 When the Christian supper gradually assumed the nature of a liturgical action those who customarily presided over the supper acquired the sacerdotal character.
What brash simplicity from these syncretist simpletons: "the Christian supper"?!? No, from the beginning it was not a "supper" but the HOLY SACRIFICE which Christ at the Last Supper in the upper room of the cenacle commanded His Apostles to "do this in remembrance of Me." Can you see here how they reduce this ultimate propitiatory sacrifice to a mere "supper" and then have the audacity to say it "gradually assumed the nature of a liturgical action"? More verbal engineering to undermine the Catholic Mass and give credence to the false Protestant concept of "communion" as merely a symbol, which has been adapted by those architects of the Novus Ordo and all the innovations that have gutted it of any semblance of a sacrifice, let alone any kind of worship to God, but rather a celebration of man. You'll also note the evolution emphasis with the words "gradually assumed" as if Christ never existed and never specifically instituted the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist that the bread He broke was His Body, Soul and Divinity, and the wine in the Chalice He offered to His Apostles, was His Blood, Soul and Divinity. This was never challenged until Martin Luther came along and dismissed this miraculous mystery of transubstantiation. But the Modernists can't have Lutherans being upset with Catholic ways today, and so Angelo Roncalli a Sillonist well before his election in the 1958 conclave (???), was already setting the wheels in motion to please Protestants by sacking the sensus Catholicus, spouting nonsense he termed aggiornamento and going against all he had vowed to God when he took the Solemn Pontifical Oath: "I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;
To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;
To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; to guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the divine ordinance of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;
I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.
I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.
If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.
Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone -- be it Ourselves or be it another -- who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture."
As we can see, he willingly and knowingly subjected himself to severest excommunication and put himself "outside the Church" (by latae sententiae because few were bold enough or knew their faith well enough to call him out on it) by violation of his oath (if he were even a valid pope when elected for his Sillonist/Communist leanings would have voided his election per Pope Paul IV's Papal Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio). Therefore, the next step, the Council and the man who succeeded him and his subsequent successors were all of the same non-Catholic ilk who held the approval of man higher than the approval of God. No wonder, they're all Modernists who buy into the "evolution of truth" as evident in the very words His Holiness Pope St. Pius X indicated: "gradually assumed the nature of a liturgical action those who customarily presided over the supper acquired the sacerdotal character." In other words, the priesthood evolved from those who had been presiding at the supper. Again, a denial of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. How do the Modernists carry this out in light of a divinely-ordained Sacrament in place in perpetuity in the Roman Catholic Church? Change it, tinker with the matter and form, and remove the authentic formula. A Protestant concept if there ever was one that created the Modernist mania for "unity of community" with the priest being merely a presider, one of the guys in one big diverse family. That has been the Masonic agenda to destroy the Catholic Church for centuries and they vowed they would put one of their own in place. They have and we can see the sad results. Our Lady has prophesied that "the Pope will flee Rome." Yes, he has for the men who have ostensibly ruled since 1959 are not true popes but Masonic matrixes who are carrying out the orders of their masters who answer not to the Triune God, but to the god of the underworld. That would be satan. The evidence and bad fruits are overwhelming; so much so that those ordained after 1968 have possibly "acquired the sacerdotal character" and may be called "Father" by many, and though many of these men who preside may not realize it, they are not authentic priests and that has long been the goal of the Masonic collective: a priestless church. They know something the clueless Catholics don't: Without true priests, those same will not be true bishops someday. Without true bishops how can they ordain true priests? They can't. Without these two essential necessities in the Church hierarchy there can be no authentic worship of God. This displeases God and He withdraws His graces, leaving the gates open to crush the Church and bring it into line with the One World Religion which one Father Joseph Ratzinger has been, from before Vatican II, only too pleased to accommodate.
|