April 2003
vol 14, no. 24

E-mail       Print
Razzle-dazzle 'em!

    We agree with John Paul II. If only he agreed enough to carry out what he wrote, but how can they hear the truth above the roar?


   In paragraph 28 of Chapter Three, "The Apostolicity of the Eucharist and the Church," he actually says, "At various times in the two-thousand-year history of the People of the New Covenant, the Church's Magisterium has more precisely defined her teaching on the Eucharist, including its proper terminology, precisely in order to safeguard the apostolic faith with regard to this sublime mystery [editor's emphasis]. This faith remains unchanged and it is essential for the Church that it remain unchanged." Well then, our question is: Why was it changed? Why was the proper terminology so expertly and divinely inspired by the Fathers of Trent abandoned by the Vatican II popes?

   You see while he says the faith remains unchanged, it has changed because the contradictions of the faith - grave contradictions - signify numerous times a definite difference between the faith practiced prior to Vatican II and that promulgated after. Yes, we agree that "it is essential for the Church that the faith remain unchanged." We agree with John Paul II. If only he agreed enough to carry out what he wrote, but how can they hear the truth above the roar?

    Give 'em the old three-ring circus,
    Stun and stagger 'em.
    When you're in trouble, go into your dance...

   In paragraph 28, he again refers to the erroneous Lumen Gentium by denying the sole priesthood of the alter Christus on the altar who confects the bread and wine by acknowledging the plurality and ordinatio nature of the laity in referencing "their royal priesthood." While in the next sentence he returns to the orthodoxy that it is the priest "acting in the person of Christ" who offers to the Father on behalf of the faithful. It's all part of the 'three-ring circus act' that has so many baffled. Why are their heads doing a bobble-head act? Because in the next sentence he points out that "the people participate in faith and silence." Yes, they should, but they don't in the Vatican II rite. For anyone who has attended a Novus Ordo, I doubt there were very few minutes of "faith and silence" that they could have recognized with all the innovative hymns and hand-holding that approximates the Protestant liturgical mentality. And this has been empowered by John Paul II by not only his failure to curb abuses, but by his veering from the Tried and True! Tridentine True!

   In paragraph 30 he gets ready to 'stun and stagger 'em' - especially the liberals and progressivists like Cardinal Karl Lehmann who has complained openly that this encyclical hurts interfaith communion. John Paul talks about ecumenism - his favorite subject - and calls the Protestants: 'Ecclesial Communities,' which is a far cry to what Christ, His Saints, Doctors and previous Pontiffs called them: 'heretics and schismatics' which is what they really are for they are alien to the Church founded by Christ. He refers to Unitatis Redintegratio in trying to rationalize heretics and appease them. You don't dance with the devil, but yet when he's in trouble he goes into his dance - his ecumenical dance whose beat is not in harmony with true conversion of souls as Our Lord called for. Compare Unitatis Redintegratio or Ut unum sint with Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum or Pius XI's Mortalium Animos or Pius XII's Mediator Dei.

    Though you are stiffer than a girder,
    They let ya get away with murder.
    Razzle-dazzle 'em.
    And you've got a romance.

   In the succeeding paragraphs he tiptoes around the crux of the matter again and again without coming out and telling it like it is. Over the past 25 years John Paul, by his actions, has built up a starch-like resistance to turn back to the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church, choosing instead to rush pell-mell into the world community with his 'all- things-to-all-people' ecumenical stance, fashioned by Vatican II. Spurred on by adoring papalotry chants of "John Paul Two we love you!", he girds himself to serve both God and mammon. We all know that is impossible and the consequences of which are inevitable as Christ affirmed in Matthew 6: 24 and Luke 16: 9-13. It is all too evident in the barren trees of vocations and conversions that by his scandalous ecumenical actions and pronouncements as well as his deafening consentual silence and actions that one no longer needs to convert to Catholicism to be saved, the 'fruits' have been the death of countless souls who wallow in mortal sin. Rather than declaring those who persist as 'accursed' or 'anathema' he merely says "The Code of Canon Law refers to this situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who 'obstinately persist in manifest grave sin' are not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion." And yet it does not deter these persistent sinners who have the gall to file into the 'communion line' at Novus Ordo services. Pro-abort politicians and those who contracept in violation of the Fifth Commandment or those who are living in sin in violation of the Sixth Commandment have no qualms about receiving communion with everyone else. And, since no one stops them, they continue to scandalize. Oh, the bishops might give lip-service just as the pope does, but they do nothing to truly enforce the absolutes and disciplines of the Church. Consequently by John Paul II's failure to rein in his bishops and hold them responsible, by his failure to proclaim even one anathema, by his failure to remove apostate bishops and cardinals, and his failure to make a definitive statement on the whole scandalous, lurid sexcapades of sodomites within the hierarchy, he has incriminated himself and inherited the millstone Our Lord spoke of in Matthew 18: 6-7 because, by his actions and inactions, he has allowed the scandal to continue. I would recommend to the reader who might think I am being too harsh to read Pope Paul IV's encyclical "Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio".

   The answer to all the wrongs is right there for all to see in Chapter Four, "The Eucharist and Ecclesial Communion" as he emphasizes, in paragraphs 36 and 37, the need to be "reconciled to God" as Paul asserts in 1 Corinthians 5: 20. The absolution of sin in the Sacrament of Penance is the gateway to receiving Holy Communion for the confessional is the only key that purges the soul of mortal sin and fills it with Sanctifying Grace.

   In paragraphs 38 and 39 he swerves back towards orthodoxy quoting the Summa Theologica of the Angelic Doctor, and reassuring that "It is not possible to give communion to a person who is not baptized or to one who rejects the full truth of the faith regarding the Eucharistic mystery." Amen! He even says that a "truly Eucharistic community cannot be closed in upon itself, as though it were somehow self-sufficient; rather it must persevere in harmony with every other Catholic community." True, but how can this be when there are so many varied liturgies made possible by the liberalization of the rite and the surrender to the vernacular that has allowed every cultural and national interest and innovation to discard the universal Latin Rite set in stone by Trent?

   After weaving in and out between Tridentine thought and Vatican II perceptions from paragraphs 40 through 43, on bringing in again his ecumenical agenda, he states in paragraph 44, "Precisely because the Church's unity, which the Eucharist brings about through the Lord's sacrifice and by communion in his [sic] body and blood, absolutely requires full communion in the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance, it is not possible to celebrate together the same Eucharistic liturgy until those bonds are fully re-established...The path towards full unity can only be undertaken in truth." Yet, as posted on the Vatican's own website are the "guidelines for admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East" which, in truth signifies that John Paul II has approved a 'Mass' in the Assyrian rite which lacks a Consecration! Yet, he says in paragraph 46, "Catholics may not receive communion in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of Orders. Do you see the contradiction? In trying to romance heretics, the great tragedy for the Mystical Body of Christ is that he is enabling the murder of souls.

   Chapter Five deals with "The Dignity of the Eucharistic Celebration" which should correctly have been titled "The Mystery of the Holy Sacrifice;" however that would not be in conjunction with the new thought regarding the "Eucharistic amazement." What is so frustrating is that he can be orthodox one minute and wangling the truths in the next. As example, he references numerous passages of Holy Scripture and affirms "that the 'banquet' always remains a sacrificial banquet marked by the blood shed on Golgotha. The Eucharistic Banquet is truly a 'sacred' banquet, in which the simplicity of the signs conceals the unfathomable holiness of God: O sacrum convivium, in quo Christus sumitur! The bread which is broken on our altars, offered to us as wayfarers along the paths of the world, in panis angelorum, the bread of angels, which cannot be approached except with the humility of the centurion in the Gospel: 'Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof' (Mt. 8:8; Lk 7:6)." How beautiful and right on. He even goes into the great lengths the Church has gone into over the centuries to heighten this "sense of mystery," in describing the beautiful architecture of the Middle Ages as well as the magnificent statues, icons, furnishings and sacred music that give further emphasis to this august Sacrificial Mystery. With that said, one that gives lilt to Traditional Catholics, he plunges back into Modernism in paragraph 51 for the "need for sound and proper 'inculturation'" which has left almost every church, cathedral and basilica in a state of iconoclastic sterility which in no way resembles the places of worship he described in the previous paragraph. Is that sound and proper?

   Yet in that very same paragraph he covers and contradicts himself at the same time for he says that "because the Sacred Liturgy expresses and celebrates the one faith professed by all, being the heritage of the whole [original emphasis] Church, cannot be determined by local Churches in isolation from the universal Church." With this in mind, then how do you justify what Archbishop Rembert Weakland wrought by destroying St. John the Evangelist Cathedral in Milwaukee before his ignominious fall from grace? Or Cardinal Roger Mahony's monstrous 'Taj Mahony' on the Hollywood Freeway? Or countless other churches in every diocese of the world where those enhancements to show man's love for God have been discarded in favor of a septic feel which goes to great lengths to avoid 'offending the sensibilities' of those who do not have the sensus Catholicus. The means which Assisi Two went to in order to not offend heretics and heathens is a good example and it was all carried out under the watchful eye of John Paul II. Christopher Ferrara documented this in his excellent, revealing and insightful first-hand accounts from Assisi in 2002. If, indeed, these 'local Churches' are acting without approval of the Holy See, then why have they not been sternly censored? If they are acting with the approval of the Holy See, then why cannot Catholics realize the problem begins at the top? It's one or the other.

   The proverbial carrot is always hanging out there such as in paragraph 52 where he says, "I consider it my duty, therefore, to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone's private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated. The Apostle Paul had to address fiery words to the community of Corinth because of grave shortcomings in their celebration of the Eucharist resulting in divisions (schismata) and the emergence of factions (haereseis) (cf. 1 Cor 11: 17-34). Our time, too, calls for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms as a reflection of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made present in every celebration of the Eucharist. Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church." If one didn't know better one might think John Paul II was referring to those who say the Tridentine Mass, that he was thinking of the reverence the SSPX and Traditional Catholics give the Holy Sacrifice, because they celebrate according to the liturgical norms - the infallible, perpetual norms set down by Trent.

   He continues with a statement that could make every Traditional heart beat with great hope for the future: "Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject. No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands; it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality."

   This last paragraphs leaves the door wide open for reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X under the terms they have clarioned since 1969: that every priest in the world must be allowed to celebrate the Tridentine Mass without repercussion from the local bishop for it remains the rule, not the exception; and every priest and all the faithful must be allowed to adhere to the traditional Catholic Profession of the Faith by abandoning the failed innovations and novelties of Vatican II which have so veered from the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church. And the "Indult Mass" is not the answer for as Traditio.com's Fr. Moderator stated recently,

       An undated letter issued by the "Ecclesia Dei" Commission makes it clear that the "indult" Mass has no rights and that "indult" priests can be forced to say the Novus Ordo service. Moreover, it admits that "there have been some internal disagreements" within the Fraternity of St. Peter on such issues -- which could lead to an internal schism in that organization.

       As to the lack of any right to use the Traditional Latin Mass, even the modernized form of 1962, the Commission spells it out thus:

         An "exclusive right" to celebrate according to the 1962 books does not exist and has never existed, and no official text makes such a mention. The text of the Congregation for Divine Worship are very clear and leave no room for doubt on this point. It is then utterly false to take about away from the Fraternity its exclusive right, because such a right never existed.

       As to the need for "indult" priests to concelebrate (a Novus Ordo arrangement) the Novus Ordo with the local Novus Ordo bishop, the Commission practically calls the "indult" priests schismatics if they don't:

      One cannot refuse this liturgical sign without giving the impression that one refused communion itself. This is why the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" exhorts these priest to accept [Novus Ordo] concelebration with their bishop.

       So, what TRADITIO has been saying all along about the "indult" is confirmed by this letter. The "Ecclesia Dei" Commission is not now and never has been committed to the exclusivity of the Traditional Latin Mass. It recognized the Novus Ordo as the normative service of its sect and will even force "indult" priests to concelebrate the Novus Ordo service in a show of solidarity with the New Order. How can any traditional Catholic take this commission and its head, Card. Hoyos seriously? This "Ecclesia Dei" Commission is a sham, pure and simple, a red-herring created to lead traditional Catholics astray into the New Order by deceitful words and false gestures. [Father Moderator's emphasis] (traditio.com).

   Considering the razzle-dazzle of Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos of the Ecclesia Dei Commission and the latest scuttlebutt of trying to stir up the SSPX with false rumors, one would be wise to see the wisdom of Fr. Morrison's words. What scares every Traditional Catholic and should frighten conservative Catholics is that one of the great problems with the current hierarchy is the Roman Curia today. None can be trusted. As Bishop Richard Williamson has noted, there are nice liberals and nasty liberals, but one thing is for sure: they are all liberals.

   John Paul II is so right on when he says "it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality." Yet, that is exactly what he has done in his constant travels throughout the world where he has witnessed abuse after abuse and done nothing but nod approvingly whether it was a topless woman in Polynesia or scantily clad men and women acrobats or dancers or heathen incense during liturgical functions that have strayed so much from the True Mass that these liturgies are unrecognizable. He could save so much time, effort, heartache and souls if he merely republished the Decrees of Trent and St. Pius' Papal Bulls De Defectibus and Quo Primum and ordered the latter printed in every Sacramentary as it had been until Paul VI scrapped it in introducing his new 'Mass.'

   In Chapter Six, "At the School of Mary, 'Woman of the Eucharist'", he injects his insipid addition of the Mysteries of Light as part of Tradition which is an abomination in and of itself. Though he speaks reverently for the Mother of God and much of what he says is inspiring, however he leaves that sliver of doubt in the mind of the reader when he says in paragraph 55, "In a certain sense Mary lived her Eucharistic faith even before the Institution of the Eucharist..." No, not in a "certain sense," but in every sense once she was mystically impregnated by the Holy Ghost, the Sanctifier. He continues this hedging when he says "she became in some way a 'tabernacle' - the first 'tabernacle' in history..." Our Lady is the "Ark of the Covenant" and it is not just in "some" way but definitely that she was the living tabernacle for the Son of God. Despite these few variances from Tradition, he seems to speak in very orthodox terms throughout this chapter, giving hope to the reader. Again, that carrot.

   In paragraph 60, of his "Conclusion," he states, in quoting his Apostolic Letter Novo Millennio inuente that "it is not a matter of inventing a 'new programme'. The programme [program] already exists; it is the plan found in the Gospel and in the living Tradition; it is the same as ever." Yes, wonderful, but then why was not only a 'new program' instituted by Paul VI, but further developed and emphasized as 'new' by John Paul II? He repeats in paragraph 61, "an uninterrupted tradition" in referring to the Holy Eucharist. But it has been interrupted with the establishment of the man-made New Order that sacked the heart of the Tridentine Mass. Again, an obvious contradiction whose chaff escapes the radar of so many.

   He finishes paragraph 62, his final paragraph, on a wholly traditional note in quoting St. Thomas with Bone pastor, panis vere..., "Come then, good Shepherd, bread divine..." It leaves liberal, conservatives and traditional Catholics thinking their concerns have been met, and still a void that he didn't address; all part, it would seem, of the razzle-dazzle way.

    And all that Jazz

   So then, what are we to make of this latest encyclical. Are we to dismiss obvious errors and, in 'cafeteria Catholic' style pick and choose only those things which we agree with or want to believe? Or should we heed what Leo XIII decreed in his encyclical Satis Cognitum? Leo states assertively in paragraph 9 and backs it up with a statement by St. Augustine, the following:

       "The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. 'There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition' (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos). [editor's emphasis].

       The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. 'No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic' (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). "[editor's emphasis].

   What are we to think then? By one word - and Paul VI and his bishops, as well as John Paul II and his bishops, have uttered more than one word - and thus: "as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition." As we have pointed out in this commentary, there are more than a few heresies that have been pronounced by the Vatican II popes in light of the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church such as the acceptance of the Jews wait for the Messiah not being in vain and equating Allah to the Triune Divinity, to mention only a few. One is enough! Enough said. Christ said it best in Matthew 7: 15-27 and, despite the denials by modern Rome and its men in purple, scarlet, and white, there are no fruits! We can only pray that someday soon the church of Vatican II, and all it has professed in contradiction to what preceded it, will hopefully be anathematized as it should be when a good Pope will assume the Throne of Peter and the Primacy be restored in all its glory and integrity.

   We have been wandering and wondering in a desert of desolation for 40 years and, sadly, it looks like it will be a while longer for it is evident to the sensus Catholicus that in this latest encyclical from John Paul II he still, sadly, cannot separate 'sacrament' from 'sacrilege' and therein is the rub no matter how much he tries to razzle-dazzle 'em!

Michael Cain, editor

    For the first part of this commentary, see ACT ONE
Without the True Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we have the answer to the riddle:

    What is greater than God,
    more evil than the devil,
    the poor have it,
    the rich need it,
    and, if you eat it, you will die?

The answer is: NOTHING! for Jesus said in John 6: 54-55, Amen, amen, I say to you: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me, and I in him."

Only in the Mass set in stone by Pope St. Pius V is the fullness of this realized, for without the Holy Eucharist, confected by the absolute unchangeable words of the Consecration, there is no Transubstantiation in the Latin Rite.

      APRIL 2003
      vol 14, no. 24
      CATHOLIC PewPOINT commentary