Monday
October 31
vol 22, no. 304

TRICK or TREAT or THREAT!
      One of the mechanisms for haunting souls into believing ghost stories not of the True Spirit but of a spooky synthetic synergy was the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium on the Sacred Liturgy. At least back in 1963 it was still sacred until the Council and Paul VI got their grimy hands on the sacrosanct. Now, nearly a half century later years later we can clearly see how they have turned what once were holy churches into haunted houses. No amount of decorating the conciliar zombie liturgy will alter what is behind the facade even if Ratzinger's new missal (yeah, another one!) is going to be introduced on November 27th this year. It's all more of the same hooey that hasn't a ghost of a chance to be pleasing to God and if it is not pleasing to Him, it can't be pleasing to man!


    "I think I am starting to see what the fathers intended. They wanted to promote the liturgy. Fair enough. They want to promote it to the whole world in a way that is 'contemporary', in a way that modern man can relate, in a way that is dumbed-down (I mean simplified) and protestantized. This is the intent of the council itself, not just the intent of those who hijacked it. Since when did our liturgy need to be restored? What they did was to take a beautiful liturgy and made it into something that NOW needs to be restored."


    Several years ago I wrote this article as I was finally coming to terms with the fact that Vatican II, make that Vatican two, or 2, I haven't quite decided which is more appealing in a worldly sense yet, those Roman numerals seem a bit old fashioned and traditional and I think they need to be changed so that modern man will like us better, I mean who do we think we are . . . God's most Holy Church or something?!!

    The goal in this article is see if the Council gave us the treat we were promised or were we in fact tricked into converting to a new religion with a new 'pope', a new 'mass', a new code of canon law, a new catechism and yes, A NEW ROSARY without realizing that following this anti-church puts us in danger of losing our faith and salvation?

    I must say, after being thoroughly brainwashed by EWTN, This Rock and Envoy type "reasoning" which allowed us to complain about anything but the the Three Sacred Cows of Vatican II, the New 'Mass' and the 'Pope', I finally came to realize the Sacred Cow of Vatican 2 was actually the cause of the disintegration and reinvention of a new thing that was formally the Mass and was the cause of the New Church splitting from the True Church. One can only fall for the "it was misinterpreted" canard for so long.

    I must admit back then that I was a huge fan of Mother Angelica (she seemingly had the courage of her convictions before the 'hostile' takeover, her paralysis and the caving to compromising the Latin Mass and the subsequent 'deal' with the USCCB) even though I do not follow her anymore and I was a big fan of Karl Keating and a bigger fan of Patrick Madrid. I still harbor some respect for these individuals and what they are trying to do, though I wonder about Mr. Keating's motives a bit sometimes. Can't they see that more and more Catholics are fleeing the Novus Ordo in droves? Why? Some because the conciliar church is not protestant enough; some because the conciliar church is not Catholic enough - not even close.

    I felt the need to add that tidbit above because these "conservative" "catholics" mentioned, while not able to connect the dots to the obvious conclusion that the Chair is vacant, can at least be a stepping stone for those sincere people brainwashed by the new religion to the fullness of truth.

    This article is in response to a friend that I consider to be more knowledgeable than I am overall but erroneous in her point that Vatican 2 is not the problem but that the commissions charged to revise the liturgy is the only problem - the root cause of our problem today and that the documents of the Council itself are not in any way the cause of the crisis.

    With the preview out of the way let us delve into the document itself and see how the document, like the new mass itself is inherently flawed.

    1. This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change;

(what's this all about?)

    to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.

    4. Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites

Including the Roman Rite of 1500 years?

to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised Why?

    carefully in the light of sound tradition,
Here is a quote my friend could use to support her belief that the blame for the demise of the liturgy does not belong to the council itself but to the concilium and how they applied what was written (supposing the rites did need to be revised - they did not - and if they did not need to be revised then the council again is to blame) in the council if only our "reformers" the concilium took this to heart.

    and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.

      Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration; it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects.

Did the faithful not know what they were doing for 1500 years?

    In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else;

The reason for the document is now known. Not for an increase in the devotion to the Eucharist or a deeper understanding of Catholic theology but for full and active participation. Amen brother, can I get an Alleluia?

    for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.

    Let me see if I understand this. The Holy Spirit (who traditional Catholics more readily refer to as the Holy Ghost) waited 1963 years to enlighten us on how the liturgy should be regarding active participation. We were handed the full deposit of faith at the time of Christ but it took 1963 years for us to realize this part of it. The poor fools of the first 1963 years of the Church never saw the light of day.

    The above statement in the document in and of itself does not say or spell out what is meant by active participation. Did they mean for us to get into a dialogue with the priest or not? Could the council have explained itself a little more clearly on what is meant by active participation? Were we actively participating the previous 1963 years? No? Yes, but not enough? Yes, but in the wrong way? Yes, but "active participation" is a catch phrase to give us an excuse to make the liturgy conform to our current whims and to do in it in the most authoritative of ways - through a council.

    With zeal and patience, pastors of souls must promote the liturgical instruction of the faithful, and also their active participation

    There it is again in case you had not noticed.

    in the liturgy both internally and externally, taking into account their age

    A whole different Mass for the children - wouldn't that be cute?

    and condition, their way of life, and standard of religious culture.

    So we can actively participate both internally and externally. HOW?! The document does not say. We just do it. And we must be taught how to do it. Again, was this something not known over the centuries until now or is it that so many of us forgot that we needed to be reminded? How many of the readers out there believe this to be the case?

    21. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself.

    You would think the liturgy had been destroyed. To fully grasp the intent of this statement change the word "restoration" to "destruction".

    For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.

    Like what!? No example is given.

    In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify;

    Does eliminating the repeated references to the saints express more clearly our belief in intercessory prayer?

    the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully

"actively", (don't forget)

    and as befits a community.

    See, we are a community. I think that is kind of nice. It takes a village to raise our children and it takes a community to make the Mass the Mass. For some reason I am not convinced. I believe it takes parents to raise children and I think it takes the priest acting in the person of Christ offering the Perpetual Sacrifice to make the Mass the Mass. But remember the Holy Ghost had 1963 years to think this through and this is what He concluded. Regarding all these "necessary changes" should be spelled out for us in the document itself.

    27. It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration involving the presence and active participation (in case you did not know yet) of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private.

    Again, how do we actively participate? They do not say. By talking with the priest during the Mass, by manufacturing affection for the neighbor we do not know by shaking their hand not as Christ gives peace but as the world gives peace does the new "Catholic" Church give peace, so be a man, take a stand, shake my hand and I will lead you to some sort of worldly promised land, by praying along with the priest as we have always done, by appropriate body postures as has always been done, by falling to our knees to adore the Lord as we receive Him in the Eucharist as we have always done? What is this active participation they are speaking of and why did it take us 1950 years to figure out we needed it?

    29. Servers, lectors, commentators, and members of the choir also exercise a genuine liturgical function. They ought, therefore, to discharge their office with the sincere piety and decorum demanded by so exalted a ministry and rightly expected of them by God's people.

    My friend who claims the council is free of all blame told me she had not recalled lectors being mentioned in this document and seemed rather surprised that they were. When did we have lectors before the council? Why was it decided that this is now necessary? No explanation is given.

    22.3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.

    Does the council contradict itself? Are lectors an addition or change in the liturgy that is genuinely and certainly required? Did the priests forget how to read? Or was it just too much of a bother for them to do ALL the readings. This is the council we are speaking of, not the concilium. Perhaps this is the active participation they are speaking of. Poor not actively participating non-lector laypersons - what is a layperson to do? Maybe he can distribute Communion or walk onto the sanctuary and shake the priest's hand during the kiss of peace. They gotta do something or they are not actively participating.

    30. To promote active participation, (there it is again in case you had not noticed) the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.

    In paragraph 30 they start to explain what they mean. We take part (again we were not taking part the past 1500 years before I suppose) by our acclamations, responses (so it goes from an offering of the priest on our behalf to God the Father through the Son in the Unity of the Holy Ghost to a dialog between priest and people being "genuinely and certainly necessary"), psalmody, (we have to repeat the same line over and over again as the lay person labors through the psalm, I'm sure that is genuinely and certainly required), antiphons, (it is no longer good enough to pray them silently but we must say them aloud disrupting our prayerful disposition so we can be heard) and songs. (But we were already singing songs.) As well as by actions (now that is specific - we actively participate by our actions) gestures, and bodily attitudes. You mean like kneeling right? We already knew this. We were already actively participating in this manner.

    34. The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions;

How did all these useless repetitions get in there in the first place? Or were they not so useless being the result of a legitimate organic development?

    they should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.

    Again, did the people get stupider or did we just have it wrong all these centuries?

    36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

    Oh, so you are not destroying every custom on the face of the earth but ALLOWING at least something to preserved to some degree. But even this is not completely preserved. Thank you so much.

    36.2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people,

Here is yet another thing that took us a VERY long time to figure out. What would we have done without the enlightened 60's people?

    the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings

It was already applied here - when the priest read the Gospel before the Sermon.

    and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

    36.3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

    36.4. Translations

(Another awesome reason to switch from Latin - a nice excuse to screw up our translations and degenderize, water down and twist the Sacred Text to our current whimsical preference in the process)

    from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

    I'm sure this was genuinely and certainly required. How could we have been so wrong for so long?

    D) Norms for adapting the Liturgy to the culture and traditions of peoples

    37. Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity

Better to confuse matters like the Tower of Babel.

    In matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples.

This would be splendid. We can have Bare-breasted women, liturgical dancers perhaps, folk music? Was not the motto of the 60's 'sex, drugs and rock 'n roll? Well, we have the bare-breasted women and liturgical dancers and folk music, maybe instead taking the focus of the Lord just made present to us in order to shake hands with our friendly strangers at the kiss of peace we should just pass a joint around. That technically would not be breaking the Communion fast would it?

    Anything in these peoples' way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.

    38. Provisions shall also be made, when revising the liturgical books, for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands, provided that the substantial unity

Oooh, substantial unity. Yeah, okay, at least that is intact - what is it by the way? The pews in the Church? No, some have gone to chairs now. The way we receive the Eucharist? Absolutely not, kneel, genuflect, bow, tongue or hand. Who distributes Communion? Don't make me laugh. But we are all supposed to say, "oh good, at least they made sure we kept our substantial unity."

    of the Roman rite is preserved; and this should be borne in mind when drawing up the rites and devising rubrics.

    Does that mean reinventing? Why would we need to "devise" or "draw up" rites if we are not inventing anything new?

    39. Within the limits set by the typical editions of the liturgical books, it shall be for the competent territorial

They'll do it that way over there and those over there will do it that-a-way and we will do it either this, that or the other way deepening on the presider.

    ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to specify adaptations,

Another nice word - we need to adapt to the insanity of the world, otherwise the world might not like us much.

    especially in the case of the administration of the sacraments, the sacramentals, processions, liturgical language, sacred music, and the arts, but according to the fundamental norms laid down in this Constitution.

    40. In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed,

I'm sure. But the conservative NO's will tell you that this must be true because Vatican 2 says it is true and a council cannot be wrong, it is infallible, but it is only pastoral so even if it is wrong it doesn't count as being wrong. I remember when I used to think this way. Seriously, my thinking was, "Well it is Vatican II, a council of the Church, it cannot be wrong." MANY intelligent individuals think this way. They are wrong. But you cannot blame them - they have a right to believe they can trust the "bishops" and "popes" to do the right thing that is what bishops and Popes are supposed to do. And I speak only of the few "conservative NO's" that actually read the documents. Well, I don't read anything that comes out of new church anymore either so maybe I should not blame them.

    and this entails greater difficulties.

I can tell you about difficulties!!!

    Wherefore:
      1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should when be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.

    Don't give us specifics; just leave it in the bishop's hands. That will work. I do hope we do not repeat the mistake of leaving such things at the discretion of bishops again. Better yet, perhaps appointing authentically Catholic bishops ordained in the true Rite rather than radical liberals, spineless cowards and sodomites ordained in the new rite would ensure a Catholic situation within the Vatican Institution.

      2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.

      3) Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate them.

    Who dares to say that the council is not - at least in part - responsible for the mess we find ourselves in today? For we have seen the job these "men" have done have we not?

      Therefore all should hold in great esteem the liturgical life of the diocese centered around the bishop, especially in his cathedral church; they must be convinced that the pre-eminent manifestation of the Church consists in the full active participation (Perhaps this is the singular reason for the entire council - are there any books on this one phrase? I would like to learn what it means.) of all God's holy people in these liturgical celebrations, especially in the same eucharist, in a single prayer, at one altar, at which there presides the bishop surrounded by his college of priests and by his ministers (35).

    Again. Praying the Mass with the priest is not enough we have to be doing stuff. I'm still not sure what, talking, shaking hands, being a lector or a commentator I suppose.

    43. Zeal for the promotion and restoration of the liturgy is rightly held to be a sign of the providential dispositions of God in our time, as a movement of the Holy Spirit in His Church.

Huh!? Where did they come up with that?

    It is today a distinguishing mark of the Church's life, indeed of the whole tenor of contemporary religious thought and action.

    I think I am starting see what the fathers intended. They wanted to promote the liturgy. Fair enough. They want to promote it to the whole world in a way that is "contemporary", in a way that modern man can relate, in a way that is dumbed-down (I mean simplified) and protestantized. This is the intent of the council itself, not just the intent of those who hijacked it. Since when did our liturgy need to be restored? What they did was to take a beautiful liturgy and made it into something that NOW needs to be restored.

      44. It is desirable that the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, set up a liturgical commission, to be assisted by experts in liturgical science, sacred music, art and pastoral practice. So far as possible the commission should be aided by some kind of Institute for Pastoral Liturgy, consisting of persons who are eminent in these matters, and including laymen as circumstances suggest. Under the direction of the above-mentioned territorial ecclesiastical authority the commission is to regulate pastoral-liturgical action throughout the territory, and to promote studies and necessary experiments whenever there is question of adaptations to be proposed to the Apostolic See.

    At this juncture I am hoping that those who have been reading along and who did not already know have figured out that the mess we find ourselves in regarding the liturgy and every other aspect of Catholicism is in fact the council's fault. Trent settled these issues once and for all. Why did Vatican II open it back up again as if it were not settled? Vatican I managed to get through a council without reinventing the wheel. Or should a say without changing the wheel back into a block of rock?

    45. For the same reason every diocese is to have a commission (the best and brightest?) on the sacred liturgy under the direction of the bishop, for promoting the liturgical apostolate.

    Sometimes it may be expedient that several dioceses should form between them one single commission which will be able to promote the liturgy by common consultation.

    It may also be expedient to trash this document and continue at all times and under every circumstance as if this document never existed!!!

    46. Besides the commission on the sacred liturgy, every diocese, as far as possible, should have commissions for sacred music and sacred art.

We should have commissions for the commissions and commissions for the commissions for the commissions. It is "we the people now", the Aye's have it. Pope Schmope. But perhaps the council members foresaw that there would no longer be a Catholic Pope.

    These three commissions must work in closest collaboration; indeed it will often be best to fuse the three of them into one single commission.

    This proved to be an excellent idea. Again it is the council itself that the council invented that recommends this. Those that switched to the new church are living with the results.

    50. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way

(that you can no longer tell it is a Mass and to the point where the Mass of Ages this document abolished seems like something very strange and unrecognizable to those Catholics who have never attended the Original Rite)

    that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation (the sole reason for the council is stated again and again and again, ad nauseum) by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

    What were the poor fools doing before? Thank God we can now "actively participate". The Holy Ghost works slowly but surely. One thousand nine hundred and sixty three years slow.

    For this purpose the rites are to be simplified,

I said "dumbed-down", the council says "simplified" - take your pick. Tell us how to "simplify" it; don't leave it in the bishop's hands. Actually it is the bishop's that approved this conSILLYar document and it is the "pope" that approved it. The Mass of the ages does not need to be simplified. You know how the lowly confound the wise. Well, as a simple minded sort of man I am here to tell you that the True Mass does not need to be simplified. ANYBODY that compares the two Rites (I hesitate to call the new thing a Rite because it is soooo wrong!!!) can see how obvious that statement is.

    due care being taken to preserve their substance;

But in this instance the council itself says that the rites are to be simplified and in the same sentence they foresee what can go wrong when they unleash this statement adding: "due care being taken to preserve their substance" knowing full well that this can be license to change everything but the substance. And what is the substance - the consecration? But even THAT was changed. Not just the "for many" to "for all" but the words in the Consecration "the Mystery of faith" which signified the Eucharist was moved from to consecration to some other place signifying I'm not sure what.

    elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated,
were they duplicated thoughtlessly or was there a certain theology involved, perhaps a Trinitarian theology for starters?

    or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.
"Other elements" - that's real explicit. Can you give us an example at least? Have you even thought this through or did you know what would happen once you put this in the hands of the concilium?

    53. Especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation there is to be restored, after the Gospel and the homily, "the common prayer" or "the prayer of the faithful." By this prayer, in which the people are to take part, intercession will be made for holy Church, for the civil authorities, for those oppressed by various needs, for all mankind, and for the salvation of the entire world (39).

    Here is a concrete example of something they wish to be restored. But this seems awkward as well; firstly, because the True Mass already prays for the needs of humanity in a beautiful and universal way and secondly, for there is no set formula to follow and it calls to mind what a bishop in Milwaukee said during this "restored part of the Mass" shortly after 9/11 "let us pray that America opens her borders wide to let in all immigrants". But kudos for actually being specific about one thing they thought needed to be "restored".

    The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact (40), communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.

    The highlighted words above are the only words that need to be stated in this document. I would have liked to have seen what the concilium would have done with that. The Communion under both kinds would have led to extraordinary Eucharistic ministers during ordinary circumstances and increased the possibility for other abuses such as the spilling of the Precious Blood so the first part of the sentence alone is enough.

    And now, within a month the conciliars are going to change the 'eucharistic service' again under the pretense that it will be closer to what it was before, but that's a canard because no matter what they do, it's built on sand, not the rock and it will crumble because 95% of those claiming to be Catholic 'priests' are not valid priests which automatically makes any service they conduct invalid, or to put it in the words of His Holiness Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae: "completely null and utterly void." That should scare everyone away from the Novus Ordo no matter what mask they may put on it. Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

John Gregory

        "Catholics who remain faithful to Tradition, even if they are reduced to but a handful, they are THE TRUE CHURCH"
        Saint Athanasius, "Apostle of Tradition" AD 373





John Gregory's FAITHFUL TO TRADITION Monday, October 31, 2011, Volume 22, no. 304