If you serve mammon, you are not serving God!
Sacred Oath for the Profession of the Catholic Faith
How many find it ironic that the World Synod of Bishops convened this year in Rome on the Feast of Saint Jerome? I say that for this great Confessor and Doctor of the Church was a stickler for Tradition and exactness, he was faithful to the Sacred Deposit of Faith. Yet, in the Fall of 2001 the modern version of Apostolic successors - especially in the United States - hardly represents or qualifies as emulating this great saint and so many other saints. I fear the current band of global prelates who were all appointed by either Pope Paul VI or (most of them) by Pope John Paul II are not meeting to uphold the Traditions but rather to continue to dismantle them further, beginning by being hell-bent on promoting the two mantras of ecumenism and collegiality. They seem to be in lock step with the politically correct manifesto toward a One-World Order.
I have to ask the question for the sake of clarity, for the sake of true obedience, for the sake of eternal souls: In all respect for their sacred office, why do we trust these men, these men who should be upholding their august vocation and responsibilities as successors of the Apostles? Most would answer because they are learned and holy men who have been given the severe duty to teach and nourish their flocks. How severe? So severe that previous Pontiffs have said these men would "incur the wrath of God" were they to deviate from their adherence to Doctrine and Tradition. They themselves, if they were ordained before 1968, also called the wrath of God upon themselves if they were to stray. You see they took the Sacred Oath when they were ordained. Every priest, every bishop, every Pope willingly and unconditionally took the Sacred Oath in total fidelity to the Church and her doctrines.
We have had some write us, even a few priests, concerned that we have gone off the deep end. They accuse us of being 'dissident traditionalists.' Yet, for most progressive bishops, that is an oxymoron. We proudly proclaim we are loyal and true Catholics - Traditionalists if you will - for we cling to the Traditions of Holy Mother Church as passed down through the Sacred Canons and Decrees of the Major Councils of the Church. If that is wrong, then we are guilty, but we will gladly stand before the Trinity with that charge launched at us by man. To uphold and remind others of these truths of our Faith is hardly 'dissident,' but rather necessary for salvation. The priests who have expressed concern should know better for they took the Sacred Oath. Yet some accuse us of being 'far-right' whatever that means. We reply we are very much in the center - centered on Jesus Christ and the Teachings, Doctrines, Dogmas and Traditions of the Church He founded. To assure that His priests - those He chose to lead and guide souls as shepherds of His flocks - would be loyal to Him and His truths the Church wisely and divinely established the Sacred Oath every ordained man must take unconditionally. If any priest has not taken this Sacred Oath, we ask why not? If the reverend Fathers reply 'because it was not administered.' We respond: Why not? And so should you for it is the safeguard of the Faith. Note this is not the Oath Against Modernism, demanded by Pope Saint Pius X and now discarded through the efforts of the Modernists within the Church. That will be covered in much more depth in future commentaries. This Sacred Oath we present to you in this issue is the Profession of the Catholic Faith taken by all priests at their Ordination. We present here the:
"I, [Name...], believe and profess with firm faith each and every truth which is contained in the Symbol of Faith of which the Holy Roman Church makes use, namely:
[He then recites the full Nicene Creed]
"I resolutely accept and embrace the traditions of the Apostles and all other traditions of the Church and all its observances and regulations. Likewise, I accept the Sacred Scriptures in that very sense in which Holy Mother Church, whose right it is to declare their true sense and meaning, has held them and holds them now; nor will I ever accept or interpret them in a way contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers (of the Church).
This Sacred Oath was written well before Vatican II. Therefore, have not all who changed or accepted the changes in the Sacraments which Pope Paul VI altered in 1968 violated the oath? Did those who took this oath not agree to "accept and adhere to the rites of the solemn administration of the aforementioned Sacraments according as they have been accepted and approved by the Catholic Church"? By accepting the Novus Ordo did they not violate their oath? Think about that one. Let us now continue with the oath:
"Further, I profess that there are seven true and proper Sacraments of the New Law, each instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord for the salvation of the human race (although all of them are not necessary for everyone), namely, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony; that these confer grace and that, of these, Baptism, and Confirmation and Holy Orders cannot be received a second time without sacrilege. Also, I accept and adhere to the rites of the solemn administration of the aforementioned Sacraments according as they have been accepted and approved by the Catholic Church."
"I embrace and accept each and every tenet concerning Original Sin and Justification which was defined and declared by the Sacred Council of Trent. I likewise affirm that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, worthy, and expiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, together with His Soul and Divinity, are really and substantially present in the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, and that there occurs a change of the total substance of the bread into His Body and of the total substance of the wine into His Blood, which change the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation. I confess also that Christ, whole and entire, and the true Sacrament are received under each species."
This is so beautiful and affirming, and yet several polls and surveys from various sources - both secular and religious - have revealed that an alarming number of Catholics do not fully believe in the actual presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. Do you think such a travesty would exist if the priests and bishops and Popes as well had been truly loyal to their oath? Also, you'll note the reference to Trent in which infallible canons were proclaimed. This was never the case of Vatican II. Yet all you hear about today in the Conciliar Church is reference only to Vatican II. Why has the Sacred Council of Trent been so ignored? As you ponder that, we continue with the Profession taken by every Catholic cleric:
"I firmly hold that there is a Purgatory and that the souls detained there are helped through the prayers of the faithful; similarly, that the saints who reign with Christ are to be venerated and invoked and that they offer their prayers to God for us and, that their relics should be venerated. I firmly assert that images of Christ and of the Mother of God ever Virgin, as well as of the other saints, should be possessed and retained and that they should be shown due honor and veneration."
Ah, Purgatory! When was the last time you heard about the Church Suffering - those poor souls in Purgatory? If you are in a parish where the New World Order Mass has taken full effect, I daresay you won't hear it. Also you probably won't have too many reminders of the saints who we are to venerate and ask their intercession because the edifying statues and beautiful paintings have been taken out of most churches, replaced by sterile banners and secularized what-nots to not offend those who we must be tolerant towards in the New World Order. Has iconoclasm reared its ugly head again? Oh, the Blessed Mother is given lip service, but just the fact they eliminated the three Hail Mary's and Hail Holy Queen at the end of the Mass gives evidence that they are downplaying Mary most Holy for she is a big roadblock to non-Catholics, and we must not offend their sensibilities. And you surely don't hear much about relics for prior to the desecration of the altars after Vatican II every altar had a relic of a saint imbedded in the altar stone where on that same altar Our Lord resided in the Holy of Holies - the Tabernacle of the Altar. Today the tabernacles have been relegated to where they 'won't disturb anyone.' Have you noticed what has been placed where the tabernacles used to be? Can you say chairs? As in chairs for the 'presider' and his attendants. You see we dare not call them altar boys anymore, even altar servers because there are no more altars in the Novus Ordo Masses. There is no way to deny it. Man has replaced God in the sanctuary.
This oath is sacred and what has happened since Vatican II is the same as the prophet Ezechiel relayed in Ezechiel 22: 26, "Her priests have despised My law, and have defiled My sanctuaries; they have put no difference between holy and profane; nor have distinguished between the polluted and the clean; and they have turned away their eyes from My Sabbaths, and I was profaned in the midst of them." The people is Baal! If that is not disturbing enough, let us continue with the Sacred Oath:
"Also, I affirm that Christ left the power to grant indulgences to the Church and that these are most useful for the salvation of the Christian people. I acknowledge the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church to be the Mother and Teacher of all Churches, and I vow and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Jesus Christ and the Successor of Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles."
When was the last time you heard of the importance of indulgences and that they were "most useful for the salvation of the Christian people"? Of course you don't hear that very often for that is not in alliance with Protestant thinking. Also, over the last two decades we have been hearing more and more about 'giving up the powers of the papacy for the sake of unity.' Any talk of this is in direct contradiction to this Sacred Oath which says the Sovereign Pontiff is the head of the Catholic Church which is the 'Mother and Teacher of all Churches.' Why won't the bishops and Pope acknowledge this instead of making apology after apology to appease revisionists, and groveling before non-Catholics and infidel faiths such as Islam, Buddhism,
and New Age beliefs? Yet at Assisi and, as Atila Guimar„es pointed out in his article in the last issue "The Kiss and the Blood" in his column On the BattleLine, the Pope's kissing the Koran was akin to blasphemy and a direct slap in the face of the saints and martyrs who fought against the heresies of the Muslims for so many centuries. Oh, you'll say we shouldn't criticize the Pope. What were doing is showing you the Sacred Oath and asking if he has kept it fully. If not, why? There is no getting around the fact that our current Holy Father and all Roman Pontiffs before him from Trent on took this most Sacred of Oaths when they were ordained. What is more offensive - to offend the sensibilities of a man or to go against a vow to God?
Yes a Sacred Oath says the Church is the leading authority above all others. Note also the word 'true obedience' to the Roman Pontiff. Again, remember this was composed well before the post-conciliar popes. Therefore, those who went against what previous Pontiffs and the Magisterium of the Church as the 'Mother and Teacher of all Churches' had set in stone were violating the Sacred Oath. Obedience is a feature we will also cover in future commentaries for it has been so misunderstood in knowing the differences between 'true obedience, false obedience and blind obedience.' Now we arrive at the next to last paragraph of this Sacred Oath.
"Moreover, I maintain and profess, without doubting, all the other teachings handed down, defined, and declared in the Sacred Canons by the Ecumenical Councils, especially by the Most Holy Council of Trent and by the [First] Ecumenical Vatican Council, particularly that of the Primacy and the Infallible Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff; and at the same time I condemn, reject, and anathematize all opinions to the contrary and all heresies whatever which the Church condemns, rejects, and anathematizes."
Wow! When was the last time you heard of 'the Sacred Canons of the Most Holy Council of Vatican II'? You didn't because there were no canons nor was it holy! However the two Councils that preceded it were because infallible doctrine was declared. Yet, the vast majority of today's Catholics think Vatican II takes preference - and that includes the current Vatican and the hierarchy, the very bishops meeting this month. That would mean a fallible, non-doctrinal, pastoral-only Council has trumped the 'Most Holy Council of Trent.' This cannot happen and yet it did because we bought the lie, a lie perpetuated by the very men who took this Sacred Oath. Do you now see why we're justifiably upset and hurt that the trusting Catholic flocks have been so deceived?
"I, [Name...], promise, vow, swear that, with God's help, I shall most constantly hold and profess this true Catholic Faith, outside of which no one can be saved and which I now freely profess and truly hold. With the help of God, I shall profess it whole and unblemished to my dying breath; and, to the best of my ability, I shall see to it that my subjects and those entrusted to me by virtue of my office hold it, teach it, and preach it. So help me God and His holy Gospels."
What a beautiful Oath before God. And yet I had to search for it. It was not available at the Vatican's official web site. Speaking of vatican.va I was shocked late last year when I went searching for the documents of the Council of Trent and Vatican I that I couldn't find them. Why? Why do they not include any Papal decrees before Pope Leo XIII? It is a good question. What are they trying to hide? With today's technology surely the official Vatican web site would be able to afford putting the Sacred Canons of all the Ecumenical Councils on line, as well as past Papal proclamations of all the Popes from Trent on - even before that - so that Catholics would truly know the Traditions and Doctrines handed down. Those are not part of the Secret Archives, but they're a secret to most Catholics. The fact these important documents are not available on the official Vatican II website lends more credibility to the very sad possibility that the Vatican might have no intention of upholding the Sacred Oath every priest was committed before God to take. If that is true it is a sad, grave sin. Yes, sin; for to violate a Sacred Oath before God is a great sin, the punishments of which we shudder to think about considering the weight of the responsibility of those who violate it.
Because so many have been brainwashed by the ambiguities of Vatican II including the present prelates presently in Rome trying to further the agenda of Vatican II in an effort to allow the Church to further disintegrate in favor of the New World Order agenda forged by the Masonic Order, we are doing everything on our part to provide the truths by making available every major Council of the Church so you'll know where the Church really stands and always has stood despite the charlatans who have hijacked our beloved Church over the past 40 years - 40 years in the desert! With the last issue we began bringing you the Ecumenical Councils with the First Council of Nicaea and continue in this issue with the First Council of Constantinople. In each issue we will feature a succeeding Council.
It's really a sad state that it should be left to a small lay organization like ours to publish what the Church should have readily made available on every diocesan website. What are the bishops trying to hide? Why are they so afraid of the Traditional Catholic? Good question that you'll find the answers to these questions by reading the Sacred Canons of the Councils. In fact, of the 21 Councils, Vatican II is the most insignificant of them all and yet it has been given the most and, by and large, only prominence in the post-conciliar Church as if nothing was declared before 1962. Are these modernist bishops afraid you'll find out the truth? Why else would they fear loyal Catholics?
Fox News has two slogans they use on their network. One is "Fair and balanced." If you're just hearing Vatican II-speak I can guarantee you're not getting 'fair and balanced' teaching. The other slogan is, 'we report, you decide.' Well, we're reporting and you may decide. The only difference here is that it doesn't really matter what your opinion is, for when it comes to the Truths of the Holy Catholic Church opinions won't hold much water as you stand before the Eternal Judge. Faith is what will save you, the True Roman Catholic Faith that was taught before it was compromised in favor of currying approval by those who seek to destroy Holy Mother Church. As much as they hate it, as much as they want to deny it, there is no denying Pope Innocent III's infallible ex cathedra dogma, ratified by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 that, "There is but one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved."
In all love and charity for your eternal soul I ask you to examine your conscience, to truly seek to know the truth, to examine the facts and ask if you are still in that Church. In that quest, consider also the Sacred Canons of Trent - the infallible decrees. Consider Pope Urban VIII's Apostolic Constitution Si Quid Est in which he proclaimed, "If there is anything divine among the possession of men, which the citizens of Heaven might covet (were covetousness possible for them), it would certainly be the most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, whose blessing is such that in it men possess a certain anticipation of Heaven while still on earth, even having before their eyes and taking into their hands the very Maker of both Heaven and earth. How greatly must mortals strive that this most awesome privilege be guarded with due cult and reverence, and take care lest their negligence offend the eyes of the angels, who watch with envious adoration."
Modernists will be quick to point out that it was during Urban VIII's pontificate that Galileo was condemned and so they will fall back on the revisionist historians' favorite ploy of discrediting past pontiffs and proclamations. However, they have no proof. We do in the Sacred Canons of the Ecumenical Councils which we will make available to you. We ask was Urban wrong on his assessment and love of the Holy Mass? Was the Council of Trent wrong? Was Christ wrong? Of course not.
Can you see now why ecumenism is not of God? Can you see how on one hand the priests and bishops and even the Pope said they 'condemn, reject, and anathematize all opinions to the contrary and all heresies whatever which the Church condemns, rejects, and anathematizes' and yet on the other warmly embrace these very heresies by accepting a new rite of the Mass that adopted all and more that Martin Luther - a heretic of heretics - called for? You cannot have it both ways.
Jesus confirmed this without a doubt in Matthew 6: 24, "No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will stand by the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." If we are to believe, as the Church had always taught, in the continual Sacrifice as established and decreed at Trent and that - under a Papal edict that carried with it all the force of the Primacy of Peter in perpetuity - it could not be altered in any form whatsoever or those who changed it and accepted it would 'incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul', then we would have to come to the logical conclusion that the Mass decreed at Trent and ratified by Pope Saint Pius V was of God and what Luther proposed was of 'mammon' for it was condemned at Trent.
Can anyone in their right mind think God would change His mind and 500 years later turn it all around? 'Oh, I made a mistake, Luther had it right!' I don't think so! In fact we know that thinking is impossible because God cannot make a mistake. But man can and he has erred greatly by rejecting or twisting into ambiguity the Sacred Canons set in stone at Trent. If only the Apostolic successors who are supposed to be our wise and holy shepherds today realized this; if only our priests realized this; if only our Holy Father would enforce the disciplines of Holy Mother Church and do as his noble predecessors over the centuries have done in protecting the Faith by denouncing error and clarifying ambiguous teaching, vocations would be flourishing, churches would be packed morning, noon and night, confessional lines long, and there would be no need for a World Synod of Bishops this month. Yet they make busy, trying to formulate more new programs to overwhelm the sheep into following without challenge. If only!
Folks, it's time to challenge. It's time to provide the proof that those who have embraced the New World Order Mass are wrong, dead wrong and the Sacred Canons of the first twenty Councils bear this out. Think and pray about this very, very carefully for your very salvation is dependent on your realization of the truths of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Realize that the Mass decreed by Trent is still of God and the New Order Mass - the Novus Ordo promulgated by Paul VI - was and still is of Luther and, ergo, of mammon. If you serve mammon, you are not serving God!
Michael Cain, editor, www.DailyCatholic.org