“Mass of all Times vs. “‘Mass’ on the World” – Why Does Benedict XVI Continue to Tinker With the Traditional Mass?”
Comments by
Randy Engel, February 7, 2012.
Dear Friends In Christ,
On the evening of February 6, 2012, I received a copy of an e-mail memo titled “Our Position on 1962 Missal” and dated January 30, 2012, issued by Una Voce Canada. It was marked, IMPORTANCE VERY HIGH, and indeed it is, especially for Traditional Catholics.
The memo concerns the further “revision of the Missal of 1962” which is currently underway in Rome: As has been the norm in recent years, these matters are being conducted discreetly and only made public when
the relevant document is promulgated, viz: Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae. The very narrow remit given by the Holy Father to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei in his Letter to Accompany Summorum Pontificum [7 July, 2007] was that: “..new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal.” No other changes were sanctioned. Pope Benedict also stated that “The Ecclesia Dei Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the possibilities in this regard. [Full text of above memo provided on request. RE] What the end product of this renewed tinkering with the Old Mass will be is anyone’s guess, but based on Benedict XVI’s ecumenical/evolutionary thinking a la Teilhard de Chardin, we can make an educated guess – the synthesis of Paul VI’s New “Mass” with the Traditional Mass will produce a “true cosmic liturgy,” that is to say, no Mass at all.
Below, I have provided a link to a remarkable essay by James Larson, creator of the web-site “War Against Being,” on Benedict XVI’s vision of a futuristic liturgy.
“A Living Host: Liturgy,
and Cosmic Evolution in the Thought of Benedict XVI and Teilhard de Chardin,” is available at http://www.waragainstbeing.com/node/40
A copy of Benedict XVI’s homily at the celebration of Vespers at the Cathedral of Aosta on July 24, 2009, is provided by way of confirmation, at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090724_vespri-aosta_en.html.
Mr. Larson can be contacted at waragainstbeing@yahoo.com.
Our Lady of Fatima pray for
us.
Randy Engel
-
Well, this really puts the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI into perspective, doesn’t it? Pope Benedict XVI a traditionalist? Conservative? Bang goes the theory! That article is absolutely chilling.
What is clear is that the diabolical disorientation is alive and well in the head of Pope Benedict XVI. He needs our prayers.
-
A little over reaction here. I think they are just adding the feasts of the saints canonised since 1962.
Hardly a major overhaul.
I think it should be clear to all that The Holy father has no “diabolical disorientation” Its stuff like this that, sadly, turn many away from the traditional side of the Church. -
te igitur,
From your comment, I can see that you didn’t read the article linked at the bottom. Go and have a read and then see if it is “just adding the feasts of the saints canonised since 1962.” I think you will be surprised.
As for, “I think it should be clear to all that The Holy father has no “diabolical disorientation” ….do you believe the Message of Fatima? The Third Secret foretells our time of apostasy in the Church. We know this because Cardinal Ciappi says: “In the Third Secret, it is foretold, among other things, that the Great Apostasy in the Church begins at the top.” Now, the pope is at the top. So, do you believe the MEssage of Fatima or not?
The following is an extract from an article written by Fr Gruner on “Diabolical Disorientation”. The full article can be found here: http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr83/cr83pg3.asp
” In fact, it seems that it is the leadership in the Church, most of all, that is suffering this diabolical disorientation.
Sister Lucy talked about this in her various letters which are quoted by Frère Michel. She also spoke about it in her interview with Father Fuentes, when she said:
“The devil knows what it is that most offends God and which in a short space of time will gain for him the greatest number of souls.
“Thus the devil does everything to overcome souls consecrated to God because in this way, the devil will succeed in leaving the souls of the faithful abandoned by their leaders, thereby the more easily will he seize them.” -
te igitur
Your statement “Its stuff like this that, sadly, turn many away from the traditional side of the Church” is erroneous. The simple fact is a person has to choose to walk in truth or choose not to and accompany error.
Maybe you are one of those that hold to the view that everything is getting better despite evidence to the contrary. When you look at the present crisis that has confounded the faith to such a point that the Catholic Church apparently can no longer make any significant impact on the modern world and the lack of evangelization and the missionary spirit in the modern Church points to a faith weakened, not strengthened, by the changes in the Church. This deficiency can have no other cause than the most obvious: the watershed event of a “merely pastoral” Ecumenical Council.
The most damning fruit of Vatican 2 I believe can be seen in the shocking statistics revealed in a survey by C.B.S in America last year which I believe equates to Catholics all over the world. This survey stated;
Catholics have adopted Protestant Theology and Morality.
70% – OF CATHOLICS DO NOT BELIEVE IN REAL PRESENCE.
90% – REJECT CHURCH TEACHING ON CONTRACEPTIVES.
CATHOLICS ABORT, CONTRACEPT, AND DIVORCE AT THE SAME RATE AS NON-CATHOLICSIn light of these fruits of vatican 2 were all those that warned of the dangers to the Faith that were about to take place at the time over reacting.
When Pope John XX111 cried out “Aggiornamento” and in his opening speech of Vatican 2 he warned us about famous prophets of doom. Was he referring to Pius XII, who speaking in 1931, before he became Pope, when he was Secretary of State, made this astonishing prophesy when he said:
“I am worried by the Blessed Virgins messages to Lucia of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the faith in her liturgy, theology and her soul. I hear all around me innovators who wish to destroy sacred chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past.
A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, “Where have they taken Him?”
Was Pope Pius X11 over reacting!Did he also consider Our Lady of Fatima to be a prophet of doom when he read Her words in the Third Secret of Fatima just before he opened Vatican 2? Is that why; when he read the words of Our Lady he uttered the shocking response to those that were present “this is not for our time”. It was for our time Our Lady said so!
God Bless.
Pray the Rosary! -
I agree wholeheartedly with Petrus: Papa Ratzinger has always been a Modernist, and still is. His vision is not to restore Tradition, which one might mistakenly have thought after Summorum, but to make room for it under his “big tent” vision, which includes, among other things, rehabilitating Martin Luther, creating/allowing an Anglican liturgy, approving the “liturgy” of the Neo-Catechumenical Way, Assisi III, etc. In case you hadn’t noticed, the “big tent” is no more Catholic than singing Kum-Bah-Ya around a campfire marshmallow roast.
One might also have been deceived into thinking that this “big tent” was more orderly and disciplined than the Church under JPII – NOT!!!! The Church has abdicated her authority with lie after lie and absurdity after absurdity, ever since the opening speech of John 23, and has yet to reclaim it. There is only one way to reclaim it, and that is to restore Tradition, destroy the vatican ii revolution, consecrate Russia, and reveal the Third Secret.
It is also worth remembering that Archbishop Lefebvre actually objected to the collar-less Ratzinger’s presence at vatican ii as a peritus, so notorious a liberal was he.
-
Oh, and let’s not forget one other non-Catholic element under the Pope’s “big tent”: “gay” masses in Soho. And don’t anyone dare to tell me that he did not personally approve of them. He approves of them by his failure to end them.
-
And yet one more thing, if Editor will indulge my long-windedness: there is a moniker floating around the blogosphere of Pope Benedict as the “Pope of Christian Unity” – a moniker initiated by the party line sycophant “Father Z,” and repeated ad nauseam by his sycophant followers.
This Pope doesn’t have the foggiest notion of the true definition of Christian Unity – a notion which he could easily obtain by reading the encyclicals of the pre-vatican ii Popes. No, this Pope is too busy implementing his “Counter-syllabus,” filled with the pride and lack of faith that makes him think he knows better than the Magisterium.
In case you couldn’t tell, I am completely disgusted with this Papacy, though it has taken me several years to see through it.
-
I think that many aspects of Vatican 2 were a disaster, not least the Liturgy. Though I do consider the NO Mass valid, because the Church says so. I would far rather assist a Mass in the EF, but this is only rarely possible due to geographical location and simple lack of Masses. So, I would consider myself a traditionalist . But, I hope a loyal one, and it pains me to see The Holy Father written about, in the terms above.
I believe that when A Pope is elected, the Holy Spirit has input,though he is still a man, he deserves some respect as Gods representative on this planet. I might add here that the Bishops of Scotland, and indeed many other countries pay only lip service to him. Thats clear from the lack of even discussion on the Summorum Pontificum, never mind any attempt at implementation.
As for the third secret of Fatima, that ,is surely just that. A secret, yet to be revealed, correct me if I am in error.
I think good things are starting to happen in the Church, with traditional orders getting plentiful vocations. Who knows there might even be a EF Mass I can attend, near me, in the not too distant future. -
Te igitur,
No one has been disrespectful towards the pope. No one claimed the New Mass is invalid. It can be valid. What would you rather be loyal to? The person of the pope or the Faith? Our first obedience is to God and the Holy Faith. Popes can, and do, make mistakes.
Regard the Third Secret of Fatima, have you read “The Devil’s Final Battle”? There’s enough evidence there to prove that what is contained is a great apostasy.
By the way, did you read the article linked at the top about the Pope?
-
Torkay – longwinded? You? Just because you never use two words when twenty are available?
Rosary15 – terrific, thoughtful, information packed post as usual, pleasant and I do not doubt, prayerful. When you are enrolling students on your next Charm Course, please count in our Torkay…!
te igitur.
I can’t think of a single “traditional” Catholic who would call the Mass that nourished the saints and that the martyrs gave their life’s blood for, by this new fangled ridiculous name “Extraordinary form.” The new Bugnini Mass is the “extraordinary” one. Wild horses would not get me to attend one of those, except in cases where I cannot do any other such as a funeral or a wedding. Why? Nothing to do with “validity” – it’s about what is pleasing to God and nobody will convince me that a Mass expressly created for the purpose of removing everything offensive to Protestants, is pleasing to God. Took me quite a while to get to that point myself, but I made it in the end and I won’t be moved by any arguments about “validity” or Father X’s alleged “reverence”. The 1967 Abortion Act is valid and occultists are “reverent” – that means nothing if what is being offered to God is not the worship He wants. Judging by the massive withdrawal of grace from the Church today, I’d say He is far from pleased with the shenanigans that pass for Mass in most parishes today. Google Cardinal Schonborn, balloons, Mass and click on videos. Pleasing to God? You must be kidding.
As for papal elections. Sorry, but the only guarantee we have of assistance from the Holy Spirit is AFTER the pope is elected and then ONLY when he is “confirming” the brethren in the (Catholic) Faith. Not when he’s writing books, giving interviews, chatting to journalists, praying with pagans, or telling the followers of Martin Luther that their hero was completely “Christocentric”. Outrageous! Popes cannot teach anything new. They are only guaranteed the assistance of the Holy Spirit when they are teaching entirely in conformity with what was taught at the time of the death of the last apostle. Clear as crystal.
I can’t vouch for the alleged fruitful “traditional” Orders – there are none in Glasgow or anywhere else in Scotland to the best of my knowledge. Also, I’m not sure if they are “bi-missae”.. Do the priests say the novus ordo as well as the TLM? In which case, they don’t count, in my humble view, and certainly can’t be classed as “traditional”.
The Fatima “secret” is really the Fatima Message: it is only called “secret” because Our Lady said that one part of it had to be withheld until 1960. Now we have part of the message only, because …. well, that’s something you are best to read up on yourself at http://www.fatima.org
You can also find out about the persecution of Father Gruner by going to the Fatima section of the Catholic Truth website and clicking on his photo. That takes you through to the excellent, thoroughly documented biography of Father Gruner written by Francis Alban. It reads like the best of thrillers but for those who think the Holy Ghost “inspires” popes and just about everyone working in the Vatican, it will be stomach churning stuff.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
-
te igitur
To echo Petrus, watch out for the word “loyalty.” Make sure your loyalty is to the Truth, not to a man, no matter how high and exalted his office. The man to whom the Chair was originally assigned denied Our Lord three times, before he repented. Now, if you see any sign of the Pope repenting of his modernism, please point that out to us.
Also beware of attributing the Holy Spirit with a broad brush. vatican ii is often described as the work of the Holy Spirit – thus begging the question, why would the Holy Spirit try to destroy the Church?
-
Although it is true that we must step up our prayers for the Holy Father, we should not forget that he was once on the Holy Office list of those suspect of heresy and, if I understand the history correctly, he was primarily responsible for the eradication of the Holy Index after Vatican II.
Petrus makes a very valid point, which is that Archbishop Lefebvre objected to the presence of the collar-and-tie Fr. Ratzinger as a peritus during the Council. Indeed Archbishop Lefebvre and others objected to the presence of a number of so-called Periti at that Council on the basis that Church law forbade the participation of those who were listed at the Holy Office as suspected of heresy. A large proportion of the theologians who came to dominate Council proceedings were on the list at that time.
As for the Holy Father, like it or not Pope Benedict XVI displays all the symptoms common to the Modernist mind, e.g., one minute Traditional, the next liberal. Following the scandals of Assisi and the rushed beatification of Pope John Paul II, it is right that the faithful be wary of the intentions of the present Pope.
Why insert new saints to the 1962 Missal at a time of serious liturgical chaos in the Church? Much more profitable to order a full investigation into the scandals surrounding the New Mass than start tampering once again with the ancient rite. Personally, I am suspicious.
-
The only possibility for which I am willing to give the Pope credit is that the “big tent” model is a ruse, a chess move which enables him to re-introduce Tradition as merely one of numerous options.
But even if this highly remote possibility is true, it once again displays the disoriented thinking and abdication of mission of vatican ii, namely, that error and heresy will correct themselves without discipline, by merely becoming visible and somehow, as if by osmosis, attracting a corrective truth to them. Therefore, according to this absurd line of reasoning, the vatican ii revolution will be corrected by merely re-introducing Tradition alongside it.
Well, all that does is create confusion, since no preference is expressed for one over the other. It is a climate of relativism and indifferentism: everything is equal.
Meanwhile, more to the issue at hand, there is also the question of the validity of these new saints, canonized under the scandalously simplified process of JPII, who then, surprise, surprise, benefited from it after his death.
And how many of us ordinary slobs can look forward to being beatified by our best friends after we die, using a process that we ourselves have created? That carries the same foul odor as the purchase of indulgences.
Nice work if you can get it…
-
Torkay,
I think we have to assume that even if the new canonisation process is much simplified, even shockingly so, it is still infallible. I’m sure the sedevacantists would disagree with us on this, but since canonisation touches directly on the universal faith of the Church by Magisterial act, we would be overstepping the mark, I believe, to question it.
Beatifications, on the otherhand, are open to question and there is none more questionable than that of Pope John Paul II. I would be venture to suggest that the late Pope will never be formally canonised by the Church.
I do agree with you that Pope Benedict XVI seems intent on this unity in diversity programme he has started in the Church. The liberals have their wee place, former Anglicans(?) have theirs, Traditionalists have theirs, and there may yet be a slot for some of the Eastern Orthodox. It’s appeasing, possibly even appealing to some, but it’s not Catholic and it’s doomed to failure.
-
The link to Pope Benedict’s homily was shocking. He is actually teaching a heresy, I believe. When did the Faith ever teach that the physical matter of the universe itself can become divine, never mind humanity? By promoting the heresy of Tielhard de Chardin, that the whole universe shall reach what he called ‘The Omega Point’ when the universe and all it contains become one with God, this pope is admitting that he believes it. He has lost the Faith, if he ever had it to begin with. Only the bread and wine becomes divine, during Mass.
-
Athanasius
Your statement that Pope Benedict XVI seems intent on this unity in diversity programme he has started in the Church is very interesting and needs to be flushed out a bit.
What scares me here is in homily of his holiness Benedict XV1 linked above. The Pope aligns the vision of the Church with the vision of Teilhard de Chardin. Now! That really scares me “Diabolical Disorientation or what. And do not think that these are just flippant parts of a sermon, that this type of philosophy is not implemented.
We all know of Cardinal Ottaviani and the “Ottaviani Intervention” but in 1962 the then head of the Holy Office, Cardinal Ottaviani, also issued a monitum against the works of Teilhard de Chardin, warning bishops and superiors that Teilhard’s writings were filled with “serious errors which offend Catholic doctrine” and ordering them to “protect, especially the minds of the young, against the dangers of the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and his followers.”
How ironic that some fifty years later, Teilhard’s errors were presented to millions of Catholic youth as the official teaching of the Catholic Church! This being achieved through the catechism for youth known as ‘Youcat’ which was launched at World Youth Day 2011. In a summery by a group of catechetical professionals who were very critical of ‘Youcat’ said “The ghost of Teilhard de Chardin haunts the pages of Youcat”.
For more information on Youcat visit this link where you can also sign a petition to the Holy Father for the recall of Youcat. http://www.youcatrecall.com/index.php/the-recall
This is why we need to really examine the philosophy of Teilhard de Chardin and see where his philosophies have any influence on what is going on in the Church and on our world today.
In the “Aquarian Conspiracy” by Marilyn Ferguson; a survey of New Agers showed that the leading influence on their spiritual awakening was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
Below are some quotes from the writings and philosophy of Teilhard de Chardin;
“It is a Law of the Universe that in all things there is prior existence. Before every form there is a prior, but lesser evolved form. Each one of us is evolving towards godhead”.
“What I am proposing to do is to narrow that gap between Pantheism and Christianity by bringing out what one might call the Christian soul of Pantheism or the Pantheist aspect of Christianity.”
“I can only be saved by becoming one with the universe”.
I believe that the Messiah whom we await, whom we all without doubt await is the ‘Universal Christ’; that is to say, the ‘Christ of Evolution’.”
(Teilhard de Chardin. Christianity and Evolution. SCP Journal (19:2/3) p 56.)“… a general convergence of religions upon a ‘Universal Christ’ who satisfies them all; That seems to me the only possible conversion of the world, and the only form in which a religion of the future can be conceived.”
(De Chardin: P.T. 1971. Christianity and Evolution. Collins. P 130)
Teilhard also wrote “Although the form is not yet discernible, mankind tomorrow will awaken to a Pan-Organized World”.
(The Future of Man. Harper G Rum. P 182)
One man who was very influenced by Teilhard de Chardin was Robert Muller who was no less than Assistant General Secretary of the United Nations for 40 years. He wrote;
“I have myself been deeply influenced by Teilhard”.
“Any Teilharden will recognize in this the spiritual transcendence which he announced so emphatically as the next step in our evolution”. (The evolution of the United Nations)
(Muller: Most of all they taught me Happiness; p184)
Now let us see is that influence present in the writings of Robert Muller;
“Decide to open yourself to ‘God’, to the universe, to all your brethren and sisters, to your inner self, to the potential of the human race, to the infinity of your inner self and you will become infinity and you will be at long last your real divine stupendous self”.
Robert Muller: Decide to Be. Linkup p2. This was published by the British New Age Journal linkup, which has now changed its name to Global linkup.
“We must move as quickly as possible to a One World Government, A One World Religion, Under a One World Leader.”
Dwight L. Kinman, The Worlds Last Dictator: C Woodburn, Oregon: Solid Rock Books, Inc 1995 p81
Now we can see where this unity in diversity might have its final resting place.
God Bless. -
Athanasius,
I’m really glad you don’t think Pope JP II will ever be canonised. I think my faith would take a real beating if that ever happened.
Rosary15,
I was astounded to read your post. What a lot of amazing information.
This really shocked me (it all shocked me but especially this):“I can only be saved by becoming one with the universe”.
I believe that the Messiah whom we await, whom we all without doubt await is the ‘Universal Christ’; that is to say, the ‘Christ of Evolution’.”This is what Teilhard said and yet the Pope is showering praise on him and quoting him as if he is a saint?
Yes, I think it is obvious where this unity in diversity is going to have its final resting place – straight to one world government and religion.
There’s no way the 1962 missal needs tinkering with. If anything, the one change that should be made is to restore the third Confiteor. It was always beautiful to see the altar boys praying the “I Confess” just before Communion. Apart from that, nothing needs changing.
-
Rosary 15,
That was a v.ry good posting. I too have read The Aquarian Cospiracy: The whole New Age thing with its Cosmic Christ, the creation of the hippie movement and its promotion of paganism, New Ageism, drugs, fornication, Timothy O’Leary’s “Drop out, and turn on.” and the Zionist prophets of decadence like Ginsberg and Huxley are all there.
Murphy O’Conner gave Blair the Sanctuary of Westminster Cathedral from which to promote false ecumenism, and insidiously introduce the concept of a new world church. Blair is a fundraiser for this project directing monies to Cailfornia where millions of dollars have been invested in developing the programme for its dissemination. The church of Lucifer is being prepared for the coming New World Order, and only the request of Fatima being fulfilled can bring about its destruction.
-
Margaret Mary
It is indeed shocking that this Pope showered praise on a heretic in 2009, but not so shocking when you recall that this was certainly not an isolated incident, as he demonstrated last year by calling Martin Luther “Christocentric.”
The pattern of his remarks and his behavior is clearly modernist. He is, therefore, just a continuation of the vatican ii papacies, which are all disastrous, and which all implement the Masonic program as laid out in “The Devil’s Final Battle.”
When popes carry the Masonic banner as if it were Catholic, then it is our manifest duty to resist, and to call him to account. That is what the SSPX is all about. Merely leaving the disoriented parishes and joining an SSPX chapel goes part way toward this duty, but we must also invite others, until the disoriented parishes are empty, and the faithful parishes are full.
The Great Facade must collapse: it is a fraud and a lie, created by the father of lies.
-
Torkay, I totally agree with your every word. I think we really have to invite others to join an SSPX chapel to empty the “disoriented” parishes – well said. That goes back to what was said on the other thread about Catholic action and it is just so important. Robhaidheuch is really saying the same thing because unless we had a priest like Fr Gruner to lead us in spreading the urgent message of Fatima, how would people hear about it?
I’m still reeling from that knowledge about Pope Benedict quoting Teilhard de Chardin so favourably. It is truly unbelievable. No wonder he is called the Green Pope – that green movement sounds like an offshoot of the Teilhard theory.
-
If we consider the Post-Conciliar revolution in its essence, it is Teilhardian. What happened with Vatican II is that Teilhard’s disciples introduced evolution into doctrine; nothing remains fixed, everything is in a perpetual state of change, a general movement towards the “Omega Point” when man becomes divine, becomes God!
This evolutionary programme is often disguised behind the term “living Tradition,” a rather clever and more palatable title.
Pope St. Pius X, however, in his Encyclicals against Modernism, calls this diabolic error by its real name – “vital imminence.” It makes of faith, doctrine, dogma, grace, etc., not external gifts bestowed by God on His Church and on Catholic souls, but rather products of the “latent seed” of divinity integral to the soul of every man. In other words, it shifts divinity from God to man.
Once adopted, there is no longer absolute truth or error, just different stages of evolution. This is the poison at the root of the liturgical upheaval, ecumenism, the Assisi scandals, the silencing of the dogma “extra ecclesia nulla salus,” etc. It is pure evolutionism, which anti-Gospel the Marxists gleefully predicted would rob Christianity of its divine nature and turn it into a purely humanist vehicle for promoting earthly peace and justice.
What was it Our Lady said about the errors of Russia?
-
Sorry for such long posts but the understanding is in the detail. Editor I promise to lay of the keyboard after this.
Robert Muller as can be seen from my last post was a man of immense power and influence at the U.N for such a long period he deserves detailed scrutiny. Was he influenced by more than Teilhard de Chardin, again you only have to study his own writings.
“The underlying philosophy upon which the Robert Muller School is based will be found in the teachings set forth in the books of Alice A. Bailey. The School is now certified as a United Nations Associated School providing education for international cooperation and peace.”
(Muller R. World Core Curriculam, Preface.)Alice A. Bailey along with her husband Foster a 33 Degree Mason
They started a group called ‘World Goodwill’ an official non-governmental organization within the United Nations. The stated aim of this group is “To cooperate in the world of preparation for the reappearance of the ‘Christ’.
One Earth. The magazine of the Findhorn Foundation.
(Oct/Nov 1986. Vol 6. Issue 6. P24.)Alice Bailey was the high Prophetess or Priestess of the New Age Movement. And was one of the most prolific writers of modern times. Her writings consisted mainly of dictated writings she received from a spirit entity she called the Tibetan Dwal Khul.
The Tibetan (DK) has asked me to make it clear that when he is speaking of the Christ he is refereeing to his official name as head of the Hierarchy. The Christ works for all men irrespective of their Faith; he does not belong to the Christian world any more than the Buddhist or the Mohammeden or any other faith. There is no need for any man to join the Christian Church in order to be affiliated with the Christ. The requirements are to love your fellowmen, lead a disciplined life, recognize the divinity in all Faiths and all beings and rule your daily life with love.
(Baily AA. The Externalization of the Hierarchy. Pg. 558)Obviously it is not Christianity she is preaching; the requirement is to love your fellow man but what about the love of God.
“Evidence of the growth of the human intellect along the needed receptive lines (for the preparation of the New Age) can be seen in the planning of various nations and in the efforts of the United Nations to formulate a world plan, from the very start of the unfoldment, three occult factors have governed the development of all these plans”
(Alice A. Bailey. Discipleship in the New Age. Lucis Press 1955. Vol 2. P 15)“Within the United Nations is the germ and seed of a great international and meditating, reflective group. A group of thinking and informed men and women in whose hands lies the destiny of humanity. This is largely under the control of many Fourth Ray Disciples, if you could but realize it and their point of focus is the intuitional or buddhic plane. The plane upon which all Hierarchical Activity is today to be found”
(P 220.)Now can you see the U.N agenda; Alice A Bailey says there are three occult plans and Robert Muller says yes we follow the writings of Alice A Bailey. That is as about occult as you can get. What she is saying is that the inner core of the United Nations is controlled by people who are under the control of Lucifer. That is what she is saying. She is saying it is Demonic.
If this is so; if the high movers and shakers behind the scenes at the United Nations are actually Lusiferian and occultists, wouldn’t that be scary. Because who would be the boss then? Lucifer; He would be the main guy.
With political and religious world leaders call for a New World Order, and the United Nations enforcing strict control over every aspect of our lives. This is nothing more than an old pagan ideal that Lucifer wants to establish in the world which we live in today.
“The major effect of his appearance will surely be to demonstrate in every land the effects of a spirit of inclusiveness – An inclusiveness which will be channeled or expressed through him. All who seek right human relations will be gathered automatically to him, whether they are in one of the great world religions or not. All those who see no true or basic difference between religion and religion, or between man and man, or between nation and nation will rally around him; those who embody the spirit of exclusiveness will stand automatically and equally revealed and all men will know them for what they are!”
(Baily AA. The reappearance of the Christ. Pg. 110)That’s nice! What has happened to love your fellow man.
But now for the big question; is the U.N following and adhering to these teachings and if Robert Muller espoused this philosophy before he died in 2010.
Robert Muller speaking at the Parliament of World Religions declared;
“Do not worry if not all religions will not join the ‘United Religions Organization’. Many nations did not join the UN at the beginning but later regretted it and made every effort to join. It was the same with the EU and it will be the case with the world religions because whoever stays out or aloof will sooner or later regret it.”
(Despatch Magazine. (June 2001, Vol 13:2) pg 33.)Also take a look at this news video regarding the U.N drive towards a one world religion. Ted Turner who featured in the video is a 33rd degree Freemason. In an interview with Audubon magazine he had this to say:“A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSoUCoEKlxwThat means everybody must come together. Now how do you get all the religions to come together, bury the hatchet, so to speak? You create a pain of separation, chaos that exceeds the pain of unity that is how you do it. That is Hegelian philosophy that is Free Mason philosophy.
So today we are in the pain stage, the next phase will be unity or extreme pain.That will be the choice and you will have to choose!
Now we can see why Our Lady of Fatima said “Only I can help you”
Pray the Rosary!
-
So if I understand Athanasius correctly, it seems that Teilhard supplied the sheep’s clothing for the wolves of the French Revolution to sneak their deadly doctrines into the Church….
Just to inject a little humor into this dark situation, here is an issue of The Flying Buttress devoted to Teilhard:
http://tomasthetorque.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html
(Xavier is our local Jesuit-run university, and, as you might have guessed, a hot spot of apostasy)
-
Rosary15,
Please don’t stop posting your fantastic comments. I am learning just loads through you.
I’ve just watched that news video and it is gobsmacking stuff. Thinking of the discussion we already had about getting through to Catholics who are not informed about all of this, just telling them to read your posts on this blog would do the trick. I’m going to email the link and see what others make of it.
-
Editor; Iam sorry I could not resist!
In light of all this anyone who wishes to walk in Our Lord’s Truth can now understand why the Society of Saint Pius X cannot walk with the error that those in the Vatican want to impose. For truly now I would say that it is the S.S.P.X mainly with the Graces of Our Lady that holds the “Faith” that was handed down and the Eternal Mass safe from those workers of “The Mystery Iniquity.”
This is an extract from the Sermon of Bishop Fellay given on February 2, 2012
“… they have another meaning with the word ‘tradition,’ and even maybe even with ‘coherence.’ And that’s why we were obliged to say no.”Read the full sermon at Catholic Family News at this link.
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page14/page14.html -
Torkay,
You have understod me correctly. Bang on!
-
Rosary 15
Your posts are for me, unfortunately, a hard look in the mirror. I was heavily involved in new age theories from about the mid-70s until 1989, as a result of a strange experience I had during Christmas of 1969. First Edgar Cayce (late American “psychic”), then a Rosicricucian for a year, then a student of freemasonry, theosophy, then literally a correspondence student with the Lucis Trust/Alice Bailey for a couple of years (and tried to set up a study group with World Goodwill while I was at it).
During all that time I had convinced myself that I was on the road to truth, and was moving in ever-higher elite circles of understanding and wisdom, as a “mystic.” Little did I suspect, having been removed from the Church at age 5 via divorce, that the only true mysticism on this planet is that of the Catholic Tradition, esp. the Carmelites (who are now mostly Novus Odor).
What the new age teachings really promote, however, is not wisdom, understanding, humility and love for your fellow man. They promote pride and satanism. The Alice Bailey books are a highly intellectualized form of satanism, but satanism is what they are.
So if any CT readers are dabbling with this poison, I hope that they drop it like a hot potato and immerse themselves in the mystic Traditions of the Church.
(On a related note, the SSPX Third Order is about to undergo a major overhaul in the USA. More on that as it develops.)
-
Rosary15,
Please do not apologise for your excellent posts. We are all about education and you are certainly educating us. Keep them coming! I did take a few minutes to watch the (from America) news video clip which I’d actually seen before, thanks to you (!) but for those of you who have not yet seen it, please take a couple of minutes to view. It is chilling.
I’m swamped right now trying to finish the March newsletter – almost there, so proofreaders stand by! – but when I get time, I will, rest assured, be back!
-
Rosary 15,
Please do not apologise and please continue with your most excellent posts, as our editor says, you really are educating us. I’ve certainly taken time to to look at the video links and what an eye opener.
-
It is heartening to see other Catholics posting who understand and recognise the nuts and bolts of the great conspiracy, and use this knowledge as a lens with which to view both historical and contemporary events. Should we ever organise an alternative Catholic historical society, I would recommend use of the following books in any education programme that developed from it:
Grand Orient Fremasonry Unmasked; The Nameless War; The Plot To Destroy The Catholic Church; The Controversy Of Zion; Galileo Was Wrong The Church Was Right; The Revolutionary Jew; Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution; Wall Street And The Rise Of Hitler; The Aquarian Conspiracy; and the audio series Build Yourself An Ark, which can be downloaded from Henry Makow’s webpage.
-
I forgot to mention The Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion.
-
Hi guys,
Let me through the cat amongst the pidgeons if you will.
Certain people on here made comments after reading what Mr Larson had written and then proceeded to make what I can only consider shocking statements about BXVI; claiming that he had “lost the faith”
I should like to point out that the same Mr Larson states elsewhere that:
“Even more certain (with the certainty of faith) is my complete submission of intellect and will to the dogmatic teaching of Vatican Council I (in at least three very striking passages) that a Pope cannot lose his personal Catholic faith.”How can certain members of this blog claim that the present Pope has lost his faith when Mr Larson points out that such a thing is impossible, according to Vatican I. Somebody is not telling the truth. Or maybe they simply don’t know what they are talking about. It’s one of the two.
(Ps, just for the record, I can’t stand Teilhard)
“I forgot to mention The Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion”
You’d be better off with the Beano or Dandy as they are far more factual than the Protocols. Don’t get me wrong, it has its uses, but these days I prefer Andrex.
-
“pidgeon” should read: “Pigeon” Forgive me for my bampotishness.
-
Perthshire TroubleMaker, as you claim that Vatican I taught that a pope cannot lose the Catholic Faith, and as our present pope believes what Tielhard de Chardin promoted, i.e. man will become divine, and if the Vatican I statement was made infallibly invoking the full Magisterium then I must therfore assume our present pope cannot then be pope.
You have not studied the Protocols thoroughly, and I could point you toward a very resounding argument in support of the authenticity of the document.
-
By the way, what part of the Protocols has yet to be fulfilled, as at least 90% of the events predicted in it were, in the subsequent decades following its emergence, and various parts are being fulfilled today?
-
First Vatican Council:
“For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”
Perthshire TroubleMaker, you are correct about the unfailing faith of a pope, but the mystery deepens. Why is Pope Benedict teaching a contradiction, and if it is not a contradiction are we free to believe we shall become divine?
-
So was Our Lord saying that a pope’s faith could fail, but he can turn again back to the Faith?
“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”
-
Robhaidheuch,
BXVI is wrong about this, that much is agreed, but that does not constitute him losing his faith entirely. But I would ask you: was BXVI exercising the non-infallible teaching office or infallible?
As to Lootocols (The puppy is really cute) no comment!
-
I think PerthshireTroublemaker that Larson is misinterpreting Vatican I. Larson is not infallible and his attitude to the shows that he does not have a grasp on correct teaching about the pope’s authority.
I have always understood that the Pope is guaranteed only never to teach infallibly any wrong teaching. The expert on a pope’s authority is St Robert Bellarmine who says that a pope may be a heretic, so it may be legitimate to disobey him but that there is no human tribunal who can pass judgment on him.
The quote of Jesus saying he prays that Peter’s faith will not fail and to confirm the brethren, I have never interpreted as meaning a pope cannot lose his personal faith. Where’s free will then? I believe the only guarantee we have is that no pope wll ever depart from the Deposit of Faith, that’s all, when he is “confirming the brethren” – i.e. teaching us.
I don’t think we need to look at Larson’s article anyway, just read the pope’s own words on the Vatican website link above. There he speaks about the Cosmic Christ/Cosmic Liturgy etc. I’m not sure if that is sufficient to say he has lost his faith but it surely comes close!
-
Sorry, my first sentence should be: “Larson’s attitude to the SSPX shows he does not have a grasp on correct teaching about the pope’s authority.”
Larson has frequently attacked the SSPX in Christian Order, so I don’t take anything he says too seriously. -
Perthshire TroubleMaker, it’s your prerogative not to respond properly to the authenticity argument for the Protocols, refusing to even read a comprehensive argument which deals with the flawed contention that it is derivative of the ‘Dialogues’ of Jolie, a counter-argument which is dissected and completely demolished. The Zionists failed in their attempt at damage limitation by argument, but succeeded in the propaganda war, evidenced by your own attitude.
-
Monica,
that’s an interesting point you raise about Larson and the SSPX.
Rob,
“but succeeded in the propaganda war, evidenced by your own attitude.”
If you say so!
-
Just wanted to point out that Robhaidheuch’s excerpt from Vatican I, if it is indeed the only relevant passage regarding Mr. Larson’s claim, does not state that a Pope cannot lost his faith. If this is the passage Mr. Larson had in mind, then he has obviously completely overstated the facts. Which is a polite way of saying that he is dead wrong. And Monica has it right.
In fact, I daresay that the only human creature who never lost her faith was Our Blessed Mother.
-
Also a thought on the “Protocols”: they were exposed as a forgery a long time ago, but “forgery” simply means that the author(s) are not who they appear to be. It does NOT mean that the Protocols did not nail the Jewish-Masonic conspiracy on the head.
-
On what grounds was it declared a forgery. If it is for the reasons that I’m familiar with read, the forgery argument fails.
-
PerthshireTroubleMaker,
I have read again through the comments, albeit briefly, and I cannot find anywhere a comment from any contributor saying that the Pope has lost the faith. Can you point me to something specific?
If you are concluding that comments about the Pope and heresy equates to accusations that he has lost the faith, then I would say that you are jumping the gun a little.
First of all there are two kinds of heresy – material and formal. Material heresy is, how can I put it, heresy with the best of intentions. It is not malicious heresy but rather well-intentioned error. Formal heresy, on the otherhand, is malicious in that the heretic knowingly and willfully sets out to pervert the true faith.
There is no guarantee that a Pope, as a private theologian, will not fall into material heresy, which may well account for the present Pope’s love affair with Teilhard de Chardin, the Assisi scandal and his belief, against the teaching of his predecessors, that Church and State should be separated. Note, however, that he never teaches these things formally and infallibly, they are merely his personal beliefs.
If ever there was proof of infallibility and the inerrancy of the Church, it is that the Conciliar Popes have never commanded the faithful under Magisterial authority to adopt as binding such deviances as ecumenism, religious liberty, inter-religious dialogue, and all those other novelties of Vatican II that appear to be condemned by their predecessors. They have certainly promoted these things personally, but have never made them binding on the faithful.
Look at any formally binding document issued by a Pope, such as the dogma of the Assumption of Our Lady, and you will see that one is left in no doubt that this is binding teaching. No Vatican II deviance carries such Magisterial weight.
There is no question whatever that the Popes of Vatican II have been pushing the aforementioned doctrines, which their predecessors formally condemned as most fatal to the Catholic Faith. It is truly a mystery. But at no time has any Post-Vatican II Pope made their new teaching binding under infallibility. More people would see this if they were not so confused between true Papal infallibility and the erroneous myth of Papal impeccability.
All this having been said, I think Traditional Catholics should avoid too much talk about Freemasonry and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It matters little to any of us who the perpetrators of this mystery of iniquity are. We know that our fight is against the powers of darkness in high places, this is nothing new. But too much conspiracy talk is unhelpful when trying to win souls back to Tradition. I think it is counter-productive.
All that matters is that we sanctify our souls, help others to sanctify their souls, promote the consecration of Russia, challenge error, pray and offer penance for the Pope and God will do the rest. We certainly have no authority to start judging the dispositions of the souls of Popes, that’s what sedevacantists do. Indeed, our duty is to assume that the present Pope, while personally in error, has the best intentions for the Church. I think that’s what the contributors to this blog do.
-
Robhaidheuch,
It matters little whether the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are true or false. What matters is that we, each one of us, concentrates on sanctifiying his soul and the souls of others with whom he comes into contact.
Part of that duty is to stand fearlessly against the errors in today’s Conciliar Church, but not in a contentious way. Our Lord told his disciples to be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves. Antagonistic conspiracy theories are not likely to win a single soul back to the Traditional Catholic Faith. If anything, they are likely to have the opposite effect. Those who indulge in such a bitter approach invariably end up falling into the deadly errors of schism or sedevacantism.
By all means let us take our fight into the public arena, but let it be done after the manner of Bishop Fellay in a frank, but non-aggressive manner. We should not forget that no matter how many hostile influences their are at work in the Vatican and in the world, the reason for the present crisis is that Catholics, in general, had become, and remain, laxed in the practice of their faith.
Our Lady offered the Pope and the Bishops of the Church the remedy to these ills, but they have thus far refused to comply. Hence, the dark forces that have been loosed against the true faith are merely a symptom of Catholic indifference to heavenly things, which is the root cause of all the trouble.
-
Athanasius,
A couple of truly magnificent posts. I agree with everything you say.
-
I think saying Pope Benedict has the best intentions for the Church is a bit like saying the new Mass is valid. Doesn’t matter. Neither are pleasing to God because they are going right against Catholic Tradition.
From the things Pope Benedict says, he shows he knows what is right. For example he refused to go to the first Assisi meeting yet here he is as Pope actually doing the organising of it. Then, when elected, he asked for prayers that he would not flee the wolves. He is now putting the wolves into places of power even in the SSPX talks.
Nobody can judge the dispositions of a soul, that’s true, and we cannot say who is or who is not going to Hell. But we are not stupid. We’ve seen the photos of Cardinal Ratzinger in his collar and tie and we have read his statements (and some of his books) so we know that his intentions for the Church are to promote Modernism. I don’t think it helps to minimise the seriousness of what he and the other post-conciliar popes have done. They are responsible for this crisis and they should be ending it.
The root of the Catholic indifference to heavenly things is because the Pope himself seems to think that one religion is as good as another. I think it is a mistake to minimise the role of the pope in this crisis. He is adding to the confusion all the time. Think of it: any of us who speak to friends and relatives about the damage ecumenism is doing, has to be prepared for the answer: “But the pope is telling us to be ecumenical.”The Consecration of Russia is the answer. When the Pope does that, I’ll say a good word about him, but not until.
-
Margaret Mary,
I think you are misunderstanding what Athanasius is saying. All he is saying is that we cannot judge his motives. You said:
“we know that his intentions for the Church are to promote Modernism.”
No, we don’t. His actions and words may be promoting Modernism, but can we really judge or know for certain his intentions? I don’t think so.
-
Oh sorry. I thought that the Pope’s stated wishes to promote ecumenical relations revealed his intentions. Since promoting ecumenism is Modernism, that would mean his intentions are clear. That seems logical to me. Sorry if I got it wrong but I’m afraid I see what you are saying as splitting hairs. If a murderer says he intends to murder his parents and he does so, surely I’m not judging him if I say that he clearly intended to murder his parents?
-
I do agree that we are not supposed to “judge” someone’s intentions or motives. But I don’t think it is really judging in the bad sense to admit that this pope’s intentions for the Church do not match the evident intentions of the previous to V2 popes.
For example, here’s one of the Pope’s prayer intentions:
“World Youth Day. That World Youth Day in Madrid may encourage young people throughout the world to have their lives rooted and built up in Christ.”
Any Protestant could say that prayer. It does not make clear that their lives should be built up in Christ and his holy Church.
I think we need to use our intelligence. It seems quite clear to me that this pope’s intentions for the Church are to make it converge with other denominations and religions. I have no time to research it but I think it would be worth googling to see if he has ever made any explicit statements that show his intentions are truly Catholic. We cannot judge the innermost soul, that is true and if that is what Athanasius meant, I’m with him 100%. But I’m not going to put my brains on one side when I see the pope organising Assisi events and so on. The Pope is supposed to be highly intellectual – he must know what he is doing, so he should make his intentions match his actions if his intentions for the Church are good. How can it be good for the Church to leave pagans thinking their gods can bring peace to the world?
I hope my post does not read disrespectfully – I am just trying to emphasise that we can only go so far with this “don’t judge intentions.”
-
Rather alarming report suggesting a plot to assassinate the Holy Father:
-
Margaret Mary,
I agree that the New Mass and Papal Modernism are at the root of the crisis in the Church, and are doubtless displeasing to God. I do not, however, make judgements on the Pope’s disposition of soul. That is not within the remit of any Catholic.
We have to assume that these Vatican II Popes actually believe that what they are doing is for the benefit of the Church; otherwise we would be forced to conclude that they are willfull heretics, and such a conclusion would mean excommunication from the Church. It’s kind of like condemning the sin but not the sinner, if you know what I mean. We are free to reject a Pope’s errors and even to challenge him on them, but we are never permitted to say, or even suggest, that a Pope is willfully destroying the Church.
That’s why we have to be very careful when discussing Freemasonic and other conspiracies at work in the Church. Our Lady of Fatima spoke of a “diabolical disorientation” from the top down. Now, disorientation means confusion not cold blooded heresy. The Apostles were confused and afraid when Our Lord was arrested. They abandoned Him, and even denied Him, but they did not do so by malicious intent. Only Judas did that.
No matter how bad things are or how wayward the Pope appears to be, we owe him our prayers, our respect and our love even when standing firm against some of his adopted novelties. Anger, bitterness and resentment solves absolutely nothing.
-
I agree with Athanasius. We really need to be careful with this, lest we run the risk of falling in to schism or sedevacantism. They are both monstrous.
I could offend someone on this blog, without it being my intention to do so. My actions have caused the offence, but no one can be certain of my intention or motive. We cannot, and must not attempt to, judge the disposition of another soul. We can question their actions and correct their errors.
I think we need to look back at what was said earlier about the pope’s infallibility. This is only guaranteed when he speaks from the Chair of Peter, defines it as infallible (plenty of examples from pre-conciliar popes) and speaks of faith and morals. As has been pointed out, a post-conciliar pope has never attempted to make infallible modern errors. Athanasius is correct; Our Lady spoke of a confusion – not wilful heresy.
Crossraguel
Fr Paul Kramer believes that Pope Benedict XVI will be killed. Apparently the pope himself believes this. Before he issued Summorum Pontificum he changed the regulations for a conclave, because he feared he would be killed.
-
Surely we cannot judge Judas’s intentions either?
-
Crossraguel,
That is an intriguing report you linked.
Fatima experts are quite sure that Pope Benedict will be assassinated and apparently he knows it.
But this quote is very interesting: “Cardinal Romeo said Benedict viewed Cardinal Scola as his ideal successor because they had similar personalities and theological outlooks.”
Now we know who we DON’T want as pope – another pope who “has similar personality and theological outlook” to Pope Benedict? I don’t think so.
I agree that “Anger, bitterness and resentment solves absolutely nothing.” But I can’t see any anger, bitterness or resentment in any posts here. I dislike this business of reading personal failings into people’s comments. Am I any of these things because I truly and sincerely do not want another pope like Benedict? I don’t hate him or feel bitter about him or anything like that. I just don’t think he’s a good pope and I don’t want another one like him.
Apologies if that offends anyone’s sensibilities but I’m speaking my mind as honestly as I think is reasonable, and I would add that I wish the pope no harm.
-
Some very good points made. On the issue of anger, isn’t there something to be said for “righteous anger”?
-
Athanasius,
Robhaidheuch stated on Feb 8 @ 11:40 p.m. about BXVI that “He has lost the Faith, if he ever had it to begin with”
-
That’s right, I did. I may have been mistaken. Having thought it through against the quote from Scripture from Vatican I, I believe I was wrong to make such a bold statement, but possibly not entirely, as the first part of the sentence could be true. I don’t know what Our Lord meant by ‘turning back’, it begs the question turning back to what? If He meant turning back to the Catholic Faith, then one would have to have turned away from it, thus a pope could lose belief, but only temporarily by the efficaciousness of Our Lord’s prayer. Is this not similar in some respect to the argument against sedevacantism, that a pope could believe a material heresy for a period, but always remain a validly elected pope? Our Lord indicates that popes receive a special grace that prevents them from dying in a state of apostasy.
-
Monica, Our Lord passed judgement on Judas by calling him “the man of perdition.”
-
I had forgotten that Our Lord has called Judas the son of perdition. I need to stop telling people we don’t know if Judas is in hell because that seems to be what perdition means (eternal ruin). I was wrong about that.
I think that it makes no difference if a pope is a heretic – he’s still pope since only God can judge a pope. That’s why the guarantee was given that no pope would ever formally teach heresy. I remember being shocked when I read somewhere (probably this blog!) that Pope Benedict had put a note at the front of his book about Jesus of Nazareth to say these were his personal opinions and there could be errors. I was shocked at that until I realised that the Holy Spirit would prevent him ever making his errors dogmatic Catholic teaching. It still is shocking, however.
-
ithink there have been some really good points made. It’s best not to call the Pope anything. It suffices to say that he is part of the diabolical disorientation.
-
I agree. It is better not the worry about the things this pope has said and written in books and speeches. Because as forewarned at Fatima. this is a diabolical crisis, it is better to simply note the extent and limits of papal authority and point out that he is not governing the Church as a pope should. That is down to his lack of prudential judgment and possibly courage – neither of which are guaranteed by the promise of Christ that the Church will not fail.
-
I think sedevacantists would have a lot to learn from this thread. Surely the fact that recent popes have never attempted to teach infallibly Conciliar errors is a tell tale sign that the Conciliar Popes have been true popes?
Also, look at Pope Paul Vi and Humanae Vitae. His own bishops recommended that he allow some forms of artificial contraception, but he, undoubtedly under the inspiration of the holy Ghost, issued Humanae Vitae. I absolutely believe only a true pope could do that.
I think we should all be very pleased with how we have expressed our thoughts. We haven’t always agreed, but we have differed charitably which is the way forward.
-
Petrus, I don’t think the Holy Spirit “inspires” popes, but I have always understood the HS “assists” popes – Humanae Vitae is not perfect so I don’t think the HS could have inspired it. He just made sure that it didn’t contradict the essence of Christian doctrine. That’s what I have always understood, and I would be surprised if it was wrong.
I do agree with everything on this blog being very educational and charitably done. That is just so important, because it’s important that we feel comfortable saying what we think is correct without being afraid of humiliation if we’re wrong. Yes, you are right, the post-council popes have been true popes but very disoriented, and not as strong with dissidents as previous popes – that is a weakness, in my view. It’s like any other “big company” – if the CEO is a weak character, it’s not good for the company.
-
I forgot to say that if I’m wrong about popes being “inspired” instead of “assisted” I won’t feel humiliated if someone tells me.
-
Humanae Vitae isn’t perfect. Does it really matter if the word is inspire or assist? Do we really need to split hairs?
-
As a matter of interest, Pope Honorius I was posthumously condemned and excommunicated by the Church, and that was for silencing opposition to just one heresy (monothelitism). He himself did not subscribe to the heresy but tolerated it for the sake of peace. His successors and a few Councils did not share his compromising view with divine truth. The declaration against Honorius is terrifying.
One wonders what will be said of the Post-Vatican II Popes when sanity returns to the Church, for these have allowed all manner of heresies to flourish by their silence. Indeed, what they have allowed is what Pope St. Pius X called “the synthesis of all heresies” (Modernism). We cannot judge them, but I fear the Church may judge them very severely one day. As Jacinta of Fatima was only too aware, the modern Popes need prayers more than ever before.
-
Didn’t Archbishop Lefebvre say that in the future the Church would need to deal with the papacy of Pope Paul VI?
-
Well, Petrus, I think it must be important because I’m sure that “inspire” gives the impress of a direct line to the Holy Ghost in a different way from “assist” but that’s why I asked.
I hope it’s not going off the topic too much to post this link which I think is quite shocking, if it is true.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-archbold/was-cardinal-bevilacqua-murdered -
I think the parts of Humanae Vitae which upheld Catholic teaching were definitely inspired.
-
Yes Petrus, I believe Archbishop Lefebvre did say that. It ties in with what I said regarding Pope Honorius. What a pity that so many sedevacantists have decided not to wait for the legitiamte Magisterial authorities to declare in these matters in God’s good time.
I’ve known some very devout Traditional Catholic people who have fallen into this fatal error of sedevacantism and end up extremely bitter. Sadly, once they go down that road it is nigh on impossible to win them back to any kind of balanced and objective view of the present crisis. Tragic times indeed!
-
Athanasius,
I’d be interested in your opinion. Was Humanae Vitae inspired by the Holy Ghost, or is inspired the wrong word? Similar to Margaret Mary, I’m happy to be corrected on this.
-
I thought of a very simple way to refute sedevacantist arguments, but tell me what you think:
Our Lady requested that “the Pope of 1960″ reveal the Third Secret. The sedevacantists, however, claim there has been no Pope since 1958, since the death of Pius XII.
Their claim, therefore, runs directly afoul of Our Lady.
* * * * * *
On the subject of Paul VI’s papacy, and he himself, having to be brought to account, the Abbe de Nantes’ website claims that his “Book of Accusations” against Paul VI was what derailed an attempt to beatify him. -
Petrus
I wonder whether it is futile to speculate on what or whom was inspired by the Holy Ghost, and what was not – especially since, in recent times, the most bizarre, absurd and heretical writings and behavior have attempted to claim the Holy Ghost’s endorsement. The “Spirit of Vatican II” is, after all, an attempt to insinuate the presence and approval of the Holy Ghost in the destruction of the Church.
I think it is safe to say that any Magisterial work is safeguarded by the Holy Ghost. Beyond that, well…those more knowledgeable than I will have other things to add, so I look forward to seeing what else is on your list.
-
I agree. I just wonder if it might be counter productive to pounce on wrong use of words. Certainly if there is an obvious error then it must be corrected, but the last thing we want is for someone to fear posting lest they use the wrong word!
-
Petrus and Torkay,
I think it safe to say that Humanae Vitae was inspired by the Holy Ghost because it touches directly and universally on the Church’s moral teaching.
Torkay,
It’s quite interesting what you say about the Abbe de Nantes. I believe he is sedevacantist. Incredible stuff, eh? Mind you, I can’t see how anyone could ever have considered beatification for Pope Paul VI in the first place.
-
Sorry, folks, I have to correct this “inspiration” error. I know, as someone has said, it seems like “splitting hairs” but it’s not really. Here’s the Church’s teaching stated at both Vatican I and Vatican II…
Dogmatic definition of 1870
The infallibility of the pope was formally defined in 1870 at the First Vatican Council:
“We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.” (see Denziger §1839). ”
— Vatican Council, Sess. IV , Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter ivWe find this teaching repeated at Vatican II
“Given the extraordinary greatness and importance that this Magisterium has for the faith, Christian tradition has recognized in the Successor of Peter, who exercises it personally or in communion with the bishops gathered in council, a charism of assistance from the Holy Spirit that is customarily called “infallibility.”
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930317en.htmlI, for one, am very glad no post-conciliar popes have ever claimed to be divinely inspired! That would be very difficult indeed to defend! I mean, they may or not be “inspired” in particular instances, just as any of us may be divinely inspired (e.g. to set up this blog!) but it’s not a guarantee of the papacy. What we are witnessing in the likes of Humanae Vitae, IS precisely the promised divine “assistance” – that document is not perfect and Pope Paul VI, some claim, was all for changing the Church’s teaching on contraception certainly before he was elected pope, but thanks to the promised divine assistance, he did not fall into the error of making that immorality permissible for the Catholic faithful – or anyone else for that matter. If contraception is wrong for Catholics, that’s because it’s wrong for everyone.
-
Surely if,as has been noted above, the Pope can be “inspired” in particular instances, isn’t it safe to say that parts of Humanae Vitae are “inspired” in so much as it upholds the moral teaching of the Church? I wouldn’t go so far as saying this is an “error”.
-
Didn’t Pope Paul VI invoke his office as the Successor of Saint Peter and so, speak “ex cathedra”?
“Consequently, now that We have sifted carefully the evidence sent to Us and intently studied the whole matter, as well as prayed constantly to God, We, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ, intend to give Our reply to this series of grave questions.”
Like someone else said, if I am wrong on this I’m happy to be corrected.
-
editor,
Thank you for your clarification. My post above was actually trying to say exactly what you have just said but I made the mistake of using the word “inspired” instead of “assisted.”
I suggest we move away from the confusion of “inspired” versus “assisted” and just state that Humanae Vitae is INFALLIBLE Catholic teaching, it’s so much clearer.
-
Petrus,
I think you may have misread editor’s post. Read the last paragraph again and you’ll see that she upholds the infallibility of Humanae Vitae. Have you tried specsavers??
-
I’ve just reread the post above. Yes, I see what you mean now. Apologies, Madam (not you, Athy!).
Having read everything again, I agree that “inspire” is not the most accurate. “Assist” is much clearer. I also agree that what matters is that Humanae Vitae is infallible (parts of it, at least). So, despite the diabolical disorientation, Pope Paul VI, assisted by the Holy Ghost, upheld the Traditional teaching of the Church.
-
Specsavers? When my third child is born (please God) in 5 weeks I will be walking around like Jack Duckworth!
-
You calling me a “madam” Petrus? Watch it!
I agree with everyone who agreed with me!
-
It’s either madam or “mad wummin”, take your pick!
-
editor
I like the ring of “mad wummin,” so mad wummin it is!
Anyway, I’m glad to see that you have agreed to agree with everyone who agrees with you. Had you not agreed, then everyone who agreed with you would have been forced to re-think their agreement and that could have led to endless disagreement in a matter that should have been agreed upon from the outset, had it not been for the confusion caused by “assist” Vs “inspired.” I trust I make myself perfectly obscure. Yes, I thought you might agree!
Petrus
Think yourself fortunate that it’s only your third child due in 5 weeks and not your fifth child due in three weeks. Otherwise your blogging career was out the window! Mind you, there’s still the possibility of triplets!
-
Triplets? You calling my wife fat???
-
I never thought of that. Sorry Mrs. Petrus, I meant to say really skinny triplets all lined up in space-conserving single file like wee paratroopers awaiting the green light.
-
Athanasius
I don’t think the Abbe de Nantes is a sedevacantist – he never claims the Chair is empty. In fact, a little while ago I came across confirmation of one of his claims, that the Apostolic Letter promulgating the new Mass in April 1969 (?) was mistranslated, and there was never any actual promulgation.
The confirmation of this is in “Iota Unum,” on the chapter on sloppy Latin and mistranslations. Of course, the book is out in the car, but if you pray really hard for me, I might get up the gumption to freeze half to death whilst I go out there to get it….
This also seems to confirm a statement of Paul VI himself: didn’t he once state that he merely intended to offer his new Missal as an “option”?
-
Say what you like about the Pope (and we frequently do!) there’s no question but that YOU are inspired Athanasius – no doubt at all!
More than that I refuse to say on the grounds that it could be used against me in a court of law!
-
editor
I am also frequently “assisted.” I’m assisted going up stairs, coming down stairs, trying to get up when kneeling, etc., etc.
Torkay
Here is an extract from a website linked with the Abbe de Nantes:
“In this summer of 1975 the Abbé de Nantes cried out loud and clear: “John- Baptist Montini is now for us like the pagan and the publican (Mt 18.15-17), like one excommunicated.51″ Thus he renewed the accusation that he had formulated for the first time in 1967, when he had written in his Letter to my friends no 240: “Between the Pope and us, between this Council and us, there is a kind of permanent excommunication.52″
Such an acknowledgement of a rupture of communion with Paul VI and with the reformist bishops was in no way a rupture with Christ and with His Holy Church. After the unworthy disavowal of Mgr Lefebvre, the Abbé de Nantes thought it would be very useful to demonstrate this truth again to his readers, which he did in his editorial of July 1975 entitled: “Let him be for you as an excommunicate”.
And here’s the link to the website in question. Don’t be swayed by it!!
http://www.crc-internet.org/ftc3.htm
I believe It shows conclusively that Abbe de Nantes considered at least Paul VI to be a heretic and an excommunicate.
By the way, you’re right about Paul VI promulgating the New Mass on the basis of producing a choice of liturgies. Pity the bishops didn’t see it that way!
-
Athanasius
Sorry to be dense, but from that quote it looks to me as though he is claiming that there is an excommunicate rupture between himself and his followers, and the Pope and the Council – not between the Pope and the Church.
And is that statement “Let him be for you an excommunicate” referring to the Pope or to Abp. Lefebvre?
-
Hey! Mad Wummin!
Aren’t I inspired? Or am I more expired? Or perspired?
-
Torkay,
If you re-read the first part of the quote it is clear that for Abbe de Nantes Pope Paul VI was equal to the Pagan and the Publican. By writing thus he makes indirect reference to the Gospel admonition which says that those who refuse to hear the Gospel should be treated as the Pagan and the Publican. In other words, they should be cut off. He also rejects the entire Council without distinction.
Furthermore, he doesn’t refer to Pope Paul VI but rather to John Baptist Montini, which in itself is supsicious. He is also known to have prepared a document of accusations of heresy against Pope Paul, which document he attempted to lodge at the Vatican with a demand for a Canonical law suit against the Pope. He later accused Pope John Paul II to his face of being a heretic.
As for the last line of the entire quote, he is actually refering here to Archbishop Lefebvre. For the Abbe, Archbishop Lefebvre’s refusal to completely reject the Council and to cut himself off from the Modernist hierarchy of the time meant that he too was to be considered excommunicate. This is a classic accusation of sedevacantists who excommunicate all who do not reject entirely the modernist hierarchy of the Church and their Council.
-
Interesting stuff! Regarding rejecting the Council, isn’t the Council like a block? Even if parts of it are ok, shouldn’t it all be binned? Even the parts that are alright are still ambiguous. Councils of the Church shouldn’t be. Didn’t Our Lord say something like “let yes mean yes and no mean no. Everything else is from the Devil”?
-
Petrus
I would say that the authorities in the Church may eventually have to reconsider this Council in its entirety, but that would be for the legitimate authorities to decide.
All we can do as Catholics is to adhere to those teachings which are in line with all the other Councils and reject the novelties. I believe this was the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, and remains that of the SSPX. The situation is similar to the changes Pope John XXIII made to the 1962 Missal. Archbishop Lefebvre reviewed those changes and declared that since there was nothing contrary to faith in them he was obliged to obey. The same approach should, I believe, hold true in the case of Vatican II.
-
Of course. I should have said that it is for the Church to “bin” the Council. Absolutely.
Personally, I ignore it. It defined nothing and the parts that are ok, you find better expressed elsewhere.
-
Petrus
Exactly!
-
This papacy has set out to hybridise the Latin Mass from the beginning. It has never been and will never be interested in restoring the Usus Antiquor except in those aspects that serve its liberal modernist intentions. Indeed, Pope Benedict XVI is a true liberal. Anyone who understands modern philosophy will grasp immediately why the SP is structured the way it is. It is the trap into which most neo-trads have fallen.
Indeed, in entire keeping with the liberal penchant for change and novelty this papacy is akin to its post-conciliar predecessors’. Nothing will remain untouched or unchanged. The Latin Mass of All Times remains in danger of being altered until it no longer resembles the pre-1962 books. The objective of “razing the bastions” has never changed. Read the works of this pope in their entirety and you will understand his modus operandi. -
LeonG,
Do you not give the Pope credit for at least trying to restore the Liturgy to some semblence of order? Even as Cardinal Ratzinger he expressed his concerns about the way Vatican 2 was being treated as “a new start from zero” and the liturgy was “a banal on the spot production.”
I’m inclined to agree with you, that really he wants a hybrid liturgy, though.
-
LeonG,
It is amazing how God can bring good things even from liberal ideas. This Pope, although liberal, has rehabilitated the 1962 Missal thereby opening up this treasure to a whole new generation of priests. I believe he has even insisted on re-introducing it to seminarians. That’s a great step forward from, say, 5 years ago.
He is also doing a little, perhaps too little, but a little more than his predecessor, to encourage the Traditional method of receiving Holy Communion. These are positive steps, no matter what the intention behind them. It will surprise even the liberals how these concessions will quickly arouse interest in a return to the Traditional worship of the Church.
All I know is that on two occasions the SSPX has offered Rosary bouquets to this Pope, which have resulted in the rehabilitation of the ancient liturgy and the lifting of those unjust excommunications. Our Lady definitely has something to do with these events. I wonder what will come of this latest Rosary crusade for the consecration of Russia? Interesting times!
-
The only papal statement Catholics required on The Holy Mass was that of Pope St Pius V because it is definitive and reinforced with infallible doctrinal guarantees. We have always had the inalienable right to this liturgical rite – it depends on nothing else. However, strategically, he has attempted to inextricably link the NO and its integral approval by all catholics to The Latin Mass. This is a characteristic liberal manoeuvre. It suggests further radical actions altering liturgical praxis and an eventual “evolutionary leap forward” to a unique hybrid liturgy in order to fulfill the postmodernist Chardinesque imperative of a cosmological rite of Mass. The SP has an immediate emotive appeal but its implications are never-ending change. One way or the other acc epting it carries everything else with it. This is why it ought to be rejected as a liberal modernist strategy which resembles a step backwards but facilitates two steps forward.
If you do not understand this then you have understood nothing about the subversive post-conciliar process to destroy what is now considered a “bastion” that needs “razing”. The church has taken a lutheran liturgical turn elsewhere and The Latin Mass will eventually be deconstructed to fit this memorial option which we can infer from the NO and its lutheran counterpart.
Both Pope John Paul II (RIP) and this pope have gone out of their way to rehabilitate Luther. Once this is driven through then the liturgy will be adaptable for almost any ecumenical and inter-religious function.
The shame is that he SSPX approved the 1962 books and accepted the validity of the NO. However, in practice I know many traditional priests cannot accept either and still say the pre-1962 Latin Mass and know that the vernacular rite of Mass is not Roman Catholic but protestant. -
In fact, there are indult priests who cannot accept the NO either and say the pre-1962 editions of The Latin Mass. I have listened to some interesting sermons from them on occasion.
-
Bishop Fellay said we should welcome Summorum Pontificum and support priests who learn the Mass as a result. How are we supposed to get the Church back on track if we reject what the Pope does, however, little or imperfect. It’s a very fine line to tread to stop falling into schism. What is your position on sedevacantism, LeonG?
-
LeonG
You appear to be very concerned about things that haven’t yet happened. You say that Pope Benedict is aiming for a hybrid Mass, yet I see no evidence to suggest a movement in that direction. If anything there has been a clear distinction made between the New Mass (Lutheran-leaning liturgy), which is brazenly called the “Ordinary Form,” and the Mass of all time, which is equally brazenly called the “Extraordinary Form.”
If, as you suspect, a hybrid Mass was the intention, then I sincerely doubt that there would have been such a liberal outcry against SP. The greater majority of liberal bishops in the Church don’t want any kind of hybrid Mass, they want the extinction of every trace of the Latin Liturgy. In fact some of them are so liberal that they have even resisted the Pope’s revision of the New Missal because it brings certain prayers closer in translation to the Latin Mass.
As for the 1962 Missal of Pope John XXIII, I think you are seriously misguided in your judgment both in respect to Archbishop Lefebvre and the legitimacy of that Rite of Mass.
Archbishop Lefebvre was opposed to changes in the Church which either put the faith in danger or contradicted it outrightly. In this he was a staunch defender of truth. He was not, however, a rebel against the Holy See and the legitimate authority of the Pope.
Popes are not per se barred from making legitimate alterations to the Liturgical Rites of the Church, provided such alterations are in line with Tradition. Pope John made such a change to the 1962 Missal, adding the name of St. Joseph, for example, to the Canon. There was no drastic Liturgical upheaval, such as later happened with the New Mass. Archbishop Lefebvre, having studied the changes of Pope John, declared “There is nothing contrary to the faith in these changes, so I must obey.” Here is the key to distinguishing between true and false obedience. We are only permitted to disobey if a Pope asks us to accept something which is dangerous or contrary to the faith. Quo Primum did not forbid legitimate Liturgical alteration by a future Pontiff. What it forbade was that entirely new entity they call the New Mass.
Hence, while I can understand rebellion against the New Mass, even though it can still be valid with the correct matter, form and intention (greatly obscured, I admit), I cannot accept revolt against the Missal of Pope John XXIII. Archbishop Lefebvre got this one right. You would have to demonstrate to me how, and in what way, the changes of Pope John put the Mass or the faith in danger. Simple dismissal of his rightful authority to make changes of any kind doesn’t hold water; it’s a non-Traditional, non-historical argument.
-
That is correct. Popes are not barred from making adjustments. However, these adjustments must be organic and not a rupture. The Rites of the Church must be “received and approved”. Therefore, making organic alterations is permitted; creating an entirely new Rite is most definitely not.
The adjustments made by Pope John XXIII were very minor and certainly didn’t constitute a new Rite of Mass. Therefore, the 1962 Missal is “received and approved”. Archbishop Lefebvre got that spot on.
Regarding Summorum Pontificum, of course it’s a step in the right direction. There are now priests all over the world saying the True Mass because of it. It is folly to be overly critical.
-
I should have also said that SP came about as a result of a Rosary Crusade, which is important to note. Also, Bishop Fellay has urged Catholics to give every support to modern priests who attempt to learn the True Mass. Indeed, even Bishop Williamson has praised the current Pope for issuing SP. He describes it as another swallow appearing in what will, eventually, in God’s own time, become a summer!
-
Something I’ve wondered about is that some traditional priests still have the third confiteor, just before Holy Communion. That’s not in the 1962 missal. I actually like it – it emphasises the importance of being sorry for our sins and in a state of grace before receiving Communion, but if Archbishop Lefebvre approved the 1962 missal, why does this happen?
-
Zita
Something tells me that a special indult was given to include the 3rd Confiteor. I could be wrong, but I’m sure someone told me that.
-
Zita
There has always been only the two confiteors in the Traditional Mass, one during the opening prayers at the foot of the altar and the other just before Holy Communion.
What may be throwing you a little is that the initial confiteor is said first by the priest and then separately by the altar servers, while the second is said only by the altar servers. It adds up to three, but only two pertain to the servers and congregation.
-
Athanasius,
The confiteor before Holy Communion is not in the 1962 Missal, is it? So why is it said during the Mass?
-
“You appear to be very concerned about things that haven’t yet happened”
You are obviously blind – they are already underway. The Mass is already beinmg hybridised with the NO. Staements from officialdom also indicate that the intention is clearly to hybridise into one cosmological form.
-
Petrus
You had better be clear in your definition of “organic” since the post-conciliar papacies exploit the concept of “organicity” phenomenologically.
-
I refer only to the 1962 revision of the Missal. As I said, “the Rites of the Church must be received and approved” and a Pope has no authority to “create” a New Rite. I believe the 1962 Missal to be “received” and the changes made were very minor. Archbishop Lefebvre found nothing contrary to the Faith in this Missal.
You seem to be unjustly critical of anyone who disagrees with you. Tell me this, what do you make of Sedevacantism?
-
Petrus
No time for sedevacantism. This is a digression.
What is of immediate and pressing concern is The Holy Mass is being hybridised already. This pope (NB Petrus, I do not employ this word loosely) wants the two Rites synchronised or ” two forms of the same rite” as he contentiously insists they are. The general lack of any discipline in the modernist church will take care of the rest – once the two Rites (NO and TLM) are joined together then the usual lack of liturgical discipline will continue under the next liberal modernist papacy (God forbid) This pope has nothing gartuitously towards the TLM – both the SP and all his writings on liturgy and modernist principles which guide his actions demonstrate the underlying strategy. He is not a simple man & does nothing simply – he is intellectually immensely astute and knows the traditionalist psychology. His objectives are to hybridise and he has set this liturgical course en route.
We did not need his SP to “liberate” the TLM – Pope St Pius V has done this already. We ought to be thankful to him and his predecessors and pre-1960s conciliar successors. they have put everything that is essential in place to insure our rights to hear this Rite of Holy Mass.
Some people make the policies of Benedict XVI and SSPX sound like a trade off – we give you two Rosary Crusades and you let us off excommunication and “liberate” the TLM. let us chat over the Councils and come to some arrangement over them.
This is a very over-simplified view of what has taken place. The pope has manipulated this situation to pull The SSPX into a compromising situation because he certainly did feel some remorse at what one can only describe as a the debatable action of JP II (RIP) in excommunicating them. However, he would also like, as a true liberal, to include The SSPX with all the other groups and sects which have come under the ecumenical fold of the modernist church (N-CW, Focolare, Anglicans etc). If any traditionalist group wants to be able to practice The Faith today it has to conform to the Conciliar paradigm – ecumenical, interreligious, liturgical, pastoral or otherwise. If it means rehabilitating Martin Luther then no one is allowed to condemn this under the new regime. Accept the new liturgical praxis -accept everything – like the indult groups one’s lips have to remain sealed. All is evolving Omegawards.
Our Blessed Lady knows the new church is one of compromises as She has admonished this fact at Akita and at Fatima too in another manner. The best we can say here is that She plays Her part in ensuring some Roman Catholics, at least, can continue to practice The Faith and attend the true Roman Catholic liturgy no matter what happens elsewhere in the church of compromises. If Rosary Crusades do anything they certainly give the proper courage and strength to continue along the guidelines She has carefully given us in these appalling times where traditionalists are being persecuted by the church that once only espoused Sacred Tradition. To claim they have made the pope act in certain ways is less sure Judging by his ecumenical and inter-religious actions so far it is doubtful if he has been influenced at all. His own statements on liturgy and those of some of his appointees appear to strongly suggest hybridisation.
-
LeonG
Can you provide me with concrete evidence to back up what you say about the Mass?
I think you should be careful of voicing too strongly your own opinions in these very serious matters concerning the Church’s Liturgy. I detect no little bitterness in your posts and that is never a good sign. We must at all times remain charitable and objective, even when taking a firm stand against Modernism.
The devil is very clever! If he cannot get souls to weaken or abandon their faith through liberalism, he encourages them to go the other way and adopt sedevacantism or a schismatic mentality. It’s the same tactic at the end of the day, people rebelling on the basis of personal opinion instead of relying on the opinion of someone more qualified than they. Archbishop Lefebvre was only too aware of this danger and that’s why he said “we are neither to the left nor to the right.”
Sacred Scripture declares the angry man to be like one who has lost his reason. Sedevacantism represents such a loss of reason, it is the most illogical position to hold.
For example, if the Popes from John XXIII, some go further back to Pius XII(?), are not true Popes, then all the Cardinals they have raised are, by default, not true Cardinals. And if this be true, who will elect a future valid Pope? Also, what becomes of Our Lord’s promise to His Apostles and to the indefectability of the Church? Yes, sedevacantism is true spiritual madness, just like the opposite extremity Liberalism, and so unneccesary. Perhaps this is why Fr. Malachi Martin said that the unrepentant sedevacantist will never see the face of God.
-
Petrus
I think you may be right to point out that the second confiteor is not in the 1962 Missal, but this does not mean that the SSPX rejects the 1962 Missal. Indeed, Bishop Fellay, and the SSPX generally, has welcomed the rehabilitation of the 1962 Mass. Saying the second confiteor, then, which is in the 1958 edition, is more down to preference I think than rejection of Pope John’s Missal. Each of these two editions maintains the integrity of the Mystery, so there is no real question to be answered.
-
Athanasius,
Please don’t misunderstand me. I don’t think for one minute the SSPX reject the 1962 Missal. Of course not. I was simply curious.
I’m sure I asked this questions some years ago and was told that when this was queried after the publication of the 1962 Missal, the Holy See gave permission for the practice to continue.
-
Petrus
I know you don’t think the SSPX reject the 1962 Missal, but you raised a good question that others may have used to insinuate that the SSPX rejects it. I think we have clarified the position between us.
-
Athanasius,
Thank goodness we are both around!
-
Well,
Someone in Una Voce actually made the point to me some time ago that we can hardly criticise diocesan priests for invoking their liturgical “preferences” if the SSPX priests are doing the same. Like Zita, I think the Confitereor just prior to Communion is beautiful and I think it should have been retained – we cannot say “sorry” to God too often! But I don’t like double standards wherever I find them. Unless there has been a permission/indult given, then the SSPX priests should not be disobeying the rubric of the 62 missal.
There is, certainly, a mentality in Rome to hybridise the two Masses. If you all recall, we had a highly placed priest on here advocating that some time ago, telling us that this is indeed the aim of many in high places (HE is in a very high place!)
We even had something in the newsletter not that long ago about this. I’m going to start putting a slip in every edition for people to tick boxes and return to me – a kind of test before they get the next edition!
NO question, Pope Benedict is a liberal. LeonG has rightly and accurately pointed out that he wishes to have various wings in the Church, making it very similar to the Anglicans – he’s even given them their own “branch” – Ordinariates here, there and everywhere. Keep everyone happy, until we all converge into the one world religion of Masonic dreams. I’m not saying this is his explicit intention but this is in the nature of the diabolical disorientation. Doesn’t mean we don’t thank God for SP and some of the things this Pope has said which enrages the liberals – trouble is he doesn’t follow up with actions. Like asking us to pray, on eve of election, that he would not flee for fear of the wolves and then appointed one of the worst wolves to replace him at the CDF. Let’s face facts – squarely, and without apology.
And please, let’s not go down this road of correcting perceived personal failings in others. I get tired of being told I’m “angry” every time I remark that, hey, it’s a pity the Irish have got heretics running their Eucharistic Congress or Jesuits in Glasgow telling folk a bunch of lies about the pre-Vatican II Church, and being applauded for it. Too blankety blank RIGHT I’m angry – and justifiably so – at having to spend time on matters that should be of no concern to me.
I discussed this recently with a good friend, longtime traditional Mass attender, and he pointed out to me that, generally speaking, the folks who warn against getting “angry” (as they see it – with connotations of temper) are often people who don’t have lapsed children in their family. Children who, the parents thought, were being taught their faith in Catholic schools, and so on. By the time the penny drops, too late and the youngsters have been lost to the Church. “Angry”? He said: “doesn’t begin to describe it.”
Charity takes various forms – being gentle and sweet is wonderful, and as often as possible, that is how we should try to be. But being forthright and plain speaking is not necessarily uncharitable – indeed, it may be the reverse. It my be entirely UNcharitable to be “gentle and sweet” when plain speaking is required. In any case, I don’t read LeonG’s posts as “angry” in any negative sense. I wish he’d been present at that awful Vatican II session in Garnethill the other week. And how!
No, I don’t read LeonG’s posts as “angry” in any negative sense of the word. Indeed, we could use a few more like him!
-
This policy of uniting the old and new masses reminds me of the Irish Referendum on Europe. The Irish rejected it but the politicians just waited and then held another one and now that they have the result they want, they won’t have another just to make sure. In the Church we had the Novus Ordo attempt to alter the holy sacrifice but it has clearly not been a success so a second attempt is proposed.
The really worrying thing about this is the question of validity. Pope Benedict mentioned when questioned about the Third Secret of Fatima that the message relates to the End Times. Now if we consider the prophecies of Daniel about the End Times we read in Chapter 9:
27 He will strike a firm alliance with many people for the space of a week; and for the space of one half-week he will put a stop to sacrifice and oblation, and on the wing of the Temple will be the appalling abomination until the end, until the doom assigned to the devastator.’
The Jewish sacrifice ended 2000 years ago so in the present day the only possible explanation for the ending of sacrifice and oblation is the holy sacrifice of the mass. In the context of the present discussion therefore the question arises, ‘Will the unified new mass they are proposing be valid. If not then we will have the end of sacrifice and oblation and the appalling abomination set up in the holy place.
The other interesting connection with the Third Secret of Fatima is Daniel’s prophecy in 9: 26 which says that and anointed one will be cut off. This is precisely what the Third secret of Fatima says.
-
editor
Forthright and plain speaking, as you rightly point out, is most often charitable. Anger, however, is rarely charitable, although it can be in very rare circumstances, such as in the driving out of the money changers from the Temple.
Personally, I take for my models the Popes and saints who were frequently forthright but never angry. “The anger of man worketh not the justice of God,” says Holy Scripture, and Our Lord says “learn of Me for I am meek and humble of heart.” Archbishop Lefebvre spoke very forthrightly about the present crisis, but he never did so with anger. So, while I can understand people being angry, I fear it never achieves anything good. I’ve been there and I have the stomach problems to prove it. I prefer these days to set my sights (and prayers) on being as wise as a serpent but as harmless as a dove.
LeonG
First an apology. I assumed you to be sedevacantist and it is now clear to me that you are no such thing. My profound apologies for my rash judgment.
As regards your position, however, I think you do Our Lady no little injustice when you suggest that the Rosary crusades of the SSPX have little to do with the rehabilitation of the TLM and the lifting of the unjust excommunications. The Pope took a lot of stick for these actions, yet he somehow pushed ahead with them. For me, this uncharacteristic determination on the Pope’s part shows what the power of Our Lady can achieve.
As regards the Mass, Bishop Fellay has talked about a new generation of bishops coming through the ranks in the Church, bishops such as Athanasius Schneider. These prelates do not have the same attachment to Vatican II as the liberal old guard. Indeed, Bishop Schneider is already asking the Pope to draw up an “Index” of Conciliar errors.
It’s not all negative in the Church, there are still many good souls who want the Traditions of the Faith restored. That’s why I believe all this talk about a hybrid Mass is flawed. The New Mass is on its last legs, the churches are empty and the seminaries and religious houses have all but gone. It is, frankly, impossible to merge the New and Old Masses, and the Pope kids himself if he really thinks the two rites can seriously be called manifestations of the same rite.
No, I see Our Lady beginning to act here. She foretold at Quito that She would intervene in a most sudden and miraculous way to restore everything, which ties in perfectly with the Message of Fatima and the triumph of the Immaculate Heart.
Our part is to offer those Rosaries, keep the Faith (and help others to keep it, or rediscover it), and do our duty in accordance with our state in life. We also have a very grave duty to pray for the Pope and the bishops, as little Jacinta demonstrated. By all means let us point out the errors of the liberals, but let us do so with charity and objectivity without allowing our suspicions to carry us into the realm of conspiracy.
-
1. Why do some parishes or religious orders include a second Confiteor prior to the Communion of the Faithful?
“In pre-1962 Missals in the Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae, X, 6, this Confiteor is stipulated. In the same section in the 1962 Missal it simply is not mentioned, but nowhere in the rubrics is it forbidden in an explicit manner. Apart from this omission the ordinary of the Mass was not changed.”The Missal of 1962 – A Rock of Stability
by Michael Davies – Spring 2001go to: http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_SP_Davies.html
Additionally, Klaus Gamber, a favorite liturgical author of Pope Benedict XVI, wrote in his critique of the liturgical reforms that the second Confiteor was a legitimate option in both the 1962 and 1965 versions of the Missal, even though they were not specifically mentioned.
Regarding the question of the second Confiteor in the 1962 Missale Romanum, in the Ponticale Romanum (Marietti, editio iuxta typicam, 1962) there is a second Confiteor prescribed in Ordination Masses. Thus, the use of the second Confiteor is not foreign to the use of the 1962 Missale Romanum.
-
Editor,
Isn’t anger one of the seven deadly sins?
-
“Wrath” – vengeful anger – is one of the seven deadly sins, Petrus. Not righteous anger (to which we sometimes have a DUTY). “Be angry and sin not” St Paul told the Ephesians.
Obviously, of course, we know our own natures: if someone is tending towards an outburst of temper when they experience anger, then definitely they ought to curb that. A cold anger, however, arising from the utter destruction around us in the Church, is perfectly legitimate, such as that expressed by the father of a now entirely lapsed family that I mentioned earlier. He is perfectly entitled to be angry with successive bishops and popes whose lack of proper governance of the Church has led to this pitiful state of affairs. It didn’t cross MY mind to send Pope Benedict a bunch of flowers and a Valentine’s card today – what about you sweet and patient guys? Oops… Maybe I should delete that sentence… but you’ll get my drift!
I’m grateful for the quotes from Michael Davies/Klaus Gamber about the third Confiteor; however I doubt if it would satisfy the Una Voce person who approached me on the matter. I could imagine him arguing that “just because something’s not specifically forbidden doesn’t mean it can’t be done” cuts more than one way! I mean, can you imagine Cardinal Schonborn defending his daft Balloon Masses shenanigans by saying “well, after all, Balloon Masses are not specifically forbidden!!!”
But me – I get the point!
-
Editor,
So it was you who sent me the flowers and chocolates? Ah shucks!
-
How on EARTH did you guess? (I hope Athanasius hasn’t worked it out, yet…)!
Well, what could I do – the real love of my life is no longer with us…
I made up a Valentine verse in case he returned, which I’ll share with you. See if you can guess identity of the object of my admiration – but, as Shakespeare might say – speakest thou not his name, for fear of his (wrathful) return…
VERSE…
He is noble like a cathedral (tho’ not St Andrew’s in Glasgow)
and as the poet Burns would say,
He is a man for awe that…
When he used to blog, I sneakest off to pray…Remember, Petrus – speakest thou not his name! To signal thy understanding, merely say “yeah” or “nay”!
-
Absolutely brilliant! Yay!
-
Editor,
It’s a pity your una voce friend was so selective in his queries regarding the second Confiteor. I’ve spent the last hour reading blog after blog about this. This practice is not limited to the SSPX. The vast majority of people contributing to these blogs whho attend the TLM report that the second Confiteor is always said. That’s SSPX, FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, Diocesan TLMs and a few Carmelites. It appears to be a custom that was retained after 1962 in most places.
What we need to remember is that not all priests who celebrate the TLM use the 1962 Missal. I know for a fact that one of the priests in the chapel I attend doesn’t use it.
-
And I don’t think this is similar to a Novus Ordo priest adding his own preferences. This is retaining part of the received Rites of the Church. Not further bastardising what was already a bastard in the first place!
-
Petrus,
At last! THAT is the point. And don’t worry, despite my “double standards” jibe (to annoy everyone) I left the Una Voce gentleman in no doubt whatsoever that this was not in the same league as the liturgical abuses that are commonplace in novus ordo Masses. If the worst thing they can say about SSPX priests is that they are allowing an “extra” confiteor, then we can all enjoy our beauty sleep undisturbed. Especially those of us who really NEED our beauty sleep… (that’s NOT a jibe at you Petrus, or you, Athanasius – or even YOU, Eileenanne!)
-
Editor,
I become an old man tomorrow so I need my beauty sleep.
What are you on tonight? Oh wait, I know! Top form!
-
Today is Petrus’ 30th Birthday, so, on behalf of all our bloggers I wish him many happy returns. Have a wonderful day, Petrus.
Did you hear the one about…
Grandpa Jones’ 100th birthday – and he was still in perfect health. At his birthday party he was asked how he managed to live so long and stay so fit.
He explained “I put my long life down to spending so much time out of doors.
I’ve been in the open air, day after day, rain or shine, for the last 75th years.”
“How do you manage to keep up such a rigorous fitness regime?” we asked.
“It’s simple” he said. “When I married my wife 75 years ago, we both made solemn pledge on our wedding day. We agreed that whenever we ever had a fight, whoever was proved wrong would go outside and take a long walk.”
-
Just a little insight why as to the SSPX and the use of the second Confiteor, that immediately precedes the Holy Communion of the faithful.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (from the angelusonline.org)
Q. Why is the second Confiteor omitted from the missal just published by Angelus Press?
A. The 1962 Roman Catholic Daily Missal published by Angelus Press in January 2005 is essentially a re-typeset version of the Ideal Missal of 1962 with the addition of certain commentaries and prayers. The publisher did not make any modification to the rubrics of the Mass, as published on July 25, 1960.
In these rubrics of 1960 the second Confiteor, that immediately precedes the Holy Communion of the faithful, was abolished. The reason for this abolition was that it was a late introduction into the Mass (16th century) from the ceremony of administration of Holy Communion. It is certainly true that the second Confiteor is not necessary to the integrity of the Mass, being simply a repetition of what the altar boy recited at the beginning of the Mass.
In the first years of the Society of Saint Pius X, the second Confiteor was not recited, in accordance with the rubrics. However, the universal custom beforehand was to recite the second Confiteor. This universal custom was maintained even after the introduction of the rubrical changes of 1960. The reason for this can easily be understood. It is a perfect preparation for Holy Communion, and it helps the faithful to examine their conscience to determine if their soul is in the state of grace, in order to receive worthily the Most Blessed Sacrament, and if it is to renew their sorrow for the deliberate venial sins that could be an obstacle to the reception of grace from Holy Communion.
In the Church, custom has force of law, unless it is expressly reproved (Cf. Canons 5, 28 and 30 of the 1917 Code). Archbishop Lefebvre, then Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, acknowledged the universality of this custom of reciting the second Confiteor before Holy Communion, and in 1978 determined that the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X would follow this universal custom amongst traditional Catholics.
However, this being said, the Society of Saint Pius X has no authority to modify the Church’s liturgical books, nor does it pretend to do so. This is why Angelus Press did not modify this rubric in the publication of its 1962 Roman Catholic Daily Missal [available from Angelus Press. Price: $59.95].God Bless
-
I agree with LeonG’s post about plans to hybridize (i.e. further destroy) the Mass. This fits perfectly with what I have previously described as the Pope’s “big tent” vision – which, as we know, is just another false interpretation of “unity,” and actually, in my opinion, an insidious development in false ecumenism. Insidious, because it moves beyond the mere endless dialogue stage, and actually creates a place for non/anti-Catholicism within the Church.
Hybridization is the standard liberal stratagem: the reforms haven’t worked up until now, so what we need is even more reform.
The more I think about this Pope’s pattern of behavior, the less I like him – and in fact, the angrier I become (sorry, Athanasius!). He is just more vatican ii in sheep’s clothing. But as his Papacy lengthens, he is becoming more and more of the emperor without clothes.
By the way, LeonG, I hope you return often.
PS – Happy Birthday, Petrus! Don’t forget: the older you get, the faster life goes by…even though, as my 18-yr old pointed out, “Dad, that violates the laws of physics.”
-
Rosary15
That is one very useful post about the second/third confiteor. Many thanks for that.
Torkay, your comment about age reminds me of the story of the old lady who was being interviewed by reporters on the occasion of her 110th birthday. “What do you think is the reason for your long life?” they asked her. “Oh,” she replied, “I suppose it’s because I was born such a long time ago.”
-
That’s very funny, Editor. How is it that you have so many anecdotes about age???
-
She’s a woman of great age herself, Tork!
-
Editor the next time you’re in Ireland for conferences I think you could make a bit of cash on the side doing “The Comedy Circuit”
My apologies Torkay.
I missed your post on February 9, 4:40 pm.
Like you I put my foot in Iniquity too, although be it from a different direction. Some years ago through some family trouble I was forced to be embroiled with the Family Law Courts in Ireland (Where Iniquity Abounds) and my life was brought to its lowest ebb in despair. This is where God found me and brought me home after many years absence from the Church. Through the grace of God my long absence helped me to be discerning when I attended Mass in the Novus Ordo for the first time. (A young priest I met at the SSPX St. Ignatius Retreat house, Ridgefield Connecticut jokingly described me as an “Eyes wide open Revert”)
After getting over my initial shock of seeing the ‘New Mass’ I realized it did not stop there. What a shock it was to discover; that the people I watched with a certain amount of guilt and envy for years as they made their way to Mass every Sunday were so removed from the Catholicism that I was brought up in. I went to Church looking for God and found an assembly of the people, by the people, for the people. It seemed to me this happy clappy assembly had broken away from the Catholic Church.My involvement with a group that offers help to families that are caught up in the nets of family law and my involvement with pro-life groups etc. led me to speak with a lot of these people on these issues at ‘Catholic meetings etc. A typical reaction coming from a middle aged lady who professed to be a devout Catholic all her life as she attacked me by saying “Who do you think you are; trying to take away our rights to Contraception, Divorce, and Abortion.” Talk about Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi Lex Vivendi, basically how you pray, is how you believe, is how you live.
Being a bloody minded man; I became obsessed with tracking where this New Religion and all these agendas of the Culture of Death emanated from. And no matter where I began or what road I took, all paths led to that hub in the United Nations. And these people control nearly every facet of our lives today.
Torkay I am glad that that through your involvement you can give witness to how satanic this agenda really is. And you will probably be aware also of the ‘Great Invocation’ and Triangles.
To be honest I would advise discretion as to reading further and viewing the videos, because to be honest it still scares the hell out of me even after years of research. But people really need to know who the real enemy is!
Firstly this is what they call Triangles, a movement dedicated to worldwide prayer to assist the work of the ‘Hierarchy’! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMjKSQZXdsk&feature=related
Next the ‘Great Invocation’!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkQvXEYeJLA&feature=relmfuAnd below are the words of the Great Invocation that is being chanted all over the world by millions of disciples everyday and is coming to a school near you if it is not there already! And if you think that unlikely have a look at this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh-Amv6nifA&feature=relatedThe Great Invocation.
From the Point of Light within the Mind of God
Let light stream forth into human minds.
Let Light descend on Earth.From the point of Love within the Heart of God
Let love stream forth into human hearts.
May the Coming One return to Earth.From the centre where the Will of God is known
Let purpose guide all little human wills -
The purpose which the Masters know and serve.From the centre which we call the human race
let the Plan of Love and Light workout.And may it seal the door where evil dwells.
Let Light and Love and Power restore the Plan on Earth.I will try here to decode what this ‘Invocation’ really means.
I think we all would agree the ‘Point of Light’ = Lucifer.
Then it gets very interesting; which door is to be sealed where evil dwells.
Well if you know occult science, you will know that they call light darkness and call darkness light and say that Jesus is the evil one.Restore what plan; restore whose plan and who made it so it is not restored.
Well who separated the nations? God separated the nations.
What is the focus of the United Nations? To unite the nations.
So they want to restore that which the “Evil One” happened to mess up with one brilliant move of confusing the languages.
Just goes to show; one word of God and it is confused for thousands of years, who is really in control here!
What does the bible say on this issue? The Bible says come out and be separate.
“Blessed shall you be when men shall hate you and when they shall separate you, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil for the Son of Man’s sake.” Luke 6:22The bible asks for a spirit of separateness.
The United Nations by its very nature has no option but to demand a spirit of inclusiveness.
Sweet Heart of Mary be Thou the salvation of Portugal, Spain, Europe and the World!
-
Rosary 15
What a weird experience to be faced once again with the Great Invocation! Not to mention Triangles, which fascinated me no end back then. Talk about wolves in sheep’s clothing!
You forgot one thing: the UN Charter was heavily based on the constitution of the USSR:
http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr46/cr46pg20.asp
Petrus
Watch out! Editor may be aging (gracefully, of course), but I believe she still wields a nasty rolling pin….
-
Torkay,
Will we soon see the rolling pin give place to a rather chunky walking stick?
Petrus,
I did wish you many happy returns on another thread, but here it is again. Be sure to get full use of your free bus pass!!!
-
“Chunky walking stick?” I want to be around when Editor answers that one, Athanasius!
I LOVED the birthday jokes!
-
In the Tablet, 4 Feb 2012 , there’s a brief report entitled Old-rite readmission ‘just a first step’ in which the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Kurt Koch, is quoted as saying that “Pope Benedict’s “readmission (!) of the Mass in the pre-conciliar ‘extraordinary form’ (!) was only a “first step” in liturigal renewal, and that the time for further steps was “not yet ripe” as liturgical issues were still fraught with “ideology”… Therefore Rome could only take further steps when Catholics were prepared to think about new forms of liturgy which were ‘in the service of the Church’”
He goes on to say that “If today’s crisis in the life of the Church is first and foremost a liturgy crisis, then church renewal today must begin with renewal of the liturgy.”
Just how much “renewal” can a gal take? It’s beyond ridiculous now. But, couple these horrendous statements with the express wish of the Pope when he gave us Summorum Pontificum, that SP would lead to more reverence in the new Mass, and I think we can take it that the “new form” to come will be somethng of a hybrid. I won’t be there anyway, that’s for sure. I’ll hang on until they restore, fully and without reservation, the Mass that the martyrs shed their life’s blood to defend.
And if that means spending years at the other end of a chunky walking stick, so be it. Speaking about “shedding life’s blood”…
Athanasius: my office – now!
-
Uh-oh, Athanasius, I hope you called in sick today!
Well, Editor, here’s a thought: since the “old-Rite readmission” (??? you know, that old Rite that was never abrogated) is largely a complete failure in Europe, in terms of both the frequency of its use and its influence on the Bugnini Abomination, it will be amusing to see how the “next step” is justified, since the vast majority of European Catholics have yet to set foot on the “first step.”
I would really like to know how such third-rate men ascended to such high offices in the Church.
-
By the way, Editor, are you subscribing to The Tablet now?
-
Torkay you are right when you say the UN Charter was heavily based on the constitution of the USSR:
But there is a little more to it than that. It was Alger Hiss and Joseph E Johnson (Who later became secretary of the Bilderburgers) who wrote much of the U.N charter patterning it after the Constitution of the Soviet Union and the Communist Manifesto. So already you begin to see the Secret Societies heavily involved. And of course a lot of other big players at the U.N were of Communist Ideology.Trygve Lie; The first official United Nations Secretary General was a high ranking member of Norway’s Social Democratic Labour Party, which was an offshoot of the Third Communist International. Dag Hamarskjold; the second Secretary General was a Swedish Socialist who openly pushed communist policies (He designed the imfamous satanic prayer room at the U.N), And U Thant the third Secretary was a Marxist. And another Secretary General was Kurt Waldheim who was a Nazi, so a right melting pot we have here.
But this can be misleading; this is not a drive towards communism or an anti-Capitalist agenda. For when the U.N officially came into existence on the 24th of October 1945 the charter had been ratified by CHINA, FRANCE, the SOVIAT UNION, the UNITED KINGDOM and the UNITED STATES and by a majority of the original 51 member states. So why would so many countries that were anti-Capitalist sign something that was so obviously contrary to their own philosophy.
What is happening here is the “Hegelian Principle” (Free Mason Principle. And Free Masonry is master of all the ‘isms’ in the world today) where two opposing viewpoints are set into the World and neither of them is really the viewpoint you want to achieve. What you really want to achieve is a synthesis between the two. And you keep repeating this process until the final goal is reached.
Is that what the goal is with the Mass V the Mess?Now as to the UN charter we should really look at its origin “The League of Nations,” it being the embryo of the UN.
One of those involved in the writing of the original charter of the League of Nations was Arthur Balfour Prime Minister of England 1902~1905. And this charter also formed much of the basis for the U.N Charter. Balfour also served as foreign secretary later and was notable for the Balfour declaration of 1917; a letter to Lord Rothschild promising the Jews a national home in Palestine then part of the Ottoman Empire. (So obvious connections with the Illuminati and the Secret Societies)
Arthur Balfour, was also a member of Hort’s Apostles Westcott’s Eranus (Hort called the group a senior Apostles club). Arthur Balfour was also the president of the S.P.R (Society for Psychic Research) and became the Prime Minister of England and was instrumental in the first League of Nations.
Balfour not only headed the S.P.R, holding séances at his home but initiated a group called ‘The Synthetic Society’ whose goal was to create a one world religion. He invited Fredric Myers of the S.P.R to join and together they created ‘The Preamble of all Religions’. It includes the Dogma ‘Departed Spirits can communicate’.
So we have at the beginning not just the wish to bring all nations together. But we have also a secret agenda in the wings to bring about a One World Religion.
And Alice Bailey summed up all these machinations and the principle players behind them when she stated
“There will not be any disassociation between the Universal Church, the Sacred Lodge of all true Masons and the inner circles of the esoteric societies…. In this way the goals and work of the United Nations shall be solidified and a new Church of God led by all the religions and by all the spiritual groups, shall put an end to the heresy of separateness.”God Bless.
-
Torkay,
Yes, I do, of course, know that the old rite was never abrogated. Let me see… how could you possibly know that I know that… ah yes…. I’ve said so in the newsletter four (or is it five?) trilion times. TORKAY DO YOU EVER READ THE BLANKETY BLANK NEWSLETTER?
And no I don’t, of course, subscribe to The Tablet. A very kind reader passes copies to me on a regular basis. More than that, I will not say…
Except, what kind of Catholic would pay to read that rubbish?
-
Sorry the fourth paragraph should read;
But this can be misleading; this is not a drive towards communism or an anti-Capitalist agenda. For when the U.N officially came into existence on the 24th of October 1945 the charter had been ratified by CHINA, FRANCE, the SOVIAT UNION, the UNITED KINGDOM and the UNITED STATES and by a majority of the original 51 member states. So why would so many countries that were anti-Communist sign something that was so obviously contrary to their own philosophy.
-
“Someone in Una Voce actually made the point to me some time ago that we can hardly criticise diocesan priests for invoking their liturgical “preferences” if the SSPX priests are doing the same.”
editor, I wouldn’t pay any attention to anyone in Una Voce. It is well known that the President of UV fulfils his Sunday obligation at St Aloysius, Garnethill, novus ordo Mass. I don’t know whether he attends the weekday Masses in Sacred Heart or Immaculate Heart of Mary parishes but that is irrelevant because to not attend on Sundays, when we have an obligation, in my opinion, beggars belief.
-
Rosary 15
Tell it, brother! I’m guessing you also know a lot about Hitler being a discipline of the Thule Society……
Comments are now closed.
153 comments