September 1, 2007
vol 18, no. 244
II. The Conciliar Empire Strikes Back
A deeper study of the accompanying letter to the bishops concerning the Motu Proprio is necessary in order to know the enemy's coordinates and to avoid the obstacles and remote probes trying to lure out Traditionalists in order to deal a death blow to the true Faith. The freedom fighters must never recognize the false authority of the enemy for that will only weaken the Resistance. All dedicated to the Faith must stand firm to tradition and resist with all their might. This then is the second episode of a series simply called: "Motu Wars."
Continuing the theme of "Star Wars", the Traditional Resistance may seem small in comparison to the vast evil Empire that has taken over the governance of the Catholic galaxy. The freedom fighters for the Traditional Latin Mass of All Ages try to analyze the hidden agenda of the leader of the Conciliar Empire in his communique to his storm troopers in purple and scarlet. In deciphering the code, one can easily see the treason has not been subdued but grows stronger for Catholic truth is compromised for 'peace and tranquility' - code words for 'do it our way or else' in order to establish a One World Unity of Community Order where all bow to the Darth Vader of the Imperial Troops. Doublespeak and deception still rule the day and the alarm is sent out to all in the Resistance: Stay the course, hold your positions. Do not be seduced by the Starship Ecumania.
" In short, this is no return on his part, nor any 'interior reconciliation' with the Church in any real sense, but rather his feeling superior to the Churchmen of the past, and his treating us authentic Catholics 'better,' or 'in a manner that former churchmen should have acted so as to prevent division,' feeling that he has (unlike the real popes) learned from history and now applies the lesson. In short, he has finally decided to 'get ecumenical' with the Catholic Church, seemingly unaware that oil and water, light and darkness, simply don't mix and never will."
Summorum Pontificum is only the first of the documents. In this second installment, I address the "Letter to the Bishops that accompanies the Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio data Summorum Pontificum," and this contains much that the first does not mention. Again, let us dive straight into the text:
With great trust and hope, I am consigning to you as Pastors the text of a new Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum" on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The document is the fruit of much reflection, numerous consultations and prayer.
News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.
This document was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter.
Since he talks about how "unknown" their contents have been, that is why I am stepping through them in detail before commenting upon them in any way beyond the direct meanings and implications of the texts themselves. I note here however that the "two fears" of which he speaks are neither one of them fears that might be held by Catholics, but only by haters of God. There are of course valid concerns that Catholics could have about these documents, in whether they will really turn the tide against Modernism or merely be a lone step backwards in a clear trend that continues toward further heresy almost otherwise unabated, whether it may all be merely a part of some plot to suck Catholics into the Novus Ordo, concerns about abuses, either by interpretations so narrow as to be an excuse to continue the status quo, or at the opposite extreme, by interpretations so lax as to create a continuum from Catholic to Novus Ordo that no one will know where to draw the line, and that the range of variations may come to exceed that of the Old Catholics for sheer variability in reverence, style, and validity. But none of these truly valid fears are in any way addressed. Let us look now at the two fears he does address:
In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions - the liturgical reform - is being called into question.
One cannot deny that this group of documents, despite protestations to the contrary, do indeed constitute a substantial backing off from Vatican II, and perhaps the beginning of their final and total rejection, which indeed must one day take place, whether by the Vatican apparatus itself, or by the traditional bishops united at last and acting together in unison to prepare for the coming of a true pope. But such a consequence will for now have to be seen as an indirect consequence one may hope for in some vague future date, not something in any way officially recognized now.
This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form - the Forma ordinaria - of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were "two Rites". Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.
His goal here is to "reassure" anti-Catholics that he is not about to make his organization Catholic, and to make the 1962 Missal more palatable to the anti-Catholics by mentioning that it was what was used during the "great and wonderful" Vatican II Council itself. The attempt to put the Catholic and Novus Ordo rites in parallel as mere variations on a theme is patently disingenuous. Was he not the man who once wrote of the Novus Ordo that "What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it - as in a manufacturing process - with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product." (And right he was, back then! Somehow his arrival at the chief office of the new "Vatican" has only made him all the more fallible.) In other words, "don't worry, ye who hate the Faith, for our regular and normal service will continue to be that banal on-the-spot product of machine-like fabrication; the other is only going to be considered a special (and specialized) exception." Even worse, he now puts the banal on-the-spot fabrication fully on par with that ancient and venerable rite that had developed gradually over centuries of organic growth, and even calls them one and the same.
As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.
There is a lot happening here. First of all, there is some serious tap-dancing that has do be done to get out of the plain intent of what Paul VI published on October 28, 1974 to the effect that "from then on Mass may not be celebrated, whether in Latin or in the vernacular, save according to the rite of the Roman Missal promulgated by the authority of Paul VI on 7 April, 1969." They had in fact outright forbidden the Catholic Mass, except for Eastern Rites (which they had not as yet got to destroying as yet, but most have been mortally damaged by now), and for "Masses celebrated without a congregation" (i. e. private Masses, and furthermore with a congregation expressly prohibited here, though in fact there is not and never was any "legal category" for some special sort of "Private Mass" in which even close personal friends of the priest are prohibited from assisting). This could be validly construed to be an admission of the fact that the supposed "pope" who had issued that decree in fact possessed no such authority, for indeed among all true Catholics that prohibition was categorically and universally ignored. Few are even aware that it ever existed.
Next comes a mention, nowhere near so nasty as had occurred in Ecclesia Dei, of the holy Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the only prelate mentioned by name in all these three documents who was neither pope nor pseudo papal claimant. Clearly his work was notable, and it is good to see it at least grudgingly acknowledged here.
Finally, it is interesting to see what Fr. Ratzinger had felt about being subjected to the nonsense of the Novus Ordo back in the days when there was nothing he could do about it but fall in line and march in goosestep to the different drummer of the Novus Ordo. Did he understand his own role in causing these "deformations" which are firmly rooted in the whole nature of the Novus Ordo? Does he understand that as long as he puts other religions as being also salvific religions he and any other Vatican leaders will be capable of falling into heresy (and have)? Does he understand that the Novus Ordo, by virtue of its banal and formless emptiness, intrinsically makes inevitable the very abuses he somehow seems to think he can detach from it now? He is like a man speaking against the evident evils of unwanted pregnancies, abortion, venereal diseases, and so forth and yet passing out free condoms and telling young people that they can feel free to fool around safely. The different "prayer" goes with a different belief, which engenders different attitudes and behaviors, with finally a "different" result from what he himself seems to have expected.
Pope John Paul II thus felt obliged to provide, in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988), guidelines for the use of the 1962 Missal; that document, however, did not contain detailed prescriptions but appealed in a general way to the generous response of Bishops towards the "legitimate aspirations" of those members of the faithful who requested this usage of the Roman Rite. At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about. Nonetheless, a number of communities have gratefully made use of the possibilities provided by the Motu Proprio. On the other hand, difficulties remain concerning the use of the 1962 Missal outside of these groups, because of the lack of precise juridical norms, particularly because Bishops, in such cases, frequently feared that the authority of the Council would be called into question. Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them. Thus the need has arisen for a clearer juridical regulation which had not been foreseen at the time of the 1988 Motu Proprio. The present Norms are also meant to free Bishops from constantly having to evaluate anew how they are to respond to various situations.
And here comes an attempt to explain away just how it was that John Paul II's request for a "wide and generous" application to the 1988 Indult managed to have so very few effects, namely that "perhaps" it was seen as being primarily directed at the SSPX, which was therefore supposedly why it was so difficult to get an Indult in one's area, even with "wide and generous" on the books, unless one already had a large and clearly established SSPX (or other traditional) parish in the neighborhood. As usual the Vatican leaders again get it backwards since the truth was that it was the Indult that had enabled some fortunate few members of their group to be united to the See of Peter; the SSPX and all other traditional Catholics are already there and indeed together comprise the sole unity to the See of Peter today.
The frequent mention of "juridical norms" actually means that the Indults of 1984 and 1988 (and 1971?) never said anything about the Catholic Mass being used for anything but drawing away members of the SSPX, nor anything about providing any sacrament other than the Mass. Many simply interpreted that to mean that only the Mass would be provided, and only where the SSPX held a significant presence, if even there. Only a very precious few commendably permitted it where there was no SSPX or other traditional parish, and/or permitted the other sacraments, or even the use of older Missals than the 1962, since, after all, these things had not been expressly prohibited.
It is a good and salutary note of the positive effect that anything that even looks Catholic automatically seems to be having some considerable standing and interest with the young people, far more in fact than any of the "young people's" events (e. g. Life Teen, etc.), so no longer is the Indult being seen as merely a concession to old timers who grew up with the old and might be nostalgic about it.
At the end comes one statement that everyone would have to find truly welcome, and that is that no longer would those Novus Ordo "bishops" who permit the Indult be required to provide regular (monthly? yearly?) reports about how the Indult is going and what it is achieving and whether its continuation can be justified. Though there is no known or documented regulation to the effect that such a thing was necessary, apparently it was required, thus providing many with yet another reason to be positively stingy with the Indult. Who wants more paperwork? But here that paperwork is officially stopped. Even the trees and flowers and spotted owls have to be happy about that one.
In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded. The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.
It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.
The other "fear" is rather difficult to make any sense of: The fear of "division." This dates back to the months and years before the release of the Motu Proprio and its attendant documents. One thing that had long held it back from being published was a certain serious resistance, even opposition, from (mostly) the French "cardinals" (and a few others) who oppose the growth of Catholicism in every venue. I have to wonder, did not Benedict XVI understand how they meant to threaten him? Did he not understand that it was the French "cardinals" themselves who were threatening to cause division themselves if ever this Motu Proprio got released? That it was they who were threatening to perform a repeat performance of Abp. Milingo and break off and start their own "church" if ever their long ignored Vatican "leader" should ever make the Catholic Mass more widely recognized and accepted and acceptable?
It is possible that indeed he did recognize this threat for what it was, and here merely does exactly what I would have done with it, namely refuse to acknowledge it in any form, and pretend they meant something else (though we all know they didn't). If this is so then it would indeed have been a truly savvy step for him to take. Sometimes, "acting stupid" can actually be the smartest thing to do, and this would clearly be an occasion where this is the case. If there is anything that those who threaten cannot stand, it is to be so categorically ignored and treated as if they were nothing. Imagine some blackmailer coming up to you holding up an unmarked package and threatening to publish the information it contains unless you do what they tell you, and your only reaction is to throw the thing into the trash unexamined and walk away, never once getting the least bit curious as to its contents. Nothing you do could ever more get under their skin than that. Benedict XVI has here truly raised the stakes: "You've threatened to cause division? Go ahead, make my day!" Let's see how many of them do.
I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church's leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: "Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!" (2 Cor 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.
Much has been made of the phrase "interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church," which is being used for the very first time here. Is he talking about people being "reconciled" in their hearts to his organization? Some take it that way. Might he have said this as an indication that he might have been in his heart "coming to a reconciliation" with the real Church? Would that it were so! But actually, the reference is quite clear, and it is neither of those. He sees the split between Novus Ordinarians and Catholics as being what I elsewhere call an "internal schism," namely that between Catholic and Catholic, as for example occurred during the First Great Western Schism, and not as what I there call an "external schism" as what exists between Catholic and heretic or schismatic, or between Good and Evil, God and Satan.
In the Vatican II document Unitatis Redintegratio, Paragraph 3, the statement was made that "... much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." In other words, it's the Church's fault that various Gnostics, Manichaeans, iconoclasts, East Orthodox, Albigensians, Protestants, Old Catholics, and so forth all broke away from the Church, due to the Church leaders not being "accommodating enough." (Never mind the fact that the Syllabus of Errors condemned proposition #38 reads, "The exorbitant pretension of the Roman Pontiffs contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western," thus condemning in advance the very idea that the Church was in any way responsible for the defection of others, but then Ratzinger always did rather prefer to go "anti-syllabus," anyway.)
In short, this is no return on his part, nor any "interior reconciliation" with the Church in any real sense, but rather his feeling superior to the Churchmen of the past, and his treating us authentic Catholics "better," or "in a manner that former churchmen should have acted so as to prevent division," feeling that he has (unlike the real popes) learned from history and now applies the lesson. In short, he has finally decided to "get ecumenical" with the Catholic Church, seemingly unaware that oil and water, light and darkness, simply don't mix and never will.
In here, he shows that he has yet to learn of the "boy and his dog" principle of which I wrote some while ago. Many (of the world at large) see this as part of a "tightening of the ship" instead of an ecumenical outreach to Catholics, but I expect real Catholics, their long-held faith and manner of Divine worship finally affirmed, to become only all the more entrenched in our faith (and that is a good thing, though clearly not intended here).
There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.
"No rupture," until 1969, anyway. Needless to say, the 1969 rupture has never been accepted by any real Catholics, but instead resisted, opposed, and finally avoided by all with any real right to the name of Catholic. Among us traditional Catholics there has been no such "rupture" as our faithful priests and bishops continue to hold and teach and practice the exact same Catholic Faith as that of our forefathers clear to the beginning, and with due authority I might add. That the Novus Ordo is indeed such a rupture no one can deny, and even Ratzinger himself, in former days, has admitted as much. There is here a fair and worthy point that "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful," and "It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place." The proper place however of "the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer" is not off in some Indult side chapel, nor even as some "extraordinary form" to be used on some still somewhat limited locations, but as the center and mainstay of real worship.
However, the next part of this paragraph contains the most reprehensible statements contained within this entire trio of documents. To prohibit priests and bishops from "as a matter of principle, exclud[ing] celebrating according to the new books" is the one statement a Catholic cleric absolutely cannot, under pain of grave sacrilege and mortal sin, ever accept. It is as much incumbent upon any Catholic to exclude the "new and different books" along with the "new and different gospel" and "new and different Jesus" the Novus Ordo represents as it is to oppose the sins of murder and adultery. In point of fact (to paraphrase), the total exclusion of the new rite would in fact be exactly consistent with the recognition of its "value and holiness," which is to say, none whatsoever.
In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: "Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum").
So, no matter how much pressure one must admit is being placed on them to finally permit more Catholic or Catholic-like worship, the interpretation and application is still up to them, which obviously leaves a tremendous opportunity for them to maintain the status quo. This would be where all that language about a "recourse to the Ecclesia Dei Commission" comes in, but again I remind you how very little has been actually promised from them: "counsel and assistance," whatever that means.
Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.
"Peace and serenity"? Is that what they have been charged with? Name me ten out of the thousands who have actually cared enough to actually desire to offer these things to souls. When power is abused for the spread of evil there can be no peace and serenity. And what sort of "problem" could possibly arise in taking a step in the right direction by at least trying to simulate real Catholic worship here and there? A few souls might find the path to true peace and serenity, or worse still, many? Oh my! That is a problem! Can't allow that, now can we?
Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.
At last comes the famous "three years" after which one single report (instead of regular monthly or yearly or whatever) paperwork has to be submitted. Of course, no real problems are about to surface, but there will be fictitious "problems" that could result in such "resolutions" as, for example, revising the readings of the 1962 Missal (in what would presumably be a new edition dated some few years in the future) to be more in line with the Novus Ordo "three year cycles" of readings, or the inclusion of such Novus Ordo "saints" such as Paul VI or Martin Luther King or "Saint" Josemaria Escriva, and so forth. And there might be other rather different results, some of which could even be favorable. This paragraph is definitely the "wild card" of this second document of the Motu Proprio Trio and one I will deal with in the next installment for the time period indicated could very well be an indultcendiary time bomb.
Dear Brothers, with gratitude and trust, I entrust to your hearts as Pastors these pages and the norms of the Motu Proprio. Let us always be mindful of the words of the Apostle Paul addressed to the presbyters of Ephesus: "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the Church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son" (Acts 20:28).
I entrust these norms to the powerful intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church, and I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing to you, dear Brothers, to the parish priests of your dioceses, and to all the priests, your co-workers, as well as to all your faithful.
Though this ending is nowhere near as "official" as that of the Motu Proprio itself, clearly this document is also meant to bind.
So, in summary, there are a few minor good things and other more seriously not so good things in the text of this document itself. Let's again start with the good:
So again there is some real good here which does add a bit to the step being taken in the right direction. And again, there is much to this portion of the document trio to complain of.
- The supposed "fears" of "division" are rightly dismissed out of hand as being absurd.
- A grudging admission to the effect that the problem between the Novus Ordo and the Church as led by Archbishop Lefebvre is more than merely liturgical is made, perhaps opening the door for "theological discussions" with the bishops of the SSPX.
- Admission is again made that the use of the Missal had never been abrogated (despite Paul VI's abrogation thereof, but then he was never a real pope anyway, which this letter indirectly implies), and so it is again affirmed that we Catholics have done right to keep it. (We knew that already; but it's still nice to hear that once in a while.)
- Regular reports (apart from one single report due after three years) are no longer required.
Mow, let us review some of the bad things:
- The point is made that this is in no way meant to be a repudiation of Vatican II.
- He absurdly claims there to be "spiritual richness and the theological depth" to the Novus Ordo, which he previously had agreed to be a fabricated and banal "on-the-spot" creation.
- The unacceptable demand is made that priests are supposed to ignore the foundational Catholic principle by which the false "worship" of the Novus Ordo is always and everywhere to be categorically opposed, refused, and avoided.
- The Novus Ordo "bishops" are still left in charge of interpreting and applying the directives of these documents.
Finally, there is one significant wildcard item which is hard to categorize as either good or bad since its results are at this point gravely unpredictable.
- What is to happen after the three years have passed and the reports have all been sent in and assimilated?
Griff L. Ruby
NEXT: III. "Return of the 'Time Bombs'"
For the first episode, see I. Hope Against Hope
Griff's book is available from iUniverse.com Books for $26.95 or can be read on-line at www.the-pope.com We at The Daily Catholic strongly urge you to share it with all you can for that could be the gentle shove that moves your friends back to where the True Faith resides forever, rooted in the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church as Christ intended and promised.