January 28, 2002
volume 13, no. 16
Perhaps it is time to consider calling Trent II
Just as many churches claiming to be Christian have broken away from the One True Church established by Jesus Christ, and therefore were founded by men who had no authority from God to found a church, we ask what authority post-conciliar Rome has to obliterate the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church with such blasphemies as occurred last week in Assisi in the name of 'praying together for peace.' There can be no peace when there is division and there is plenty of division inside and outside the Church. This is because the Marks that distinguish the True Church have been greatly blurred by the post-conciliar church thus calling into question if, indeed, it is still truly Catholic today.
Oh how far Catholicism has fallen in the post-conciliar church! This commentary today is addressed primarily to our conservative friends who cling to the idea that our Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II has been chosen by Our Lady and therefore can do no wrong and is infallible. Folks, hate to break your bubble, but nothing infallible has been spoken ex cathedra since Pope Pius XII declared the Dogma of the Assumption on November 1, 1950! Oh, I know, our conservative friends will accuse me of being disrespectful to the present pope because I am taking him to task for not being totally Catholic. Well, do they see what happened last week in Assisi? Do they realize the Pope - yes, the Vicar of Christ, blatantly violated the First Commandment "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have strange gods before Me?
As you take a gulp and say, 'boy, is he being uncharitable,' think for a moment what is greater charity: to cover-up the obvious errors being promoted by the post-conciliar popes by not speaking out when such action demands it, or striving to adhere to what the Roman Catholic Church has always taught so that souls will not be misled, so that souls will be saved?
Conservatives, or, as they are referred to in a not-so-complimentary manner - neo-Catholics, don't like to hear criticism of the Pope. I was in that same mind-set for many years until early last year when we had an epiphany around the Epiphany. Just researching our archives you can see the change in direction - one which several conservatives are uncomfortable with without giving one solid, documented reason why. That, we have found is the modus operandi of those who are idealistic and think it will all work out in the end without the Church Militant doing their part. Because of this naive mindset they criticize but can't back up their accusations. I have yet to meet a conservative that can hold his own with one who upholds traditionalism. Why is that? Simply because one who adheres to the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church has documented proof spanning nearly 2000 years, whereas the neo-Catholic can only refer to Vatican II documents just as practically everything that comes out of Rome and from the Pope do. Why is that? Because to reference Church and conciliar documents before Vatican II would conflict with the whole schema being forged on Catholics today.
We came to this realization from reading past Church documents from the Council of Trent decrees to pre-conciliar pontiffs whose words were very distinct, very clear and concise with NO AMBIGUITY and did not ramble as have the great majority of post-conciliar documents, including the new Catechism of the Catholic Church. This discovery prompted us to do more research, delving back to the First Council of Nicaea through Vatican I. In the process we discovered that what was taught for centuries was not only being compromised, but contradicted. Something was rotten not only in Denmark, but in Rome as well. Why were there no fruits from the reforms of Vatican II? Despite all the spin - there were and are none. Vocations are on life support, churches are no longer holy places, but more social halls to accommodate the commotion of the perpetual noisy Mass of Paul VI. Folks, I ask you to consider why, when you realize that the 'novus ordo' most conservatives attend, was fashioned by a 33rd degree Mason - Bishop Annibale Bugnini at Paul's knowledge, and a specially chosen Marxist priest, along with six Protestants - (yes, that's right - a half dozen who reject the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church), would you still cling to a mass created by man and reject the Mass of All Ages instituted by the Son of God Jesus Christ which evolved into the dogmatic tried and true Tridentine Mass which Pope Saint Pius V decreed MUST be said for all time?
There are those feeble attempts to label St. Pius V's Papal Bull Quo Primum as merely disciplinary and only for those times. Wake up, dear conservative friends! If that were so why would he have said the following so emphatically?
"Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used."
"Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."
His Holiness Pius V made it absolutely clear. He was following the infallible doctrinal decrees of Trent - the greatest and longest and most profound, important Council the Church has ever held and he was following up on his Papal Bull De defectibus in ratifying the Council of Trent, the same Council which reaffirmed the serious sin of omitting or changing the Form of the Sacrament at the Consecration, something that, according to the weight and Magisterial Power of the Council of Trent also calls into serious question the validity of the New Mass of Paul VI. That is why we do not hesitate in publishing Father James F. Wathen's outstanding work "The Great Sacrilege" for indeed, when you delve beneath the surface, when you truly know what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass means and when you read the Council of Trent and St. Pius' Papal Bulls, you will see that the form of Consecration has been drastically changed. Thus, can you see how the post-conciliar church and their 'novus ordo' is not truly Catholic for it blurs the four indelible marks of the True Church?
Do you recognize the Four Marks of the Church?
'Whoa', you say. Yes, woe to those who do not realize that in actuality a new religion was formed from the reforms of Vatican II. Let us look at the four marks and then see if you are still outraged at me or at our church leaders for duping you so. "The Church" as stated in "My Catholic Faith" by Bishop Louis LaRavoire in 1949, "that possesses all the shining marks which Our Lord gave is the Church of God, the True Church. Any church that lacks even one of these marks is an imitation, a false church, and not the one founded by Our Lord. The True Church must possess all these marks. It is the Church which Christ commanded all to hear and obey."
Members of the True Church must be united in doctrine, worship and government. Mark 3: 24 and John 10:16; 17: 11 back this up. So is it united in doctrine? Not if you look at how doctrine is being compromised, how the President-emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity Eduoard Cardinal Cassidy has openly campaigned to de-dogmatize the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary because that is such a hurdle for non-Catholics to get over. So the answer is to compromise and tear down the walls by tearing down our precious dogmas? No way, Jose! Worship? Go anywhere in the world to a novus ordo mass and you're lost. Go anywhere in the world to a Tridentine Mass and you are one with the faithful as the priest offers on our behalf the continual sacrifice on the Altar to God as the Church had always taught up until the masonic take-over at Vatican II. Government? Yes, the Pope is the head of the Church, but he doesn't act like it, giving credence to false religions, relying on a democratic voice to make decisions and having his chief-of-staff, so to speak, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger denying that the Church is a monarchy. The bishops' conferences have tried to erode the power of the Primacy of Peter and set up their own governments, not unlike Protestant sects, where there is power to the people to make decisions - even to having a voice in who their bishop will be.
This means Jesus intended that His Church must teach holy doctrine in faith and morals. That would include upholding the Commandments of God without compromise. Yet so many church leaders are compromising those edicts by waffling and silently condoning by their non-action abortion (5th Commandment), sodomy, adultery, contraception, pedophilia and liberal sex education (6th and 9th Commandments), lying about what the Church intends such as Paul VI saying that the traditions would not be tampered with through the introduction of his new mass and we all know that has proven to be a lie, or John Paul II and his Vatican representatives saying that they would avoid religious syncretism and indifferentism at Assisi where, in truth, they did not (8th Commandment). Do you realize the Franciscan monks were ordered to take down crucifixes and any sacred images in the rooms the false religions were meeting in last Thursday? Why? So it would not offend false religions' sensibilities. Please! So now we are ashamed of the sacramentals and sacred images that outwardly state we are Catholic and proud of it? That action only bears out that the post-conciliar church is only too willing to please man and the heck with what God demands.
That is clearly an offense against the First Commandment and Christ's command in Mark 16: 15-16 to preach the gospel to every creature. If holy doctrine were upheld the leaders of today's church would not shrink from that responsibility and not hide the tools that enable the gospel to be preached to every creature, to make it possible for them to believe in the only truths that can be accepted and, as an affirmative outward sign of accepting those undeniable beliefs, be baptized so that they may erase original sin from their soul and be eligible for salvation. "He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved:" Without baptism, without believing in all the True Church should teach, there is NO SALVATION. This is a dogma of the Church and strongly affirmed by Christ Himself in Mark 16: 16, "but he that believeth not, shall be condemned."
Bishop LaRavoire states that a Catholic sins against Faith by taking part in non-Catholic worship. It is wrong to be present at Protestant or Jewish services even when we do not participate in them, because such services are intended to honor God in a manner He does not wish to be honored in. If He instituted a Church of His Own, He must wish to be honored in the ways of that Church. " He goes on to assert, "When necessary, for social obligations, a Catholic may be present at a non-Catholic wedding or funeral, but he must not participate in the services. In no case may he attend other services of non-Catholic churches, such as the installation of their ministers, sermons, etc." This is Catholic doctrine. Yet, dear conservative friends, how do you defend our Sovereign Pontiff when he boldly participates in services that recognize other religions? How do you justify the Vicar of Christ giving credence to something that has always been a sin against the Faith and therefore the First Commandment? Ecumenism is not Catholic doctrine, it is an agenda forged by masonic interests in seeking a one-world-religion. Please read what His Holiness Pope Pius IX had to say about this:
"3. But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians.
4. Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be "one."  John 17: 21. And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another"?  John 13: 35. All Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed."
Yet our present pontiff dangerously forges ahead with such error. How can you justify this? I cannot urge you strongly enough to read Pius' encyclical and then tell me John Paul II is right. No, dear misguided conservative souls, he is not. And it is true charity to inform you of such in regards your own mortal souls. Also, many of us have heard from the lips of priests and bishops cursing and blasphemy and seen in action clerics schmoozing and compromising with leaders of false religions and people of ill repute. Our Lord has clearly indicated that no man can serve two masters, yet so many of the hierarchy today think they can. They are mocking God. To do so violates the Second Commandment. Also, keep in mind that every ordained person has taken a Vow, an oath before God and yet...well, you can see how these vows are being broken and, in so doing, causing great scandal. Look at Boston! "Woe to the man through whom scandal does come!" (Matthew 18: 7).
Then there is the Third Commandment which the post-conciliar church has de-emphasized so by downplaying the importance of attending Sunday Mass and caving to allowing servile work on Sundays. Most bishops have gone so far as to not make some Holy Days of Obligation mandatory anymore, lumping them in with Sunday because it is so inconvenient for many to attend Mass on a weekday. Never had that problem before Vatican II. Pope Leo XIII said, "As He took to Himself a mortal body which He gave to suffering and death in order to pay the price of man's redemption, so also He has a Mystical Body in which and through which He renders men partakers of holiness and eternal salvation." Without frequent attendance at Holy Mass we cannot secure the necessary graces and cannot, thus, effect our sanctification. Therefore, you can see how the erosion of the importance of seeking holiness that the post-conciliar church is not fully holy for the fruits bear this out as Christ illustrated in Matthew 7: 15-17, 20, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit...Therefore, by their fruits you will know them."
This means universal and that the same faith must be taught everywhere. Again Mark 16: 15-16 is the chief source for this as are Matthew 24:14 and 28: 19 and Acts 1: 8. Bishop LaRavoire states, "It must be for all peoples of every nation and for all times and teach the same faith everywhere." Notice the words "for all times"? Since Vatican II this has changed with a 'new springtime' that seems to be redefining many of the truths and disciplines that were set in stone for all times; just more evidence that the direction the post-conciliar church has taken is not truly Catholic.
As every Catholic knows the Pope is the successor of Saint Peter, the first apostle and first Pope appointed by Christ (cf. Matthew 16: 18-19). The Apostles, before Pentecost, were afraid to stand up for their Faith, they feared persecution, they lacked faith. After the infusion of the Holy Ghost they were fearless, going forth into all nations of their time and all but one (Saint John) being martyred for their Lord and Savior and His teachings. They would not compromise. Now compare that with today's 'imitators' who call themselves successors of the Apostles but by their actions betray that title for indeed they are afraid. Why else would they not - as one - strongly enforce the disciplines of Canon Law in respect to pro-abort (pro-murderers) politicians who claim to be Catholic? As we have documented numerous times on these pages, the bishops do not want to offend others in this politically correct craziness that has visited us over the past 40 years - another 'fruit' of the masonic objectives. Add to this how they have betrayed their flocks by their embracing false religions in ecumenical gatherings and how so many have secretly enlisted in Freemasonry - ecclesial masonry. Slowly but surely they are introducing concepts and ideas that contradict the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church such as Roger Cardinal Mahony's abhorrent Protestant-oriented "We Gather Together", which because of the weight of who has authored it, carries with it the assumption of being authentic Church teaching. It is not, nor are any documents that seek to mollify the Jews by downplaying "No Salvation Outside the Church" dogma and this includes Dominus Iesus and a controversial document released in November entitled "The Jewish People and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible" in which, as the New York Times stated on January 17 in a story by Melinda Henneberger, was issued by Cardinal Ratzinger's office. She wrote in part:
"the Vatican has issued what some Jewish scholars are calling an important document that explicitly says, 'The Jewish wait for the Messiah is not in vain.' The scholarly work, effectively a rejection of and apology for the way some Christians have viewed the Old Testament, was signed by the pope's theologian, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. The document says Jews and Christians in fact share the wait for the Messiah, though Jews are waiting for the first coming, and Christians for the second. 'The difference consists in the fact that for us, he who will come will have the same traits of that Jesus who has already come,' wrote Cardinal Ratzinger, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. At least one Jewish scholar said the new document is a marked departure from Dominus Iesus, a study of the redemptive role of Jesus that was released last year in Cardinal Ratzinger's name and that fanned disputes between
Catholic and Jewish scholars. The new document also says Catholics must regard the Old Testament as
'retaining all of its value, not just as literature, but its moral value,' said Joaquín Navarro-Valls, the pope's spokesman. 'You cannot say, `Now that Jesus has come, it becomes a second-rate document.' The expectancy of the Messiah was in the Old Testament,' he went on, 'and if the Old Testament keeps its value, then it keeps that as a value, too. It says you cannot just say all the Jews are wrong and we are right.' Asked whether that could be taken to mean that the Messiah may or may not have come, Dr. Navarro-Valls said no. 'It means it would be wrong for a Catholic to wait for the Messiah, but not for a Jew,' he said. The document, the result of years of work by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, goes on to apologize for the fact that certain New Testament passages that criticize the Pharisees, for example, had been used to justify anti-Semitism. Everything in the report is now considered part of official church doctrine, Dr. Navarro-Valls said."
If indeed the above is true that the document does say such, then the post-conciliar church is in serious heresy. As a very knowledgeable scholar of Catholicism properly pointed out in a missive on this,
"What kind of ridiculous double-talk is this? We already know the name of Who came for all to include the Jews at the 'first coming,' Jesus Christ. That same Jesus Christ, not some abstract entity who will have the 'same traits of that Jesus Who has already come,' will come for all in glory to judge the living and the dead at the 'second coming.' That [claims by Dr. Joaquín Navarro-Valls] is pure and simple garbage, an incredible statement coming from a Vatican representative. No one has ever said this. Jesus Himself said I come to fulfill the Old Law, not to abolish it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. This is a violation of the principle of contradiction, a fundamental principle of first philosophy. Something can't be true, and not true, at the same time in the same place. Either THE Messiah has come, or He hasn't. For the Catholic Church now to say that for some, He hasn't is HERESY! We use to pray for the conversion of the Jews in our Good Friday services. Now, we seem to be telling them that it is OK for them to wait for the Messiah. If that is the case, then what we're saying is that the Messiah hasn't come, which is heresy. How can the Catholic Church say that the Messiah has come for Catholics, and not the rest of mankind. Is the Catholic Church going to start to recognize false messiahs for every religion from Buddhism to Hinduism? This is an 'I'm OK, you're OK' fallacy that should never have seen the light of day theologically. It will do nothing but cause scandal to the faithful in the most confusing sense possible. What in the name of sanity is going on here? This is absolute LUNACY, if true. And that is a big 'if' given the incredible nature of the report."
We, too, were gravely concerned and I contacted a Vatican representative who related to me that "no matter what the document says (that is, prescinding from whether what it says is in any way heretical or not heretical), it is not official Church teaching. It is the product of a committee of scholars who are generally esteemed, and whose work is generally respected and considered a good guide, but the document has no magisterial authority whatsoever." Did the cardinal sign it? Did Dr. Navarro-Valls say it was official? If they did, then they both need to be removed immediately for such misinformation is a serious matter in what is truly in this document which, presently, is only available in Italian and French. We are endeavoring to obtain it so it can be translated into English and we can then see for ourselves what it really says. If, indeed, there is heresy in it as one would assume if those statements were indeed made, then believe me folks, we will make that known in our efforts to safeguard the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church.
It is important to remember that God cannot be divided. He revealed only ONE RELIGION. It comes down to we either believe that one religion which is the Roman Catholic Faith or we don't. There can be no middle ground. There is no way an imitation can surpass or have more value than its original. Just as a zircon will never replace a diamond, no 'new evangelization' or 'new springtime' will ever replace the undeniable truths of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church even though they are so cleverly trying to do so. The only way to know is to study your Faith. That is the main objective of The DAILY CATHOLIC to provide these tools so you may know without a shadow of doubt that the only true course is to return to the Truths and Traditions taught for nearly two millennia until the modernists' take-over at Vatican II.
The Holy Father annually takes his vacation in the mountains of Northern Italy. Maybe it's time to consider that area in calling for another Council wherein, we can only hope and pray, the post-conciliar church would finally abandon the fruitless journey that has plunged it into confusion causing countless lost souls over the last 40 years. Only when the Pope recants what he has perpetrated on the faithful in continuing the aberrations begun by his predecessors will he be living up to the very Coronation Oath he declined to take. In all charity to His Holiness and love for Holy Mother Church, perhaps it is time to consider calling Trent II!
Michael Cain, editor