Faith trumps Obedience every time!
Readers weigh in with their perception of the "abomination of desolation" and through it all one thing stands perfectly clear and that is that the modern Church has done nothing to curtail the slide toward perdition. Obedience blinds them to the truths of their Faith. By defending disobedience to the modernists we do not encourage anarchy and disorder in the Church, but rather point out who the ones are who are disobedient to God. Obedience must always be to the Faith!
In the aftermath of last week's thread on the First Chapter of the First Book of Machabees we've had quite a bit of feedback via e-mail. It is interesting that in Dr. Marian Therese Horvat's three piece essay on the The Rapture Virus she treats the pre-trib, mid-trib and post-trib theories that seem to separate evangelicals. Concerning the conjecture over the Book of Machabees and the "abomination of desolation" we have found there are those who agree with the pre-abomination of desolation theory, if you will, as we upheld last week with Paul VI's decree of the Novus Ordo in 1969. Then there are those who espouse the mid-abom or post-abom theories. This week we will share some of these with you.
Michael Cain, editor
One writer stated flatly that I was all wet and that the New Mass of Paul VI was really an improvement on an "old stale rite that had outlived its purpose." I would ask him to tell that to all the Saints and Sinners that went before him over the past 2000 years. I would ask him to tell that to a great Oratorian and close confidant of Cardinal John Henry Newman in the 19th century, Father Frederick Faber who said,
"The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven. It came forth out of the grand mind of the Church and lifted us out of earth and out of self, and wrapped us round in a cloud of mystical sweetness and the sublimities of a more than angelic liturgy, and purified us almost without ourselves, and charmed us with celestial charming so that our very senses seemed to find vision, hearing, fragrance, and touch more than ear can give."
But of course, this "most beautiful thing this side of Heaven" has "outlived its purpose"...for the enemies of the Church, that is. Not for true Roman Catholics! I would also ask this e-mailer to denigrate the "old stale rite" to the face of Saint Alphonsus Liguori, a Doctor of the Church who said,
"At the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Jesus Christ giveth Himself to us by means of the Most Holy Sacrament of the altar, which is the end and the purpose of all the other Sacraments." This 18th century Doctor of the Church also affirmed that
"Man cannot perform a more holy, a more grand, a more sublime action than to celebrate a Mass. In regard to which the Council of Trent says: 'We must needs confess that no other work can be performed...so holy and divine as this tremendous Mystery itself. God Himself cannot cause an action to be performed that is holier and grander than the celebration of the Holy Mass.' "
It was this same saint who asserted that:
"The devil has always attempted, by means of heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of the Anti-Christ, who, before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrament of the altar, as a punishment for sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel 'And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice.'"
That brings us back to Machabees and the first taking away of the continual sacrifice as foretold by the prophet. Now if that was just for the Old Testament, why then would Our Lord have warned of an event yet to come?
Another writer pointed out that the abomination has indeed occurred because of 1 Machabees 1: 57, speaking of a "second altar" " king Antiochus set up the abominable idol of desolation upon the altar of God, " and 1 Machabees 1: 62, "they sacrificed upon the altar of the idol that was over against the altar of God,"
Yet another e-mailer not only believed that, but went even further in pointing out the amazing similarities of the four high priests, who carried out Antiochus' decrees, with the Conciliar popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II. She urged me to read the Second Book of Machabees for that tells an even more revealing correlation. Here is what she wrote:
"You just barely scratched the surface, Mr. Cain. Did you ever consider the parallelism of the four false High Priests and the four false Popes of present day? Jason, who was the first high priest under the Antiochus reign, introduced the wearing of a 'broad-brimmed petasos.' You'll note that it was John XXIII who made the popular broad-brimmed Italian sombrero popular. Jason was nicknamed 'King Johnny' and the apostasy and syncretism began under his leadership just as the fuse of apostasy and syncretism was lit at Vatican II and Roncalli was called 'Papa John'." She is an obvious sede vacante believer, for she also believes that the papal elections of the last four popes have been by fraud. This would support the theory that Cardinal Siri was the actual elected Pontiff but was intimidated to step down, but that is another story and one, until we have more facts on, we will not delve into. Suffice it to say, what she offered was not only scary, but does, folks, make sense. That's the sad part. However, if we are to understand what the Church discerns in Sacred Scripture, then we shouldn't just dismiss it as mere hypothesis without further study and prayer. She goes on to point out:
"The anti-Catholic ideas and John XXIII's membership in Freemasonry made his papal election a fraud. It was none other than St. John Bellarmine who taught that a Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically loses his office. If John XXIII were a Mason, then he would have automatically lost his office before he became pope, thus negating his authenticity. The same held true for John's successor Paul VI who is likened to Menelaus in Machabees. While there are many similarities between the two, the most telling is that it was Menelaus who imposed the abomination of desolation - the false sacrifice - on the people just as Paul VI did with the Novus Ordo Missae by establishing a 'new altar' - a second altar - upon and over against what had always been observed in the Latin Rite."
The e-mailer here is referring to what we pointed out last week and what another e-mailer emphasized above: 1 Machabees 1: 57 and 62. She then went on to assimilate Lysimachus with John Paul I because they both ruled a very short time and both were murdered over the treasury in her reference to 2 Machabees 4: 42. It is believed very strongly in many circles today that Albino Luciani was not a Mason but a Marxist who wanted to expose the Freemasonry influence within the Church and one vehicle was through the Vatican Bank Scandal. Ergo "the treasury." Many believe he was murdered by the Masons to prevent the outing of the Freemasons within the Curia.
This particular e-mailer then wrote about the last of the false high priests Alcimus and the likeness of this Old Testament high priest with John Paul II:
"Alcimus convinced everyone he was a pious man just as John Paul II has fooled so many that he is 'Mary's Pope' with his Totus Tuus motto and yet, like Alcimus he is the most dangerous of the lot because of his deceptive ways and his acceptance by so many. He is very charismatic and has encouraged the charismatic renewal that is not rooted in Christ and His true Spirit. Remember it was the apostate Jews who occupied the 'large western wing' of the city of Jerusalem. The new Jerusalem is Rome and today the apostate Catholics of the New Order of the Mass (which it is not) occupy the large western wing of the city. This is the western wing of the Church which is the Roman Rite. Those in the eastern wing - that being the Oriental churches - have not adopted the Mass that Paul VI introduced. Finally, sir, as Alcimus mingled with the heathens in 2 Machabees 14: 3, so also John Paul II does the same with every pagan religion on earth. A study of the Assisi pan religious meetings in 1986 and 2002 bear this out. I think what has occurred over the past decade, even this year, should prove to all that the popes of Vatican II are not being faithful to their Christian faith nor to the encyclicals of their predecessors. You would then have to agree, Mr. Cain, that they are apostate sovereigns who are in reality Anti-Popes and therefore men who have no right or reason for being obeyed since they themselves have disobeyed Jesus so and have led us into temptation by their deceit."
I would have to say that what she wrote is pretty heavy and mighty radical, and yet, considering the times, the total lack of good fruits from Vatican II reforms, and the peculiar coincidences, added to what we offered last week, means it is not, definitely not, out of the question. Forinstance, I thought what she said about the Eastern Churches was interesting because just last week the Holy Father called on the leaders of the Byzantine, Maronite, Chaldean and other Eastern Rites to let go of Tradition and seek an ecumenical path with a new aggorniamento as Zenit reported on November 21st:
Given this difficult situation, John Paul II exhorted Eastern Catholics not to be imprisoned by "formulas of the past," but to "open themselves to a healthy updating" -- "aggiornamento," he said in Italian, the word used by John XXIII to express the renewal that the Second Vatican Council would promote.
Yes, definitely there is food for thought in examining the causes and effects and the meshing of Divine Revelation with the realities of today.
Another gentleman pointed out that many readers might be confused by my reference to Antiochus and the time frame of the Book of Machabees.
"I agree with you, Michael, that the abomination of desolation, did occur in the Book of Machabees but perhaps your readers might be confused by your statement that 'The entire first chapter of the First Book of Machabees is a microcosm of what has happened over the past 40 years in our time' for it is more than that. Antiochus could be considered a Caesar so to speak for there were more than one ruler who went by the name Antiochus and what confused me is that the entire first chapter of Machabees One took much longer than 40 years. I think it is very sad that non-Catholics do not recognize the two Books of Machabees."
While he is correct about Antiochus because the Antiochus referred to is actually Antiochus IV of Syria, it actually was 40 years for the two Books of Machabees treat the time of the persecution of the Jews from 175 B.C. to 135 B.C. The two Books are not a continuation, but rather by two different authors and cover the same period of time. They are named the Books of Machabees after Judas Machabeus who was the leader of the resistance against the abomination of desolation. The Hebrew word for "hammer" is machabeus and it was given to Judas "because of his daring and bravery in battle against the oppressors of the Jews" as the introduction to the First Book relates. The fact that Jews and Protestants do not regard these books as Sacred Scripture makes it all the more apparent they have veered from the true Faith for the Books of Machabees were handed down in the Greek Septuagint Version, the Bible of the primitive Church and have always been regarded by Holy Mother Church who "has authoritatively and infallibly declared that they belong in the canon of inspired and sacred writings."
Yet another wrote to us about the abomination:
"If Quo Primum is an infallible decree, stating that the Roman Missal of 1570 alone and in the form in which it was at that time must be used 'in perpetuity', then any variation from it, particularly if intentional, is a violation of that decree and as such offensive to Almighty God, since it is The Holy Ghost who reveals these Truths to us through the successor of Peter, and once declared cannot be undeclared.
My own pastor, an avowed liberal Democrat, has said that in constructing the Novus Ordo, the Church eliminated irregularities which had crept into the Mass which did not belong there, and that the only difference is that it is now said in the vernacular rather than Latin. I do not now have sufficient knowledge to refute him, but I hope to be able to do that soon.
From my remarks you have no doubt surmised that I don't attend the Tridentine Mass at this time. That is true. Aside from my personal situation, I still have some questions regarding humble obedience. Yet my heart and soul are with you - and my mind in as much as we have Truth on our side. I believe that it is with the Truths of Infallible Doctrine that we can and must prevail. We may argue for the beauty of the Latin Rite along with its spiritual gifts, but to many these will only appear as tenuous and intangible arguments, and they who oppose us will use that to their advantage, easily dismissing (at least to their minds) the validity of those points. But, conclusively show Quo Primum to be an infallible decree and that the Novus Ordo varies from the Roman Missal of 1570, and all of their arguments fall to dust. It will no longer be a question of arguments which they claim are subjective, or of personal preference (which is subjective). Rather it is then established that the Prelates are in violation of Church Doctrine."
To that we can only add 'Amen' for Pope Saint Pius V's Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum was what convinced us what we suspected: There was something rotten in Denmark...and Rome!
Another reader picked up on that and much, much more:
"The other day I was reading the first chapter of 1 Machabees and wondering how it applied to the present state of the Church. I was surprised when I visited Daily Catholic later that day to find an article on the same theme.
I am not sure if one can say that the abomination of desolation has been present in our 'temple' for 33 years. I think the abomination, when it arrives, will have to be something as blatant as the image of Olympian Zeus in the Holy Temple. (2 Macc. 6:2). Some traditional material tells me that although the NOM is manifestly inferior to the traditional rite, it is still (just) valid and I MUST attend it if there is no other mass available. Other materials tell me that I MUST NOT attend it, as it is a sacrilege. Others say that I am "not obliged" to attend, as it destroys the Catholic faith, and the salvation of souls over-rules all other precepts. There still seems to be room for honest difference of opinion among traditionalists as to the worth and validity of the new mass.
The first chapter of Maccabees shows several stages of degradation: A paganization program ("Let us go, and make a covenant with the heathens that are round about us: for since we departed from them, many evils have befallen us."- 1 Macc 1:12), the plundering of the temple treasures, the occupation of Jerusalem, and then the setting up of the abominable idol. The last event occurs on one particular day, and is immediately followed by fierce persecution of all who remain faithful to the covenant.
I think we must still be somewhere in the middle of chapter one. The Mass (as well as the Church in general)has already been subjected, both in its official text and its actual practice to undue influence from the surrounding protestant/pagan/humanist culture. The temple has been plundered of its treasures in every sense: architecture, decoration, liturgy, teachings etc). But I do not think we have yet seen the supreme abomination, or the vicious and all-out persecution of the faithful. When the abomination arrives there will be no doubt."
This latter gentleman would be a mid or post-abom, if you will. He doesn't believe the abomination of desolation has happened yet. However, he does agree that all the circumstances for it have occurred. Then why would there be a void - a 'wait' for the abomination of desolation to occur? It doesn't make sense especially in light of the fact that many misinterpret the "fierce persecution" as physical torture, so to speak. While that may not be widespread yet, the spiritual torture is just as harrowing. Consider the way the modern bishops treat the Traditional Latin Mass and deny the faithful the right to freely attend the Mass of All Ages. Then I have to ask what soul could be more persecuted then to have the salvific eternal, propitiatory sacrifice of Calvary taken away? You don't know what you've lost until you lose it and, folks, we've lost it because of the apostasy of the modern Church, the Newchurch, the church that is surely not Roman Catholic, not the Church founded by Christ.
One thing we all do know, in the end Blessed Mary's Immaculate Heart will triumph. How long will it take? What is the time frame and how close are we? Those are questions we should put aside for now and realize that the more we concentrate on that aspect, the more we miss the message of inspired Divine Revelation. The compendium known as the Bible was not written for the people of their time as many conject, but rather for all time so that all may understand.
All we ask is that you read the headlines, especially Catholic news services reporting from the Vatican and see how the Newchurch seeks to please man, seeks to put an emphasis on humanism over welfare of soul. That has to be the first red flag to alert you to flee from the novelties and ecumenical bent and set up tent (literally) near a Traditional Chapel. There are those who insist one is in schism when one seeks and secures the opportunity to have the lifeline of his Faith continued through the proper and right Holy Sacrifice of the Mass without permission of his bishop. Folks, you do not need permission from your bishop to assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Tridentine Latin Mass because the latter was never abrogated. What has been abrogated is the authority of your bishop who has veered from the Faith into apostasy by rejecting the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church. By going along with the crowd, by not standing up for what the Church has always taught, these bishops in effect have self-excommunicated themselves - latae sententiae and therefore are no longer recognized as trusting shepherds.
I need only remind you of the blasphemy that took place last Sunday in Boston where Cardinal Bernard Law participated in a non-Catholic religious ceremony, acknowledging the great heresy of Mohammedanism by worshipping Allah in a mosque. Please tell me who is being disobedient: He who strives to preserve the Faith by promoting and soliciting the Traditional Latin Mass as decreed must be said "in perpetuity" and seek to help souls to realize there is no salvation outside the Church for that is the first dogma of the Roman Catholic Church? Or the bishops who may wear the robes, but by their actions are, what Christ referred to as "ye serpents, generation of vipers" and who "are like to whitened sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness" (Matt 23: 27)?
These same bishops who have allowed the abomination of desolation, who have indeed encouraged it, these same bishops who have allowed souls to perish because of poor discipline of the sacraments and adherence to the laws of the Church and Canon Law, these same bishops who have danced around the abortion issue because they are afraid of repercussion, these same bishops who hold more credence in temporal matters and gear their popularity on what the coffers bring in, these same bishops whose coffers are going to cover up sin rather than converting sinners, these same bishops who themselves have compromised their very souls by their allowance of abuses and blasphemy, these are the men we are to trust and not do anything without their permission? I think not. St. Athanasius said very clearly, "You have the bishops against you. That proves they are all against the Church." Pope St. Adrian II decreed that "The first requirement of salvation is to keep the standard of the True Faith." Since the bishops have veered so from the True Faith, they have surrendered their authority through latae sententiae and therefore, as St. Robert Bellarmine stated "Unjust laws are, properly speaking, no laws." He also asserted correctly in De Romano Pontifice regarding a bishop or pope:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) (latae sententiae) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction...
It is permissible to resist the Pope when he invades souls and troubles the commonwealth: and moreover, if he appears to be causing harm to the Church, it is permissible, I say, to resist him by not doing what he enjoins and by preventing his will to triumph."
This holy Doctor of the Church and one of the key authors of the sacred, dogmatic Council of Trent asserted this most clearly and therefore I ask: Are we to cling to the infallible teachings of Trent and all that is contained in the Sacred Deposit of the Faith, or the fallible, flawed teachings of the Vatican II church that seeks to obliterate all that Trent set in stone? That, for those who truly know their Faith, is a no-brainer. Ergo, we must resist the bishops with all our might. We need not seek their permission, as one e-mailer wrote me, to solicit a Traditional priest to come and say the Holy Mass. This e-mailer, by the way, attends the Indult Mass and therefore is quite content to go along with all the abuses and the fact that the abomination of desolation is performed in the very same temple the indult is carried on in because it doesn't concern him directly. He is one of the many 'neo-Traditionalists' who have been assuaged from standing tall for the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church, being bought off, if you will by the "good will of the bishop for allowing the Indult Mass." Those bishops who do not allow the Latin Mass? Well, that's tough, go to the NOM. To that I politely but firmly reply, no thank you. Not now, not ever!
Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Diutumum illud wrote,
"And there is no reason why those who obey God rather than men should be accused of refusing obedience, for if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, these rulers exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice, nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null." This would go for civic rulers as well as ecclesiastical ones. Therefore, since they do not obey God and the Traditions of His Holy Church, they are not to be obeyed. Their authority, then, is "null."
Advent is a time of preparation, a time to reflect on the Old Covenant and not only its significance for the First Coming of Christ, but also of the Second Coming It is an ideal time for all of us to go back and read the Book of Daniel and the two Books of Machabees. If you have time left over, dust off the pages of Isaias as well. These books give us not only more insight to what has and can happen, but how. The more we read and understand through prayer and through the guidance of what the infallible, perennial Magisterium of the Church has passed down in the Sacred Deposit of the Faith, the more we will comprehend and not be shocked at what is happening today. God foretold it through His prophets. So why then should we be surprised?
What few realize is that the teaching of Holy Mother Church places obedience with the virtue of justice which is one of the four cardinal virtues. They in turn however are subordinate to the Theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity. That being the case, Faith is greater than obedience. Ergo, if obedience to a bishop prompts one to harm the faith, then a Catholic has a duty not to obey his superior. So if neo-Catholics, neo-Traditionalists or bishops want to talk about obedience, let them remember what true obedience is for according to the great Angelic Doctor St. Thomas Aquinas in HaIIae, Q104,5 ad 3 of his Summa Theologica, "true obedience is a balance between twin errors of defect and excess , which are disobedience and false obedience. Today's neo-Catholics make the mistake of the error of excess by believing they must be obedient to everything the bishops and, yes, the pope, say...even it they are orders to depart from Tradition." The first Pope Saint Peter commanded in Acts 5: 29, "We ought to obey God rather than men." That says it all for obedience is the servant of Faith! Not the other way around. Indeed, Faith trumps Obedience every time!