DIADEMS OF THE DECADE - Editor Michael Cain's CATHOLIC PewPOINT (012505mc.htm)

Diadems of the Decade from January 25, 2005, vol 16, no. 25

                Quo Primum and Forever are synonymous!

      This editorial ran on January 25, 2005 half way through the first decade and was editor Michael Cain's effort to convince conciliar Catholics that what he had discovered earlier in the decade was backed up by infallible decrees that totally nullify what had been done by the conciliar leaders in Rome from John XXIII through JP II and currently Benedict. It was the year the former would meet his Maker and have to account for what he did in this life for those who have been given much, much will be expected as Christ emphasized in St. Luke 12: 48 in His words, "of him they will demand the more." Yet still so few realize this and the rationalization exhibited by desperate Novus Ordophiles illustrated only too readily what lengths they would go to in order to repudiate a holy Pontiff on the binding perpetuity of the Immemorial Mass of All Ages.

    Today is, of course, the Double Major Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul, Apostle of the Gentiles. It is also a day that lives in infamy for it was on this day in 1959 that John XXIII announced his plans for aggiornamento at St. Paul-Outside-the-Walls in Rome. Since then we can see the desire to fulfill Our Lord's words Ut unum sint had nothing in common with Christ's will or His Vicar Pope Leo XIII's encyclical on Unity Satis Cognitum. We can see the results of Roncalli's 'fruits' nearly 50 years later. Everything is in turmoil and the masses have been so dumbed down that they don't realize they've been bamboozled, including those doing the bamboozling.

    One such example is a Ronald Smith from Ohio who is regurgitating the shallow, vapid argument that "Quo Primum is no longer in effect." In his brief defense of the demolition and desecration of Holy Mother Church, her doctrines, dogmas and traditions, and the main means of worship - the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass all attacked by Vatican II, he says "I quote Holy Church and experts who write about her." Our response to this bafflegab is that he cannot possibly be quoting Holy Mother Church and we shall proceed here to verify that fact.

    Smith's explanation was a response to a question posted by a Kenneth Aydlott on January 23 regarding Quo Primum. Aydlott asked about that Papal Bull, "If, as I suspect, it is still in effect, why aren't the true Catholic Church leaders talking about it and informing 'those in the pews'?" Before we get into Smith's skimble-skamble answer, let us answer Mr. Aydlott with the assurance that 'true Catholic Church leaders are talking about it and informing 'those in the pews'." Of course, those in the pews are Traditional Catholics since it is only the Traditional priests who are remaining loyal to the Infallible, perennial Teaching Magisterium of the Church. I might remind not only Mr. Aydlott and Mr. Smith, but every Catholic out there that Quo Primum along with Pope St. Pius X's Oath Against Modernism were published in the front of every Missale Romanum on the holy altars. Every priest up until the reforms of Vatican II were mandated to take that oath. Need I remind you an oath is a vow to God? Why do the priests not take that vital oath anymore? Why didn't John Paul II take the Solemn Papal Coronation Oath that every Pope had taken since Pope St. Agatho. Good questions and most probably the answers are the same reason his predecessor Paul VI violated it and did away with the powerful Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel: to make it easier to spread the smoke of satan.

   Regarding his rejection of Quo Primum, Smith wrote on January 23: "although the continuity is not absolute." Au contraire, for when issued ex cathedra on an issue of Faith and Morals a Papal Pronouncement is absolute. Quo Primum is such an absolute. In regards to both Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio by Pope Paul IV in 1559 and Quo Primum in 1570, they are two examples of a binding Papal decree that has the force of perpetuity as in forever. In the latter, this papal bull was issued in codifying the infallible, dogmatic decrees of the Council of Trent. It carried with it the full weight of Papal infallibility and the force of this is carried out in the wording

    "by this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered there in."
    "We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal; and this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law, notwithstanding previous constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the usage of the churches aforesaid established by very long and even immemorial prescription, saving only usage of more than two hundred years."
    "Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree and prohibition. Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

    Those are words not heard in the conciliar church because they do not have the authority to overwrite what previous Pontiffs set in stone. To say that Quo Primum was only a "legislative document" is to diminish the power, authority, continuity and assurance of the Primacy and only opens the door that anything can be altered to suit the times. God does not change and neither can His divinely-ordained sacraments be altered to placate man or "catch up with the times." More on that later.

    Smith also wrote: "Legislative documents or legislations (laws) can be canceled or modified or replaced by subsequent popes."

    First of all, Smith jumped to a conclusion without any documentation that Quo Primum was not infallible. Legislative documents that do not concern faith and morals would fall under that category and indeed could be changed if the welfare of souls was the primary purpose, not to accommodate man and modern times. Therefore, if the subject matter did not concern faith and morals and was not issued from the Chair of Peter, okay, but always with caution. The fact, which sadly today is foreign to most Catholics, is that nothing infallible has been pronounced since November 1, 1950 when His Holiness Pius XII declared the Dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into Heaven. By the mercy of God and to protect His Church, He will not allow any of Pius' "successors" to declare anything infallibly because then the gates of hell would prevail, and we know that is not possible per Our Lord's promise in Matthew 16: 19.

    To assure this and why God will not allow any of the conciliar 'popes' to pronounce anything infallible is because a true Roman Pontiff cannot teach error if he is truly the Vicar of Christ for as Catholics say everyday in the Act of Faith: "I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived." The fact is, which every Novus Ordo Catholic has to admit, is that we have been deceived. Ergo, the syllogism rings true that if we have been deceived by modern Rome, it cannot be of Christ.

    In Smith's short article he used nine references, the oldest referring way back to 1983. That's it! Hardly credible considering Holy Mother Church is two millennia old. When you take into consideration that it is Vatican II defending itself, one cannot find any objectivity here whatsoever. Why is it that those defending Vatican II are so afraid to reference anything previous to 1962? One very good reason: They can't defend Vatican II and the conciliar church because it is not in harmony with the Infallible, perennial Teaching Magisterium of the Church. It's that simple, so they masquerade authority by quoting those whose primary purpose is to defend the indefensible. Now let us continue as the noose grows tighter around the neck of credibility expressed by Smith.

    Smith writes: "A recent example is that the Code of Canon Law of 1917 was completely modified and many old canons eliminated by Pope John Paul II enacting the Code of Canon Law of 1983."

    Does Smith and other dumbed-down Catholics realize that in order to implement the teachings of Vatican II, it was necessary that the modernists change the Code of Canon Law (1917), as it contradicted their designs by reflecting the mind of the Church in her past doctrine and discipline? That's exactly what John Paul II and cohorts did. The new code contains a matter which should be most disturbing to all informed Catholics who treasure their faith. According to the new law of Modern Rome, non-Catholics can, under certain circumstances, petition the "sacraments" from a Catholic priest (without the non-Catholic abjuring his heretical beliefs), and the priests must administer them. The Council of Florence, (Session 8, November 22, 1439) as well as the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 731), strictly forbids this. Mr. Smith and those defending the conciliar church's actions must realize again that a true pope cannot teach error in matters of faith and morals. Since Karol Wojtyla approved error in the new Code of Canon Law and it most definitely deals with faith and morals, the syllogism must again be drawn that the man called John Paul II cannot be a legitimate Roman Pontiff from the succession of Peter because the universal laws of the Church are protected by her infallibility and cannot impose obligations opposed to faith and morals. Therefore, the New Code must be considered as lacking all force of law. Moreover, as has been deducted, it has been promulgated by those who no longer represent Catholic authority.

    Consider all that was consistently taught throughout the centuries since the time of Christ. With the death of Pope Pius XII and with the convocation of the Second Vatican Council, an unprecedented situation occurred which cast the Church into crisis. Vatican II did and does threaten Holy Mother Church's very doctrines and worship. John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council for the express purpose of "updating" the Church - "aggiornamento." Through his approval the Council decreed and implemented teachings previously condemned by the Infallible Teaching Magisterium of the Church. In fact, the heretical teachings of Vatican II, especially in the areas of religious liberty and false ecumenism, were previously condemned by past reliable Roman Pontiffs including, chronologically Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos in 1832; Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors - both in 1864; Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei in 1885 and three years later with Libertas Humana; Pope Pius XI with Quas Primas in 1925 and the encyclical which nails the coffin of Vatican II Ecumenism with Mortalium Animos in 1928; and finally Pius XII's Mystici Corporis in 1943. Thus, if one is to fully believe in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church as handed down from Peter through Pius XII, one must reject as a false council Vatican II because it erred in its teachings on faith and morals.

    Now let us turn again to the essence of Smith's argument on Quo Primum and his supposed self-determined judgment that it could be changed and that Paul VI had the authority to create the Novus Ordo Missae. Following the Second Vatican Council, various commissions were established to modernize the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the traditional rites of the Sacraments. The particular commission established to modernize the Mass included well-known Protestant theologians, an avowed Marxist priest in Fr. Joseph Gelineau and a confirmed 33rd degree Mason Archbishop Anibale Bugnini. To use the words of a well-known prelate within the Vatican at the time - Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani in 1969 in what has become known as The Ottaviani Intervention - "(The Novus Ordo Missae) represents a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent." The results of this modernization were a new definition of the Mass, which in truth reflected Martin Luther's concept of the Last Supper, the alteration of the Offertory prayers which deleted the concept of propitiatory Sacrifice, and the substantial alteration of the very words of Consecration which occurs in the vernacular translations with "for all" instead of "for many" - pro multis and the removal of Mysterium Fidei from the actual words and context of the Consecration. This new mass, known as the Novus Ordo Missae, contradicts previous infallible teachings and decrees of the Catholic Church, paramount among them again St. Pius V's Quo Primum, De Defectibus, and the Council of Trent's decree in Session 22 on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. But there are a few other papal decrees that reinforce the fact that the NOM is false. That would be Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae in 1896 and Pius XII's 1947 encyclical Mediator Dei in which he warned of the very dangers that would and did happen in the 60's. In 1948 Pius also issued his decree Sacramentum Ordinis.

    In realizing what the Infallible, perennial Teaching Magisterium of the Church has taught, one has to realize that the Novus Ordo Missae, when offered with the altered words of Consecration, is an invalid Mass and in all other cases it is of doubtful validity. It always is a clear danger to one's faith. For all these reasons, active participation in it would be a grave sin. We strongly recommend the 62 reasons why one cannot in good faith attend a Novus Ordo service.

    In the same vein that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was altered, so also in the same respect, it can be said of the new Vatican II rites for the seven sacraments. To the degree that the matter, form and intention of each of the sacraments has been substantially altered, to that degree their validity must be questioned. Holy Mother Church has always taught with certainty what the proper matter, form and intention are in the confecting of the sacraments. Also, no pope has the right or permission to change that which was divinely ordained. Therefore, when Smith quotes 'Canon Lawyer' Robert Flummerfelt of EWTN 'fame', whom I might add we have taken to task before for his defending the indefensible, he hasn't got a leg to stand on regarding the sacraments. Flummerfelt falsely deducted: "As supreme legislator he (the pope) has the authority to change law that previous popes promulgated." Our response: Not when it deals with faith and morals and not when a previous pontiff specifically decreed ex cathedra that it must be upheld in perpetuity. Ergo Smith's and Flummerfelt's and all other Novus Ordinarians' arguments hold no credibility when applied to Quo Primum or Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.

    Next it is important to illustrate the difference between the True Church founded by Christ which we refer to as Eternal Rome versus the new church formed from Vatican II which we call Modern Rome. The Catholic Church is identified as the true Church of Christ by her four marks which we reaffirm our belief at the Credo of the Holy Mass Et Unam, Sanctam, Catholicam, et Apostolicam Ecclesiam - One (Unity) Holy (sanctified by Christ), Catholic (universal), and Apostolic (handed down from the Apostles). Since the heretical teachings of Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, and the new rites of the sacraments have manifestly been a departure from the Catholic Church's traditional teachings, it must be concluded that this modern so-called "Catholic" Church no longer possesses the first two marks of the true Church - namely, Unity and Holiness. Its obvious departure over the past thirty years from what the Catholic Church has always held can lead to only one conclusion: a new ecumenical Church has been established which stands in contradiction to the true Catholic Church.

    This is ever more obvious this week when John Paul II openly advocates Catholics to worship with Protestants and other non-Catholics. How many can remember when, during the reign of Pius XII we were admonished to never worship or participate in a non-Catholic ceremony? What happened to those who did. Have they all been forgiven because it is no longer a sin? No, afraid not. Rather, sin is sin and if it was a sin during the time of Pius XII it is still a sin during the time of John Paul II for it is still a violation of the First Commandment.

    Considering all of the above, it must be concluded that the modern hierarchy who have approved and implemented the errors of Vatican II can't possibly represent the Catholic Church and her lawful authority. This most certainly includes the ones who have confirmed, approved, decreed, and implemented these heretical teachings, namely Giovanni Montini who took the name Paul VI and Karol Wojtyla who goes by John Paul II. Furthermore, John Paul II, by his own repeated and obvious convocations of and participation in ecumenical religious services with non-Catholic and non-Christian religions, has become suspect of heresy and definitely deviating from the Catholic Faith. To verify this we need only refer to another infallible decree issued by Pope Paul IV which I alluded to earlier in this commentary - Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio - in which he very clearly delineates the fate of one who deviates from the Faith no matter at what stage in the hierarchy - "even a Roman Pontiff." I need only remind you of the revelation in Zenit News just last week which we responded to in Waltzing Wojtyla in our January 19th issue to understand that since John Paul II has manifestly taught heresy, promoted ecumenism and fostered interfaith worship - in other words teach error - he clearly cannot be recognized as a successor of St. Peter in the primacy. Despite the lack of canonical warning and formal declaration of loss of office, his repeated acts of ecumenism, his enforcement of the heresies of Vatican II, and his promulgation of a new code of Canon Law injurious to faith and morals are manifestations of his pertinacity in heresy.

    That is not our judgment, but that of Holy Mother Church. Consider that the First Vatican Council infallibly teaches: "'Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church,' these words are proven true by actual results, since in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted...the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of Our Lord." Further, since John Paul II has manifestly taught heresy, promoted ecumenism and fostered interfaith worship, he clearly cannot be recognized as a successor of St. Peter in the primacy.

    Now what Smith does write about a Pope, in part, has truth to it, though he is quoting post-Vatican II sources which greatly undermine any credibility he would be trying to establish. But he does cite "providing he validly sits on the Chair" and therein is the rub for the question is the validity of the post-conciliar popes. Again, Pope Paul IV has given us a clear answer to that in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, as well as the other papal decrees listed which condemn the actions of the post-conciliar 'popes.' Finally, I refer to what we have had posted on our Mission Page for the past three years:

    . St. Augustine also said, "Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it, and right is right even if nobody is doing it." So how do we know we are right? Two reasons: First, because what so many Sovereign Pontiffs had condemned as anathema, the Vatican II popes have contradicted and become the apostates that holy saints warned against. Secondly, because prior to Vatican II, the four indelible marks of the Church were intact and in full effect: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. With so much dissension and veering from the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church the church of Vatican II is no longer 'One'; the barren fruits stemming from Vatican II along with the shocking scandals and lowering of the moral virtue bar give solid evidence the church of Vatican II is no longer 'Holy'; because, except in the Remnant Church, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has been abandoned in favor of a Protestant service that seeks to de-mystify the Mystery of Faith, thus eliminating the "universal language of the Church" - Latin and therefore the church of Vatican II is no longer 'Catholic' or 'Universal'; and finally, because of the modernist, progressive agendas and the insidious infiltration of the satanic, Masonic and Communist operatives within the Church, the bishops have, by their refusal to uphold the Faith and place their flock as their top priority, abdicated their apostolic succession and made this well known with their assertion that it is not necessary to become Catholic anymore. Therefore, the church of Vatican II is no longer 'Apostolic.'

        Pope St. Felix III stated clearly what we must do: "Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it; and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them." With that charge, are we to stand idly by when we see what has happened to our beloved Church? Saint John Fisher said that "He who goes about to take the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass from the Church plots no less a calamity than if he tried to snatch the sun from the universe."

        Yes, these are frightening times but we can take heart from the "Apostle of Tradition" Saint Athanasius who, in the time of the Arian heresy, which pales in comparison to the heresies abounding today, stated, "They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle - the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? Even if Catholics who remain faithful to the Traditions are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

        Pope St. Adrian II decreed that "The first requirement of salvation is to keep the standard of the True Faith." We should heed his holy wisdom. "

    How would Mr. Smith answer regarding this first requirement? Does he not realize it has been abandoned in favor of placating man, not God? The ramparts of Holy Mother Church have been ransacked and pummelled, the turrets turned in a worldly direction, the treasure of the great Deposit of the Faith greatly diminished; the liturgical legates seized and ransomed for finite goals as the Infinite is forgotten in a desert of deceit. Like the Holy City of Jerusalem a millennium ago, the infidels have captured her and hold her ransom under the sign of the new religion formed by a conciliar church, which for over 40 years has slowly but steadily been deconstructing the truths and absolutes. We can see daily in the scandals and statements coming out of almost every diocese and the Vatican itself that the conciliar church of Modern Rome has slowly but surely ebbed more and more toward the Protestantization of our beloved Church in liturgy and belief until a pan-Christian ecumenism will be complete and we will all be one in the one-world religion of the prince of darkness. It is the darkness of Vatican II which has cast Catholics everywhere into the void of universal apostasy. The truth is that we have been wandering in the desert for 40 years; failing in the surging seas of ambiguity with countless casualties of souls lost in the depths of sin and lukewarmness.

    It is time to muster the forces of right and goodness, to speak up for the rights that have been wronged. That is why The Daily Catholic exists and provides proof that all that was passed down and observed before Vatican II must be adhered to today in deference to the modernism of the new faith formed in the sixties when man replaced God with the destruction of true Catholicism beginning with the ransacking of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Tridentine rite. To return to what Pope St. Pius V decreed infallibly in his Papal Bull Quo Primum must be said "in perpetuity" seems more and more difficult as more of the sheep are dumbed down and caught up in the innovations and novelties of the fruitless "Civilization of Love" and "New Springtime" of ecumenical syncretism - something previous Pontiffs condemned. People like Ronald Smith think they are writing truth when they write that "Quo Primum is no longer in effect." To that all we can do is pray and repeat our dear Lord's words on the cross, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." For those who do know what they're doing, woe to them.

    In conclusion, as we have proved what Holy Mother Church has said, I invite Mr. Smith to start quoting Her correctly. We have clearly shown that the sources Mr. Smith cites have as much authority as the paper used for the bottom of birdcages. If what was taught and observed was right for nearly 2000 years and produced countless saints and the means to salvation, then it is still right and must be faithfully adhered to. To many this may seem an impossible dream, but consider Our Lord's affirming words "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19: 26). Let us follow the wisdom of Saint Augustine, "Pray as if everything depends on God, and work as if everything depends on us." The time has come to right the wrongs. That begins by realizing without a shadow of a doubt that Quo Primum and Forever are synonymous!

Michael Cain, editor

Editor Michael Cain's Catholic PewPOINT
from Tuesday, January 25, 2005, Volume 16, no. 25