase from the Magnificat, the spirit-filled prayer of praise that Mary addresses to the living God, is this one of the principal foundations of Christian devotion to her.  The Church invented nothing new of her own when she began to extol Mary; she did not plummet from the worship of the one God to the praise of man.  The Church does what she must; she carries out the task assigned her from the beginning.  At this time Luke was writing this text, the second generation of Christianity had already arrived, and the “family” of the Jews had been joined by that of the Gentiles, who has been incorporated into the Church of Jesus Christ.  The expression “all generations, all families” was beginning to be filled with historical reality.  The Evangelist would certainly not have transmitted Mary’s prophecy if it had seemed to him an indifferent or obsolete item.  He wished in the Gospel to record “with care” what “the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” (Lk 1:2-3) had handed on from the beginning in order to give the faith of Christianity, which was then striding onto the stage of world history, a reliable guide for its future course.

In the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, there is something called Eucharistic Adoration, where the Host itself is left of the Altar for all the faithful to come and adore Christ.  We come to thank Him for this miracle that happens in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Divine Liturgy for some) every single day throughout the Church (all Catholic Rites and Eastern Orthodox); we plead our case to Jesus, we worship him, bring him our sighs, our mornings, and our joys.

We also say various Spiritual Communions while in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament: “I wish, my Lord, to receive you with the purity, humility, and devotion with which your most holy Mother received you, with the spirit and fervor of all the saints.”  Sometimes many Catholics feel a great burden to make various acts of Reparations for all the blasphemies and sacrileges done toward the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar.

I believe St. Ambrose of Milan (whose memorial is December 7th) deeply expresses what every single Christian who is a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church receives Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of Holy Communion should feel.  This is a prayer that I make before the Extraordinary Form of the Mass in the Roman Rite daily, for it expresses all of what I desire to express, all it is I feel and desire.

per Mariam ad Jesum,

Carlos C. Urbina

Prayer of St. Ambrose

I draw near to the table of your most delectable banquet, dear Lord Jesus Christ.  A sinner, I trust not in my own merit; but, in fear and trembling, I rely on your mercy and goodness.  I have a heart and body marked by many grave offenses, and a mind and tongue that I have not guarded well.  For this reason, God of loving kindness and awesome majesty, I, a sinner caught by many snares, seek safe refuge in you.  For you are the fountain of mercy.  I would fear to draw near to you as my judge, but I seek you out as my Savior.  Lord, I show you my wounds, and I let you see my shame.  Knowing my sins are many and great, I have reason to fear.  But I trust in your mercies, for they are beyond all numbering.  Look upon me with mercy, for I trust in you, my Lord Jesus Christ, eternal king, God and man, you who were crucified for mankind.  Have mercy on me, you who never cease to make the fountain of your mercy flow, for I am full of sorrows and sins.  I praise you, the saving Victim offered on the wood of the cross for me and for all mankind.  I praise the noble Blood that flows from the wounds of my Lord Jesus Christ, the precious Blood that washes away the sins of all the world.  Remember, Lord, you creature, whom you have redeemed with your own Blood.  I am sorry that I have sinned, and I long to put right what I have done.  Most kind Father, take away all my offenses and sins, so that, purified in body and soul, I may be made worthy to taste the Holy of holies.  And grant that this holy meal of your Body and Blood, which I intend to take although I am unworthy, may bring forgiveness of my sins and wash away my guilt.  May it mean the end of my evil thoughts and the rebirth of my better longings.  May it lead me securely to live in ways that please you, and may it be a strong protection for body and soul against the plots of my enemies. Amen.

The Dies Irae is a famous 13th century Latin Hymn.  It means, the Day of Wrath.  When Requiem High Masses are celebrated in the Extraordinary form in the Latin Rite the Dies Irae is chanted, and is just truly a work of God’s Holy Spirit.  Below is the Translation:

This day, this day of wrath
shall consume the world in ashes,
as foretold by David and the Sibyl.

What trembling there will be
When the judge shall come
to weigh everything strictly!

The trumpet, scattering its awful sound
Across the graves of all lands
Summons all before the throne.

Death and nature shall be stunned
When mankind arises
To render account before the judge.

The written book shall be brought
In which all is contained
Whereby the world shall be judged

When the judge takes his seat
all that is hidden shall appear
Nothing will remain unavenged.

What shall I, a wretch, say then?
To which protector shall I appeal
When even the just man is barely safe?

King of awful majesty
You freely save those worthy of salvation
Save me, found of pity.

Remember, gentle Jesus
that I am the reason for your time on earth,
do not cast me out on that day
Seeking me, you sank down wearily,
you saved me by enduring the cross,
such travail must not be in vain.
Righteous judge of vengeance,
award the gift of forgiveness
before the day of reckoning.

I groan as one guilty,
my face blushes with guilt;
spare the suppliant, O God.
Thou who didsnt absolve Mary [Magdalen]
and hear the prayer of the thied
hast given me hope, too.
My prayers are not worthy,
but Thou, O good one, show mercy,
lest I burn in everlasting fire,
Give me a place among the sheep,
and separate me from the goats,
placing me on Thy right hand.

When the damned are confounded
and consigned to keen flames,
call me with the blessed.
I pray, suppliant and kneeling,
a heart as contrite as ashes;
take Thou my ending into Thy care.

That day is one of weeping,
on which shall rise again from the ashes
the guilty man, to be judged.
Therefore spare this one, O God,
merciful Lord Jesus:
Give them rest. Amen.

In 1969, Pope Paul VI issued a New Order of the Mass, the Novus Ordo Missae. Up to that time, what is commonly referred to as the “Tridentine” or “Latin” Mass, was used by the Church. On the face of things, it may seem to be a simple matter for the Pope to change the Mass. It has been done before. Is there a difference, then, between the modifications made by Paul VI and the liturgical changes of the past? There is a radical difference, and one that has had disastrous consequences for the universal Church.

The New Mass Contradicts Tradition

The “Tridentine” or Roman Rite Mass, while it has developed organically over the 2,000 year history of the Church, is essentially the Mass that was given to the Apostles and the Church by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Although various rites emerged, they all maintained the same spirit imparted to the liturgy by Our Lord and were only adapted to various cultures without any deviation in doctrine. The Roman Rite, up to Vatican II, underwent only minor changes, such that the famous English liturgist Fr. Adrian Fortescue was able to state that “no one has ventured to touch it except in unimportant details.”

Pope St. Pius V, to protect the Roman Rite from innovations and eliminate any variations, codified the Traditional Latin Mass in the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum in 1570. The Mass that he was confirming was not some new creation like the Novus Ordo Missae, but a Mass that matched in every respect the Faith of the Apostles. Nor was it the Mass of some particular area of the Church like the Eastern rites, but the universal rite of the Church, the rite of the Roman See. His bull says in part:

What, then, was done at Vatican II? Were some changes made merely in “unimportant details”? Was the proper honor and respect given to the Rite essentially bestowed by Christ on His Church and confirmed by incomparable proofs in the form of thousands of saints and countless miracles? On June 5, 1969 Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani of the Holy Office, and Antonio Cardinal Bacci, along with a group of Roman theologians, presented Pope Paul VI with a “Short Study of the New Mass.” The Study contained a cover letter signed by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci which says, in part:

Vatican I in 1870 defined the Pope to be, not an absolute monarch, but the guarantor of obedience to the revealed word. The legitimacy of his power was bound up above all with his transmitting the Faith. This fidelity to the deposit of the Faith and to its transmission concerns in a quite special way the liturgy. No authority can ‘fabricate’ a liturgy. The Pope himself is only the humble servant of its homogenous development, its integrity, and the permanence of its identity.” The Pope, as the guardian of the Deposit of Faith, has a duty to preserve the liturgy intact and pass it on essentially unmodified to the next generation. The very authors of Vatican II, on the other hand, openly acknowledged their desire not to pass on Tradition, but to make it.

St. Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century gave as a standard for the orthodoxy of doctrine that which has been believed everywhere (ubique), always (semper), and by all (omnia). But, as Cardinal Ratzinger points out, the Council Fathers of Vatican II rejected this hallowed definition: “Vatican II’s refusal of the proposal to adopt the text of Lerins, familiar to, and, as it were, sanctified by two Church Councils, shows once more how Trent and Vatican I were left behind, how their texts were continually reinterpreted… Vatican II had anew idea of how historical identity and continuity were to be brought about.” This new idea was nothing other than to create a pseudo-tradition from the “common consciousness” of the Council Fathers. This is pure Modernism and totally contrary to the Deposit of Faith.

The Destruction of Catholic Worship is the Destruction of the Catholic Faith

The Church has always set forth the firm and clear principle that: “The way we worship is the way we believe.” The doctrinal truths of the Faith are embodied in the worship we offer to God. In other words, it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that teaches us our theology and not the reverse. The True Mass comprises the Apostolic Tradition of faith and morals in its very essence. Every doctrine essential to the Faith is taught therein. Pope Leo XIII points out in Apostolicae Curae that the Church’s enemies have always understood this principle as “They knew only too well the intimate bond that unites faith with worship, the law of belief with the law of prayer, and so, under the pretext of restoring the order of the liturgy to its primitive form, they corrupted it in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators.” It is no wonder, then, that Luther coined the slogan: “Take away the Mass, destroy the Church.”

St. Alphonsus Liguori (Bishop, Doctor of the Church and Patron of Theologians) explains that “The devil has always attempted, by means of the heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of the Anti-Christ, who, before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrament of the altar, as a punishment for the sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel: ‘And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice’ (Dan. 8:12).”

The question then becomes: Does the New Mass teach the Catholic Faith? No, say both Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci: “It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent.” Pope St. Leo the Great (Father and Doctor of the Church) instructs us: “Teach nothing new, but implant in the hearts of everyone those things which the fathers of venerable memory taught with a uniform preaching … Whence, we preach nothing except what we have received from our forefathers. In all things, therefore, both in the rule of faith in the observance of discipline, let the pattern of antiquity be observed.” How well founded, then, were the concerns expressed by Pope Pius XII shortly before the introduction of the New Mass: “I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy at Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that would be represented by the alteration of the Faith in Her liturgy.“

When you place the prayers and ceremonies of the traditional Latin Mass side by side with those of the New Mass, you can easily see to what degree the Church’s traditional doctrine has been “edited out.” And the “editing” always seems to have been done on those parts of the Mass expressing some Catholic doctrine which Protestants find “offensive.” Here are some examples:

1. Common Penitential Rite: The traditional Mass begins with the priest reciting personal prayers of reparation to God called “The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar.” The New Mass begins instead with a “Penitential Rite” which the priest and people recite together. Who were the first to introduce a common penitential rite? The 16th century Protestants, who wanted to promote their teaching that the priest is no different from the layman.
2. The Offertory: The Offertory prayers of the traditional Mass clearly express a number of Catholic teachings, as that the Mass is offered to God to satisfy for sin and that the saints are to be honored. The Protestants rejected these teachings and so abolished the Offertory prayers. “That abomination called the Offertory,” said Luther, “and from this point almost everything stinks of oblation!” In the New Mass as well, the Offertory is gone – it has been replaced with a ceremony called “The Preparation of the Gifts.” The prayers “offensive” to Protestants have also been removed. In their place is the prayer “Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation,” based on a Jewish grace before meals.
3. The “Eucharistic Prayer”: The traditional Mass has only one “Eucharistic Prayer,” the ancient Roman Canon. The Canon was always a favorite target of Lutheran and other Protestant attacks. Instead of just one Canon, the New Mass now has a number of “Eucharistic Prayers,” only one of which we will mention here. Eucharistic Prayer No. 1 is an “edited” version of the Roman Canon. The lists of Catholic saints, so despised by Protestants, are now optional, and hence rarely used. The translators did some further “editing.” Among other things, the idea that Christ the Victim is offered at Mass (a notion Luther condemned) has disappeared. All the Eucharistic Prayers now incorporate some typical Protestant practice. They are recited in a loud voice instead of silently, and they have an “Institution Narrative,” instead of a Consecration. (According to Protestant beliefs, their ministers do not consecrate the Eucharist like Catholic priests do; they just narrate the story of the Last Supper.) Even Christ’s own words in the Consecration were altered: “. . . Which shall be shed for you and for many, unto the remission of sins” was changed to “. . . It will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven.” (Rome acknowledged this “mistranslation” recently.) The various signs of respect toward Our Lord present in the Blessed Sacrament (genuflections, signs of the cross, bells, incense, etc.) have been reduced, made optional, or eliminated.
4. Communion in the Hand: The 16th century Protestant Martin Bucer condemned the Church’s practice of placing the Host on the tongue of the communicant as something introduced out of “a double superstition: first, the false honor they wish to show to this sacrament, and secondly, the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration.” The practice in Protestant churches of “communion in the hand” is thus based upon their rejection of Christ’s Real Presence and the priesthood. At the New Mass, just as at a Protestant service, there is Communion in the hand. But the men who created the New Mass went even further, for a layman may not only receive Communion in the hand – he is also permitted to distribute it, even on a moment’s notice. Let us recall St. Thomas Aquinas’ (1225-1274)* words on this subject: “The body of Christ must not be touched by anyone, other than a consecrated priest. No other person has the right to touch it, except in case of extreme necessity” (III, 82 a.3). (*St. Thomas Aquinas was given the title “Angelic Doctor”. His canonization decree states, “His doctrine was none other than miraculous. He has enlightened the Church more than all other Doctors”)
5. Veneration of the Saints: The prayers of the traditional Mass frequently invoke the saints by name and beg their intercession. The Church’s veneration of the saints in her worship was another practice which Protestants dismissed as “superstition.” The New Order of the Mass dropped most invocations of the saints by name, or made them optional. In the new Missal, moreover, the weekday prayers for saints’ feast days (most of which are also optional) have been rewritten for the benefit of Protestants – allusions to miracles, the defense of the Catholic Faith, or to the Catholic Church as the one, true Church have disappeared.
6. False Translations: Lastly, there is the matter of the false official English translations of the New Mass. A whole book could be written on the errors and distortions they contain. Here we will mention briefly only the official translations of the prayers for the 34 “Sundays in Ordinary Time.” The following are some of the ideas which the English translation suppresses: God’s wrath, our unworthiness, error, sins which “burden our consciences,” God’s majesty, obedience to His commandments, supplication, humility, eternity, heaven – many more could be listed. Perhaps the most serious omission is the word “grace.” It appears 11 times in the Latin original. It does not appear even once in the official English “translation”!

Clearly, then, the “new liturgy reflects a new ecclesiology, whereas the old reflects another ecclesiology” (Cardinal Benelli) and one quite foreign to the Catholic Church. This ultimately means as Fr. Gelineau, S.J., one of the “experts” who co-authored the New Mass, pointed out, that “The New Mass is a different liturgy. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite, as we knew it, no longer exists. It has been destroyed.” The Catechism of the Council of Trent tells us that “a Catholic sins against the Faith by participating in non-Catholic worship.” The New Mass is not Catholic worship, even if it has retained the name “Catholic,” as did the Anglican liturgy until recently.

Fruits of Vatican II and the New Mass

“By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit” (Matt. 7:15-17). Given the foregoing, it should be plain that the New Mass was conceived for an evil purpose and constructed by evil means. It only follows that such a tree would have disastrous effects on the Church. Let us look at its fruits as reported in Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II by Kenneth Jones.

Priests. While the number of priests in the United States more than doubled to 58,000, between 1930 and 1965, since then that number has fallen to 45,000. By 2020, there will be only 31,000 priests left, and more than half of these priests will be over 70.

Ordinations. In 1965, 1,575 new priests were ordained in the United States. In 2002, the number was 450. In 1965, only 1 percent of U.S. parishes were without a priest. Today, there are 3,000 priestless parishes, 15 percent of all U.S. parishes.

Seminarians. Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700, a decline of over 90 percent. Two-thirds of the 600 seminaries that were operating in 1965 have now closed.

Sisters. In 1965, there were 180,000 Catholic nuns. By 2002, that had fallen to 75,000 and the average age of a Catholic nun is today 68. In 1965, there were 104,000 teaching nuns. Today, there are 8,200, a decline of 94 percent since the end of Vatican II.

Religious Orders. For religious orders in America, the end is in sight. In 1965, 3,559 young men were studying to become Jesuit priests. In 2000, the figure was 389. With the Christian Brothers, the situation is even more dire. Their number has shrunk by two-thirds, with the number of seminarians falling 99 percent. In 1965, there were 912 seminarians in the Christian Brothers. In 2000, there were only seven. The number of young men studying to become Franciscan and Redemptorist priests fell from 3,379 in 1965 to 84 in 2000.

Catholic schools. Almost half of all Catholic high schools in the United States have closed since 1965. The student population has fallen from 700,000 to 386,000. Parochial schools suffered an even greater decline. Some 4,000 have disappeared, and the number of pupils attending has fallen below 2 million – from 4.5 million.

Catholic Marriage. Catholic marriages have fallen in number by one-third since 1965, while the annual number of annulments has soared from 338 in 1968 to 50,000 in 2002.

Attendance at Mass. A 1958 Gallup Poll reported that three in four Catholics attended church on Sundays. A recent study by the University of Notre Dame found that only one in four now attend.

Only 10 percent of lay religious teachers now accept church teaching on contraception. Fifty-three percent believe a Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic. Sixty-five percent believe that Catholics may divorce and remarry. Seventy-seven percent believe one can be a good Catholic without going to mass on Sundays. By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a “symbolic reminder” of Jesus.

Who could possibly claim that there is not a terrible crisis of faith in the Catholic Church!? It is no wonder that Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed: “I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy.” It is clear how the New Mass could create such a disaster. Liturgy dictates belief. A protestantized liturgy yields heretical belief, loss of the Faith, and devaluation of the priesthood. Satan has been able to accomplish more effective damage to the entire body of the Church in the past 35 years through the destruction of the Mass than ever before.

Conclusion

The New Mass is condemned by its own nature and by its fruits. The crisis in the Church will continue to worsen until we return to orthodoxy and discipline. What is a Catholic to do in such troublesome times? He must follow the advice of St. Vincent of Lerins: “What then shall the Catholic do if some portion of the Church detaches itself from communion of the universal Faith? If some new contagion attempts to poison, no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole Church at once, then his great concern will be toattach himself to antiquity (Tradition) which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty.”

St. Athanasius, one of the four great Doctors of the Eastern Church, earned the title of “Father of Orthodoxy” for his strong and uncompromising defense of our Catholic Faith against the Arian Heresy which affected most of the hierarchy, including the pope. Athanasius was banned from his diocese at least five times, spending a total of seventeen years in exile. He sent the following letter to his flock which is a powerful lesson for our times: “What saddens you is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important? The place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle? The one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?”

Please pray that our dear Savior will grant to our holy Father the Pope and the bishops of the Church the grace to abolish the protestanized New Mass and return to the exclusive use of the Traditional Latin Mass. The disastrous results and the loss of faith due to Vatican II and the New Mass are obvious. The only safe course to follow is to attend the Traditional Latin Mass no matter the cost. It is not worth the risk of losing one’s soul for all eternity.

The following was written by a colleague and an adored friend:

Interesting. Yes, St Thomas makes exception for the barren woman, but this is not what Pope Pius XII is doing. He is considering a couple that is perfectly fertile, yet nevertheless subverting their fertility, albeit by “natural” means.

In 1965, Vatican II in Gaudium et Spes went on to assert (in line with Pius XI) that marriage is not only for procreation but has the distinct role of being “a whole manner and communion of life,” even when sterile. Again, a contradiction of St. Gregory and St. Augustine.

In 1968, Paul VI further innovated by stating that:

“The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, “noble and worthy.” It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse.” [Humanae Vitae 11]

So fertility is “noble and worthy,” but is not the chief end of matrimony? Again, a direct contradiction of the Code of Canon Law in effect in his time. This encyclical is the first time in Church history where the “unitive” idea of marriage was presented as equally important as the procreative. And further:

“If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.” [16]

Pope Paul specifically allows the married couple to take advantage, with full consent of their wills, of an infertile period. They are given papal sanction to directly engage in willful contraception, even if it be by “natural” means. Nevertheless, it is still contraception. Of course, Paul justifies this by claiming that because it’s natural, it’s therefore legitimate. The argument might thus be presented: “If, through no fault of the couple whether by accident or by nature, or in taking advantage of those periods of naturally occurring sterility, the couple wishes to engage in sexual intercourse, they may lawfully do so.” A contradiction of St. Thomas and Pope St. Gregory. Two popes and a doctor of the Church: who is correct in this matter? Is it simply a development of doctrine, even though it blatantly contradicts past teachings? And if so, then how might this look when compared to the issue of homosexuality?

The question must come down to a definition of “natural”. If it is to be asserted that “natural” is defined as that which is ideal, then following St. Augustine, St. Gregory, and St. Thomas, we can state that the ideal is that the sexual act always ends in procreation, both by the act itself and the intent behind the act. If, however, we define “natural” as that which occurs in nature beyond the power and consent of humans — the “accidents” of life, if you will — then we can argue with the popes of the 20th century that certain people, through no fault of their own, are unable to reproduce. This, nevertheless, does not prevent them from being able to engage in the sexual act.

The post-Vatican II Magisterium is contradicting itself in this issue (and many, many others). It states, on the one hand, that a “naturally” sterile couple may legitimately have sex, even though it is clearly impossible for them to reproduce; thus, their sexual act is closed to the gift of life. It also states that a fertile couple may purposely and intentionally avoid conception whilst still engaging in the sex act. On the other hand, it is stated that because homogenital acts are closed to the gift of life, they are therefore illicit. Well which is it? If, as St. Gregory and St Thomas stated, every single sexual act must end in the ability to procreate, then it is immoral for the sterile couple (regardless of the means of sterility) to engage in any sexual activity. If, however, naturally occurring sterility is not an impediment to the “other ends” of matrimony, what is to be said of the homosexual who is “naturally” unable to reproduce given his/her biological and psychological condition. Clearly the post-VII magisterium has stated that homosexuality is not a direct choice. Its genesis is admittedly unknown.

So the bishops admit that homosexuality is not chosen, but at the same time because the consequences of this “naturally” occurring homosexual orientation, when sexually acted upon, do not end in procreation, such actions are therefore illegitimate. And not only that, but the orientation is, though experienced through no fault of the individual, considered “intrinsically disordered”. Again, a phrase not found anywhere before 1975. The concept of a person’s passive experience of a psycho-biological construct being “intrinsically disordered” is furthermore not applied to any other human situation. So the bishops, in attempting to address this issue, have essentially created a special category of people. Not only that, but even though homosexuality is passively experienced (through no fault of the individual), as a result of this experience, the homosexual person is told that he may not participate in either of the two great vocations in life: marriage nor Holy Orders. The person is taught that because of his state in life, his only option is complete and lifelong celibacy, with the need to seek only “disinterested” friendships. So a person is born into a situation in life in which the bishops are claiming that his “vocation” is already chosen for him, and nothing he does can change that if he wishes to remain in good standing with the Church. This is blatant and outright Calvinism, and is not legitimate Roman Catholic teaching. Contrary to the modern notions of marriage, the Church has never historically seen matrimony as the “greatest state in life” or the supreme image of the participation of God with Man. These are novel teachings that cannot be supported by any Council in Church history.

Our modern bishops are telling us two contradictory things, and neither of those are held within the ancient traditions of the Church. In speaking of marriage, they also neglect the traditions of both Rome and Constantinople in the ancient rites of adelphopoiesis. Whether those ceremonies had anything to do with sexuality is largely unknown, but their existence is nevertheless confirmed.

The point is that the official teachings concerning marriage, contraception, and sexuality have changed dramatically in the 20th century, and many of them are direct contradictions of previous magisterial teaching. Of course, one can also read St. Paul and see his encouraging of marriage as an outlet for sexual passion, or one can read the Roman Catechism and see how it did not teach that the only legitimate end of marriage was conception. But again, those run contrary to one of our greatest popes, as well as two doctors of the Church.

–
Ad Iesum per Mariam

Sola Scriptura

“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Mt 16:18).

What exactly was the Lord saying to Peter with these words?  With them, what promise did he make to Peter and what task did he entrust to him?  And what is he saying to us-to the Bishop of Rome, who is seated on the chair of Peter, and to the Church today?

If we want to understand the meaning of Jesus’ words, it is useful to remember that the Gospels recount for us three different situations in which the Lord, each time in a special ways, transmits to Peter his future task.  The task is always the same, but what the Lord was and is concerned with becomes clearer to us from the diversity of the situations and images used.

In the Gospel according to St. Matthew, Peter makes his own confession to Jesus, recognizing him as the Messiah and Song of God.  On the basis of this, his special task is conferred upon him though three images: the rock that becomes the foundation or cornerstone, the keys, and the image of binding and loosing.

I do not intend here to interpret once again these three images that the Church down the ages has explained over and over again. Pax

The modern age has inoculated us all with the conviction that we can have objective and therefore reliable and communicable knowledge about physics and technology but cannot really know and be certain about divine things.  These are manifested to us-so the modern age supposes-only in a haze of different symbols that do not allow us to say: This is true and that is false.  Instead, each individual has to figure out on his own how to deal with the situation.  Religion is relegated to the realm of sentiment, feeling, and subjectivity.  Everyone has only to look for what best serves to satisfy his religious feelings, so that he can keep this department of his existence in equilibrium as well.  But a religion that is understood in this way is much like a lump of clay that can be shaped and turned at will.  If it demands something of us, we turn away indignantly.  for we called on it in the first place to make things more comfortable, so as to get something out of it, not so as to let troublesome demands into our life.  Or to use a different image: in the supermarket of ideas and ideologies, everyone looks for the items on his list and loads up his own basket with what speaks to him, with what he thinks will help him cope and make his life somewhat more pleasant.  But in a religion of this sort, in which we ourselves gather only what suits us, the self remains the final standard.  We have not even begun to take conversion seriously; instead, we really worship only ourselves, and God becomes the means for fulfilling our own wishes, that is, we do not let him be God.

Becoming a Christian, Christian conversion, however, consists precisely of getting out of this type of rubber religion and recognizing that the light of truth itself is falling into my life.  Truth manifests itself as it is; God manifests himself in his Son and becomes for me the Way.  And because in God truth and will are one, this means that this truth is binding, that I step into the void, in other words, into what is untrue and dishonest if I walk past it or push it aside, that I am alive if I give my will over to the will of God.  Only in this way does conversion become true; only in this way does the remembrance of God arrive in me and create life for me.  Precisely through troubles, this remembrance purifies me and leads me to the truth about myself and to fulfillment in the true love for which our existence is constantly on the lookout.