They Crossed the Rubicon Fifty Years Ago, part four

The egalitarianism of the Marxism that is so near and dear to the heart of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and “liberation theology” compadres, including Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez, had its proximate antecedent roots with in the revolution that Father Martin Luther, O.S.A., wrought against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man’s return to Him through the Catholic Church.

Just as Lucifer had deceived Adam and Eve that they could be the equals of God, knowing all things, if they disobeyed Him and ate of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil from which He had forbidden them to eat, Martin Luther invented a false theology that advanced the lie of egalitarianism. Luther did not believe that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ founded a visible, hierarchical and perfect society, the Catholic Church, to teach infallibly in His Holy Name and to sanctify souls in their daily battle against the world, the flesh and the devil that Luther thought was impossible to win. He believed that all believers were equal in authority to each other, bringing to birth the essential diabolical lie of Protestantism that served as one of the essential building blocks of the anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity.

As our Pope Leo XIII pointed out in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, and as Dr. George O’Brien amplified about forty years later (see The Rubicon Was Crossed Fifty Years Ago, part three), the individualism of Protestantism resulted in its inevitable splintering. The number of Protestant sects, each with its own different interpretation of what they think is Holy Writ, which they believe is the one and only source of Divine Revelation, is well over thirty-three thousand worldwide. If Our Lord did not endow Saint Peter and his legitimate successors with the power to govern and teach infallibly, then everyone is his own individual “pope” or “papessa.” The path to practical atheism is thus laid wide open, something that we see with particular clarity in our own world today and that was spelled out in no uncertain terms by Pope Leo XIII in the aforementioned Immortale Dei:

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

It was to blunt the inroads that the Protestants had made upon the minds of Catholic priests in Europe, especially in Germany, as they sought to adapt the offering of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition to the “innovations” and “novelties” of revolutions of Martin Luther and John Calvin that Pope Saint Pius V wanted to standardize the Breviary and the offering of Holy Mass without any regional variations so as to make it impossible for there to be any Protestant influences on the liturgy of the Catholic Church.

Robin Anderson’s book on the life of Pope Saint Pius V documents this very well:

Some of the popes before St. Pius V had been incapable of bringing about spiritual reform owing to overwhelmingly adverse circumstances, others has been unmindful of it; one or two had done something to fight corruption and heresy and put down the spurious reforms that sprang up, pretending to do good and misleading the faithful. The Council of Trent not only gathered up the hitherto dispersed forces of true reform, inspired and led by martyrs and saint, such as St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Cajetan, St. Angela Merici—it further provided that its clear-cut decrees be carries out by laying down correspondingly severe penalties for default.

The renewal achieved by Pius V, based on the Council of Trent, was completed by his publication of the Roman Catechism, or Catechism of Trent. This was followed by the revision of the Roman Breviary, and the Missal.

The new Protestant theologians and most of the German universities were actively working against the Church, falsifying Holy Scripture to suit their purposes and rewriting their doctrines so as to give them a semblance of tradition and truthfulness. These theologians were patronized by many of the lesser princes interested in supporting heresy which by creating diversions among the people, increased their own power. Protestantism also gave to each ruler control of religious matters within his own State, as of religious property. The Reformers identified their doctrines, in their turn, with the national interest, freedom of conscience and human progress; and the average Catholic was often deceived, having neither the time not the mental equipment to check thing for himself. (Robin Anderson, St. Pius V: A Brief Account of His Life, Times, Virtues & Miracles, published originally by St. Michael’s Press in 1973 and republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1978, pp. 72-73.)

It was none other than the soon to be “Blessed Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI,” aided and abetted by Father Annibale Bugnini, C.M., a Freemason, who sought specifically to incorporate the very errors of Protestantism into the context of a purported Catholic liturgy. Montini/Paul VI believed that such adaptations would result in making what he thought was the Catholic Church more acceptable to Protestants. Instead, of course, Montini’s “renewed liturgy” falsified Catholic worship, making of what is said to be the Holy Mass little more than a memorial of the Last Supper, removing references to Hell, damnation, the possible loss of one’s souls, heresies or error from its collects. The very rites of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination were destroyed, thereby helping to dry up the wellsprings of the superabundance of Sanctifying and Actual Graces in the world.

The conciliar revolutionaries were good enough to provide us with contemporary proof of their desire to placate Protestants, whose errors Pope Saint Pius V, whose feast we celebrated a week ago today, Monday, May 5, 2014, sought to foreclose from influencing the faithful by the means of the falsification of Catholic worship:

We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants.” (Annibale Bugnini, L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.)Certainly we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local tradition: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense. (Archbishop Karol Wojtyla, 1965, Quoted and footnoted in Assault on the Roman Rite. This has also been noted on this site in the past, having been provided me by a reader who had access to the 1980 French book in which the quote is found.)

“[T]he intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should coincide with the Protestant liturgy…. [T]here was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense, in the Mass, and I, repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass” (Dec. 19, 1993), Apropos, #17, pp. 8f; quoted in Christian Order, October, 1994. (Jean Guitton, a close friend of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI. The quotation and citations are found in Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, The Remnant Publishing Company, 2002, p. 317.)

Let it be candidly said: the Roman Rite which we have known hitherto no longer exists. It is destroyed. (Father Joseph Gelineau, an associate of Annibale Bugnini on the Consilium, 1uoted and footnoted in the work of a John Mole, who believed that the Mass of the Roman Rite had been “truncated,” not destroyed. (Assault on the Roman Rite.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s pending “beatification” of Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini on October 19, 2014, is yet another effort to make this hideous man’s diabolical schemes against the Catholic Faith seem as the work of God. The Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service gave what most people think is the Catholic Church’s imprimatur on its Protestantizing of Catholic worship, opening the path to a ceaseless succession of “changes” and adaptations. These changes and adaptations began to institutionalize the hideous practices and demonic rites of barbaric or pagan peoples whose ancestors in Europe and many parts of North Africa and the Near East had been converted to the Holy Faith in the First Millennium and the revival of the celebration of the Aztec and Mayan rites that Our Lady of Guadalupe came to eradicate.

It took only eight years from the time that the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service’s “adaptations,” both those “approved” by conciliar authorities in Rome and those improvised by “bishops” and their priests/presbyters and their “liturgical committees” and translation commissions (such as the International Commission on English in the Liturgy–I.C.E.L.) to devolve to the point that Montini/Paul VI, whose “decree of heroic virtues” by none other than Joseph Ratinger/Benedict XVI (see “Blessed” Paul The Sick), had no “choice” but to give “papal” approval to the distribution of what purports to be Holy Communion in the Novus Ordo in 1977 when the American “bishops” said that the practice had become so widespread that such “approval” had to be given. Time and time again thereafter, of course, “permission” was given by conciliar authorities in the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River for “innovations” that had been started in various dioceses around the world, which is precisely how “Saint John Paul II” was pressured into giving “permission” for girl altar boys twenty years ago last months after telling Mother Teresa of Calcutta just four months previously that he would never do so.

Many beautiful Catholic church buildings were wreckovated or torn down in order to build a “worship space” that was more “suited” to the egalitarianism of the conciliar liturgical ethos, which remains nothing other than Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry covered with a slight gloss of Catholic trappings.

Cranmer Tables were installed in the centers of sanctuaries, many of which have been redesigned to make it akin to “theater in the round.”

High Altars, including Privileged Altars, upon Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ called down from Heaven at the words of true priests who offered the Immemorial of Tradition upon them have been destroyed by sledgehammers and jackhammers.

Statues of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Most Blessed Mother and His foster-father, Saint Joseph and other saints have been thrown out whole into dumpsters or chopped up, something that would have delighted the Iconoclasts of the Seventh and Eighth Centuries, who were fought by Saint John Damascene, and John Calvin and his vicious destroyers of sacred images, including the heinous felon named Oliver Cromwell in England less than a century after Calvin.

Communion rails at which untold millions upon millions of Catholics knelt to receive Our Lord in His Real Presence in Holy Communion have been removed in order to fashion a “worship space” wherein the distinction between the “presider” and the “people” is eliminated, thereby further eclipsing any residual understand that a Catholic sanctuary is the preserve of the ordained priest, who represents Our Lord Himself, and those boys and men who serve as the extensions of his hands, and represents the distinction between eternity and time, between Heaven and earth.

A steady stream of the laity have flooded into the sanctuaries of formerly Catholic churches and the buildings specifically designed for the false worship of conciliarism, making the conciliar presbyter little more than a functionary whose sole task to “preside” over the assembly’s prayers as he sits during the readings and is assisted by the laity, both men and women, many of whom are immodestly attired, in the distribution of what purports to be Holy Communion.

Standing is the norm for the reception of what is purported to be Holy Communion, which is distributed in the hand according to the revolutionary designs of the Protestant Martin Bucer in the Sixteenth Century:

As, therefore, every superstition of the Roman AntiChrist is to be detested, and the simplicity of Christ, and the Apostles, and the ancient Churches, is to be recalled, I should wish that pastors and teachers of the people should be commanded that each is faithfully to teach the people that it is superstitious and wicked to think that the hands of those who truly believe in Christ are less pure than their mouths; or that the hands of the ministers are holier than the hands of the laity; so that it would be wicked, or less fitting, as was formerly wrongly believed by the ordinary folk, for the laity to receive these sacraments in the hand: and therefore that the indications of this wicked belief be removed —– as that the ministers may handle the sacraments, but not allow the laity to do so, and instead put the sacraments into the mouth —– which is not only foreign to what was instituted by the Lord but offensive to human reason.

 In that way good men will be easily brought to the point of all receiving the sacred symbols in the hand, conformity in receiving will be kept, and there will be safeguards against all furtive abuse of the sacraments. For, although for a time concession can be made to those whose faith is weak, by giving them the Sacraments in the mouth when they so desire, if they are carefully taught they will soon conform themselves to the rest of the Church and take the Sacraments in the hand. (Martin Bucer, quoted by Michael Davies on Communion in the hand.)

The ethos of conciliarism has quite indeed led to the false belief that the people are “equal” to Our Lord in a consecrated host, which is why many in the conciliar church do not see the need to genuflect before a tabernacle, where He is presumed, albeit falsely, to be present. This egalitarianism has accomplish Bucer’s goal in the Sixteenth Century to eradicate belief in the hierarchical nature of the Holy Priesthood that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted at the Last Supper.

The whole art, architecture, music and ambiance of many conciliar worship settings have been designed for the sake of “inclusiveness,” particularly as concerns those who persist without repentance in the commission of sins against nature in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

Conciliarism’s celebration of the individualism of Protestantism has led to “folk liturgies,” “rock liturgies,” “clown liturgies,” “balloon liturgies,” “‘gay-friendly’ liturgies and liturgies celebrating feminism, environmentalism, Marxism and every other manner of false ideological current imaginable.

The individualism of Protestantism devolved over the course of time to the point of either rank unbelief or to a supposed “Christianity” that is based upon the idiosyncratic predilections of various pastors and their “programs,” including those of the “gospel of wealth” variety.

In like manner, the embrace of the errors of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry by the soon-to-be “Blessed Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI” to the celebration of heresy, error, apostasy, sacrilege, blasphemy, infidelity, idolatry and outright superstition. To “beatify” and “canonize” the likes of Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini and Karol Josef Wojtyla is tantamount to the beatification of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer and all other notable Protestant revolutionaries.

It was precisely to protect the Holy Faith from the errors of Protestantism that Pope Saint Pius V sought to reform the Breviary and to standardize the offering of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, and it was to instruct many poorly formed priests that he had a true Jesuit, Saint Peter Canisius start the work that led to the Catechism of the Council of Trent (The Roman Catechism):

Pope Pius therefore entrusted the Jesuit Peter Canisius, famed for his learning and gentleness, with the task of composing a particular work to refute the falsehoods and expose the tactics of the Protestant theologians who in actual fact were striking at the heart of the Catholic Faith, The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the priesthood. After consulting St. Philip Neri, among others, in Rome, St. Peter Canisius produced his De Corruptelis Verbi Dei –Concerning Alterations of the Word of God– which proved at once most successful. It was followed by other more general works on a wider scale which, as Pius V who was not in the habit of mincing words said, served “to confound the lies of heretics.”

What was, however, still more necessary than these words brought out with papal approval for a specific purpose was one published in the Pope’s own name and for the entire Church. Trent had urged the drawing up of a compendium of Christian doctrine in clearest terms as the best means of safeguarding the Faith for Catholic peoples bewildered by so many new and contradictory doctrines. (Robin Anderson, St. Pius V: A Brief Account of His Life, Times, Virtues & Miracles, published originally by St. Michael’s Press in 1973 and republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1978, pp. 73-74.)

As bewildering as Protestantism was at its inception and remains yet today, conciliarism is the most bewildering false religion of them all as it has convinced even older Catholics who were educated before the “Second” Vatican Council and who worshiped exclusively at the Immemorial Mass of Tradition in its pristine beauty before the “reforms” that began to be implemented in the 1950s, changes that would lead the Jansenist “Saint John XXIII” to simply the Mass of all time even further and would presage “Blessed Paul the Sick’s” Ordo Missae of 1965, which was actually in effect in the counterfeit church of conciliarism longer than the Roncall missal of 1961/1962 prior to the imposition of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service on Sunday, November 30, 1969.

Pope Saint Pius V even fought and silenced a prophetic forerunner of the Modernists and and their ill-begotten offspring, the “New Theologians,” among whose ranks included Montini, Wojtyla and Joseph Alois Ratzinger, Michael Baius, who wanted to “return” to “original sources” without the “filter” provided by Scholasticism, something that is straight of the lectures, writings and allocutions of none other than “Pope Benedict XVI himself.”

Particularly confusing were the propositions of Michael Baius, professor of Sacred Scripture at Louvain University. He claimed not only to be leading theology back to the Bible and patristic sources from when it had strayed during the Middle Ages, but also thereby to be reconciling Catholicism with the new ideas that were flooding churches, schools and families through books, leaflets and popular songs, affecting people more that they were aware. A sort of semi-Lutheranism was the result, denying amongst other things that Sanctifying Grace was necessary for man to merit. A break with past tradition was implies by Baius’ theories, which he defended, against St. Robert Bellarmine, quoting the early Fathers, especially St. Augustine, out of context and detached from their historical background.

Pius V had already come to grips with Baianism as Inquisitor. By his Bull Ex omnibus afflictionibus, of 1567, more than twenty propositions were condemned, but without their author being named; Pius with fatherly goodness fearing to drive him into formal heresy. But he judged the errors of Baius so serious and dangerous that he gave the Bull’s decrees solemn approbation, instead of ordinary.

All the more insulting, therefor, was the “apology” Baius sent to Pope Pius complaining of being misunderstood and calling the Bull a calumny on account of which, and for failing to give due consideration to the teaching of the early Fathers, the Pope would suffer the consequences.

Pius V then followed the Bull up by a confirming Brief imposing perpetual silence of the Louvain professor and all defenders and propagators of his teachings. But not until a year later was Baius induced to sign an act of submission. (Robin Anderson, St. Pius V: A Brief Account of His Life, Times, Virtues & Miracles, published originally by St. Michael’s Press in 1973 and republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1978, pp. 74-75.)

This calls to mind the words of Pope Gregory IX that were quoted by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:

The Modernists completely invert the parts, and of them may be applied the words which another of Our predecessors Gregory IX, addressed to some theologians of his time: “Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred text…to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science…these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid.”

This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between exegesis which is theological and pastoral and exegesis which is scientific and historical. So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

The revolutionaries who served on Annibale Bugnini’s Consiliium sought to make the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo service into the chief instrument of destroying the sensus Catholicus as they “blotted out the old theology” in order to “introduce a new theology” which has indeed introduced profane novelties and supporter the aberrations of all manner of philosophers.

Yet it is that the man who supervised this work, Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini, is being rewarded with “beatification” precisely because he believed and did what things that have been condemned by Holy Mother Church’s true general councils and by her true popes as occasions arose for such condemnations to be issued. Montini sought to destroy the work of Pope Saint Pius V, who wanted to use the liturgical reform that he supervised in the Sixteenth Century a bulwark against Protestantism and the world, not a celebration of them:

Revision of the Breviary was necessarily followed by that of the Missal. There was some variety of Mass rites in the West: apart from the ancient Milanese or Ambrosian, and the slightly differing usages of a few religious orders as the Carthusian and Dominican, Spain had the Mozarabic, France the Gallican and England the Sarum (the Bangor, Exeter and Hereford varieties were done away with by order of Henry VIII). None of these departed substantially from the old Roman rite, which had taken on definite and final form early in the 5th century, with the building of the first Christian churches, after the Mass had emerged from the catacombs and it became possible, thanks to the Emperor Constantine, to worship in public edifices. But divergences of relatively recent growth—from one nation to another, and even from diocese to diocese-had become an unsettling factor if not a threat to unity of faith, worship, doctrine and morals. The Protestant innovations, among others, substitution of liturgical Latin by the national idiom in the Mass and sacred rites, had at length seriously compromised unity; and Luther had said that when the Mass should be overthrown the papacy itself would be overcome.

As a counteractant and safeguard, Trent had ordered everywhere to be kept the ancient rites in the original languages—Latin in the West, Greek in the East, with a few other Eastern liturgies, admitted and approved by the Holy See, for centuries in the Communion of the Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of all churches.

But even the decrees of the Council of Trent, greatest in a thousand years since that of Nicea called to combat Arianism, could have ended in sterility. Such a danger had fortunately been forestalled; for it was during the long-drawn-out preparations for the great Coucil, in which the English Cardnal Pole had a part, that Pope Paul III had instituted the permanent Congregation of the Universal Inquisition (or Holy Office, now of the Doctrine of the Faith) as supreme guardian and judge for the entire Church in matters of faith and morals. Formerly Inquisitor General of this Congregation, Pius V gave more detailed definition to is work, to which he assigned first place. The disorders and disunity disfiguring the Church had allowed the disaster of heretical reforms to overtake Christendom, and by combatting and clearly condemning these false doctrines the Pope dealt a death-blow to the malady.

The opening words of the Bull Quo primum tempore, posted upon the portals of St. Peter’s on July 29, 1570, announced Pius V’s intentions in unequivocal terms, as far as the liturgy of the Mass was concerned: “. . .cum unum in Ecclesia Di psallendi modum, unum Missae ditum esse mixime deceat. . .”—as it is most fitting that the Church should have one way of praising God, and one rite for the celebration of Mass . . .” One Mass was laid down for all, to have universally binding force in perpetuity, with the exception—as with the Breviay—of rites continuously in use, approved by the Holy See, for at least two hundred years. These ancient rites were not merely allowed but encouraged to continue; but should conformity to the new ordinance of the revised Missal now promulgated be preferred, instead of the lawful exception, permission could be sought and obtained. The Ambrosian, Cathusian, Dominican and one or two other variants of the Latin rite thus peaceably continued, as of course, the ancient Easter liturgies—the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian and Chaldean—in some respects still older than the Roman.

Unity and purity of faith, worship, doctrine and morals were thus safeguarded by the uniformity or rite and language in the West, as in the Est, with due exceptions in regard to sure tradition and antiquity. It was furthermore of the greatest benefit to the Universal Church that any alterations whatsoever in the liturgies were reserved to the Holy See, preventing future intrusions of irresponsible, self-authorized and incompetent reformers.

The Roman Missal of St. Pius V was, then, no new creation or departure from former practice, any more than his Breviary. Rather it was a re-establishing of the Church’s most ancient, approved tradition, a getting rid of accretions and innovations, whilst avoiding their replacement by other novelties. (Robin Anderson, St. Pius V: A Brief Account of His Life, Times, Virtues & Miracles, published originally by St. Michael’s Press in 1973 and republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1978, pp. 72-81.(Robin Anderson, St. Pius V: A Brief Account of His Life, Times, Virtues & Miracles, published originally by St. Michael’s Press in 1973 and republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1978, pp. 78-81.)

Can anyone say, at least with a modicum of honesty, that this is not a condemnation of everything represented by Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini’s instrument of propagating the conciliar Faith,  the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service?

There is not even “unity of faith and worship” within the confines of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, where it is not uncommon to go from a “Polka Mass” to a “Folk Mass” to a “Mass” with ‘praise dance’” to a Rock ‘Mass’” to an “African-American ‘Mass'” all the way up to a “papal” “Word Youth Day ‘Mass'” which was presided over by that great master of the “Puppet ‘Mass,” Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Consider the soon-to-be “Blessed Paul VI’s” own words, delivered just four days before the first staging of the the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, which was not even in its complete form at that time, something that took another four years thereafter to “evolve,” and it has been evolving ever since. Here is an excerpt from Montini’s General Audience on Wednesday, November 26, 1969. A few appropriate comments will be interjected here and there.

1. We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass. This new rite will be introduced into our celebration of the holy Sacrifice starting from Sunday next which is the first of Advent, November 30 [in Italy].

2. A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. It seemed to bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past, which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead. (Paul the Sick, General Audience, November 26, 1969 )

Nice, Charitable Commentary Number One:

In other words, the Immemorial Mass of Tradition only seemed “to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled.” Montini was saying here that no form of Catholic worship is meant to be “untouchable” or so stable as to serve an instrument in convincing Catholics that the doctrines of the Catholic Faith are “static” in the meaning.

Montini was also saying that the Mass of all ages only seemed “bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past, which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead.” In truth, Montini was saying this was only a false appearance, not the reality of things.

What is contained in the first two paragraphs quote above, however, was the devil’s clever way of admitting that that the Immemorial Mass of Tradition did protect the Faith and bring the prayers of the Saints to our lips, which is why it had to be changed so that he, the adversary,

Insofar as innovation is concerned, the Catholic Church has condemned innovation from time immemorial:

These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized. (Constantinople III).

These and many other serious things, which at present would take too long to list, but which you know well, cause Our intense grief. It is not enough for Us to deplore these innumerable evils unless We strive to uproot them. We take refuge in your faith and call upon your concern for the salvation of the Catholic flock. Your singular prudence and diligent spirit give Us courage and console Us, afflicted as We are with so many trials. We must raise Our voice and attempt all things lest a wild boar from the woods should destroy the vineyard or wolves kill the flock. It is Our duty to lead the flock only to the food which is healthful. In these evil and dangerous times, the shepherds must never neglect their duty; they must never be so overcome by fear that they abandon the sheep. Let them never neglect the flock and become sluggish from idleness and apathy. Therefore, united in spirit, let us promote our common cause, or more truly the cause of God; let our vigilance be one and our effort united against the common enemies.

Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: “the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty” and the admonition of Pope Agatho: “nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning.” Therefore may the unity which is built upon the See of Peter as on a sure foundation stand firm. May it be for all a wall and a security, a safe port, and a treasury of countless blessings. To check the audacity of those who attempt to infringe upon the rights of this Holy See or to sever the union of the churches with the See of Peter, instill in your people a zealous confidence in the papacy and sincere veneration for it. As St. Cyprian wrote: “He who abandons the See of Peter on which the Church was founded, falsely believes himself to be a part of the Church . . . .

But for the other painful causes We are concerned about, you should recall that certain societies and assemblages seem to draw up a battle line together with the followers of every false religion and cult. They feign piety for religion; but they are driven by a passion for promoting novelties and sedition everywhere. They preach liberty of every sort; they stir up disturbances in sacred and civil affairs, and pluck authority to pieces.(Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

Back to the Sick One:

3. It is at such a moment as this that we get a better understanding of the value of historical tradition and the communion of the saints. This change will affect the ceremonies of the Mass. We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance, that the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed—perhaps so much accustomed that we no longer took any notice of them. This change also touches the faithful. It is intended to interest each one of those present, to draw them out of their customary personal devotions or their torpor. (Paul the Sick, General Audience, November 26, 1969 .)

Nice, Charitable Commentary Number Two:



What is the precedent for describing any legitimate rite of the Catholic Church in such as a manner?

Montini gave full license to his “under-revolutionaries,” if you will, to repeat the unwarranted claim that the faithful had no longer taken “any notice” of the ceremonies at Holy Mass and that they had become immersed in their personal devotions and torpor. Scandalous.

Returning Now to the Betrayer of Catholic Priests Behind the Iron Curtain:

4. We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits. We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most, because they have their own respectable way of hearing Mass, and they will feel shaken out of their usual thoughts and obliged to follow those of others. Even priests may feel some annoyance in this respect. (Paul the Sick, General Audience, November 26, 1969. )

Nice, Charitable Commentary Number Three:

Yes, “pious persons” are the same ones who are attacked on a daily basis by Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Such people are not open to the alleged “promptings” of God the Holy Ghost, Who is immutable. They are too “closed-in-on-themselves,” too “certain” of the truth, too “narrow-minded, “too rigid,” too “unconcerned” about those on the “margins.”

Even priests, Montini, noted, would feel “annoyance.” Some of these “annoyed” priests had the courage to break with the conciliar revolutions. Others would be broken by the harsh discipline meted out against them by the “kind,” “loving,” “merciful” and “charitable” preachers of “love,” the conciliar revolutionaries.

Yes, there is a lot contained in Montini’s November 26, 1969, General Audience. Its entire tenor, although stated in a paternalistic, condescending manner as opposed to the visceral style of Bergoglio, is a road map to the daily sceeds at the Casa Santa Marta at this time.

Returning to the man who felt compelled to have the Vatican deny accusations of his perversity:

5. So what is to be done on this special and historical occasion? First of all, we must prepare ourselves. This novelty is no small thing. We should not let ourselves be surprised by the nature, or even the nuisance, of its exterior forms. As intelligent persons and conscientious faithful we should find out as much as we can about this innovation. It will not be hard to do so, because of the many fine efforts being made by the Church and by publishers. As We said on another occasion, we shall do well to take into account the motives for this grave change. The first is obedience to the Council. That obedience now implies obedience to the Bishops, who interpret the Council’s prescription and put them into practice. (Paul the Sick, General Audience, November 26, 1969. )

Nice, Charitable Comment Number Four:

Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick commanded obedience to his imposition of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. Those who accept him as a true “pope” had to obey him. Those who accept Jorge Mario Bergoglio as a true “pope” must venerate him once he, Montini, is “canonized” at some point after his “beatification.”

To the rest of the Saul Alinsky’s Admirer’s General Audience Address:

6. This first reason is not simply canonical—relating to an external precept. It is connected with the charism of the liturgical act. In other words, it is linked with the power and efficacy of the Church’s prayer, the most authoritative utterance of which comes from the Bishop. This is also true of priests, who help the Bishop in his ministry, and like him act in persona Christi (cf. St. Ign., ad Eph. I, V). It is Christ’s will, it is the breath of the Holy Spirit which calls the Church to make this change. A prophetic moment is occurring in the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church. This moment is shaking the Church, arousing it, obliging it to renew the mysterious art of its prayer.

7. The other reason for the reform is this renewal of prayer. It is aimed at associating the assembly of the faithful more closely and more effectively with the official rite, that of the Word and that of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, that constitutes the Mass. For the faithful are also invested with the “royal priesthood”; that is, they are qualified to have supernatural conversation with God.

8. It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.

9. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values?

10. The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic.

11. Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.

12. If the divine Latin language kept us apart from the children, from youth, from the world of labor and of affairs, if it were a dark screen, not a clear window, would it be right for us fishers of souls to maintain it as the exclusive language of prayer and religious intercourse? What did St. Paul have to say about that? Read chapter 14 of the first letter to the Corinthians: “In Church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue” (I Corinthians 14:19). (Paul the Sick, General Audience, November 26, 1969 )

Making the completely gratuitous claim the Latin language kept Holy Mother Church from the “youth” and the “labor of affairs” and prevented the full understanding of the people?

What has been the fruit of this “annoyance,” this “inconvenience,” this “novelty,” this “innovation”?

Loss of belief in the sacerdotal nature of the priesthood as a teaching of the Catholic Church.

Loss of belief in propitiatory nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as the unbloody perpetuation or re-presentation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s bloody Sacrifice of Himself to His Co-Eternal and Co-Equal God the Father on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday in atonement for our sins.

Loss of belief in the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as a teaching of the Catholic Church (not that Our Lord is truly present in the conciliar liturgy, that is).

Loss of any sense of the sacred as what passes for the “liturgy” has “sacralized” the profane and profaned the sacred.

Loss of any sense of modesty, decency, decorum and self-control in the context of the conciliar liturgies.

Loss of any true understanding of the Catholic Faith, especially as relates to the necessity of resisting the forces of the world, the flesh and the devil that have been welcomed into and celebrated as pat of the conciliar liturgy.

Indeed, it is quite ironic that the conciliar authorities in Commissar Sean O’Malley’s Archdiocese of Boston condemned the effort on the part of Satanists to stage a black Mass with an unconsecrated host (which is the only type that they could have obtained from a conciliar church) at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, last evening both before its cancellation and thereafter as the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, although not billed as devil worship, is nonetheless pleasing to the adversary as it is a mockery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered, at least for the most part today, by men who are not truly ordained priests.

There is further irony in the fact that the statement issued by archdiocesan spokesman Terrence Donilon noted that there is “freedom of speech” in the United States of American while seeking to call for respect for the common good. Alas, open worship of the devil is the logical consequence of the very supposed “religious liberty” that was championed by Archbishop John Carroll (see John Carroll Opened The Door To Today’s Persecution) and is thus powerless to stop the descent into sacrilegious displays at a time when so many souls are in the devil’s grip (see Religious “Liberty” Even For The Adversary). Mr. Donilon’s own employer, Sean Patrick O’Malley, welcomed all manner of the devil’s agents, including out-and-out pro-aborts and pro-perverts, into Holy Cross Cathedral on Thursday, April 18, 2013, to give their “thoughts” three days after the Boston Marathon bombing (Antichrist’s Liturgical Presiders).

Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini championed the cause of Dignitatis Humanae, which was approved by the bishops in attendance at the “Second” Vatican Council on December 7, 1965, along with the equally revolutionary and heretical Gaudium et Spes. He opened the door to the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s celebration of the “goodness” not even in the rites and the heretical doctrines of Protestant sects but of “believers” who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The conciliar revolutionaries have participated in “inter-religious prayer” services. They have entered into the “worship spaces” of false religions. They have invited “ministers” from false religions to preach in formerly Catholic churches. Several “popes,” including “Saint John Paul II” and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, have attempted to give “joint blessings” with these “ministers” as they have entered personally into temples of false worship, each of which belongs to the devil, and have esteemed symbols of false worship with their own priestly hands.

Yes, what was proposed to take place at Harvard University last evening, Monday, May 12, 2014, the Feast of Saint Nereus, Acilleus, Pancras and Domitlla within the Octave of the Solemnity of Saint Joseph, was sickening. It was not shocking, however, as open worship of the devil is but the end result of what must happen in any nation that is not founded in a recognition of the true religion and is not duly subordinate to the Catholic Church in all that pertains to Faith and Morals as she exercises her Indirect Power over temporal affairs. If Christ is not the King of nations, good readers, then there can only be one who rises as king: the devil himself.

Men who welcome the devil and his conceits get “beatified” and “canonized” after they are dead and new leaders have come to take the people across more figurative “Rubicons” to new and more daring “innovations” and “annoyances” and “inconveniences.” We can have no share in the work whatsoever.

Today, the Feast of Saint Robert Bellarmine, whose teaching on sedevacantism has been misrepresented by anti-sedevacantists for over three decades now (see the summary as found at Novus Ordo Watch Wire), is also the Ninety-seventh Anniversary of Our Lady’s First Apparition to Jacinta and Francisco Marto and their cousin, Lucia dos Santos, in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal. Our Lady wants us to fly unto her patronage through her Most Holy Rosary as we seek to vanquish the influences of the world, the flesh and the devil in our own souls and as we seek to keep ourselves untainted by the hideous heresies, blasphemies, sacrileges and apostasies of the false lords of a false religion, conciliarism. While it is important to pray for the conversion of the conciliar officials, we must recognize them for the apostates that they are, and apostates cannot hold office in the Catholic Church legitimately.

Indeed, we are in a figurative Battle of Lepanto at present, dealing with preternatural forces that appear to vastly outnumber those who have chosen, despite their own sins and failings, to remain faithful to the authentic patrimony of the Catholic Church and have rejected such abominations as the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgicalservice and the “luminous mysteries.” (how do the 150 Psalms fit into the the number 200?; what, as a reader reminded me, is “one third” of a Rosary consisting of 200 Hail Marys; Sixty-six point six; got it?) and the new ecclesiology and ecumenism and religious liberty and separation of Church and State. We are hated by our own former friends and colleagues and by many of members of our own families. None of this matters if we care to unite ourselves to the Mercies of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary, giving each Rosary we pray to the Sacred Heart through the Immaculate Heart of Mary as her consecrated slaves.

Although we should note with sadness the ceaseless (and ceaselessly clumsy and transparent) efforts of the conciliar revolutionaries to deconstruct Our Lady’s Fatima Message, we must never be discouraged or disconsolate. Never. We are Catholics, not brooding or sappy sentimentalists. The final victory belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We can plant the seeds for this victory by our daily fidelity to Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary. And, my friends, praying the Rosary is not being inert or passive in the midst of our state of apostasy and betrayal!

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Robert Bellarmine, pray for us.


This entry was posted in The Bergoglio Files, The Conciliarism Files by Thomas Droleskey. Bookmark the permalink.

About Thomas Droleskey

Dr. Thomas A. Droleskey is a Catholic writer and speaker . He is the publisher-editor of Christ or, a site that has featured over 900 articles since the beginning of 2006, many dealing with his embrace of sedevacantism. Hundreds of his articles appeared in The Wanderer, the oldest weekly national Catholic newspaper, between 1992 and 2000. He was a contributor to The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture between 2001 and 2003. Droleskey's articles have appeared in the American Life League's Celebrate Life magazine. He also contributed articles to The Remnant and for Catholic Family News. His articles also appeared for two years in The Four Marks. Dr. Droleskey was an adjunct professor of political science at the C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University between January of 1991 and July of 2003, reprising his association there for a winter intersession course, which was taught between December 28, 2006, and January 11, 2007. He had taught political science around the nation since January of 1974, receiving numerous awards for excellence in teaching. Many of his students have converted to the Catholic Faith. Formerly a pro-life activist, Droleskey was the candidate for Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York on the Right to Life Party line in 1986. He was the party's candidate for Supervisor of the Town of Oyster Bay in 1997, and he challenged then Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato for the party's senatorial nomination in 1998, receiving over 37% of the primary vote. Droleskey has campaigned for pro-life candidates around the country. He is now retired from all involvement in partisan politics, concentrating instead on the promotion of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen. Dr. Droleskey has lectured extensively around the nation for the past twenty years, driving nearly 1,000,000 miles in the last twenty-five years of his lecturing around the nation. His thirty-six hour lecture program, Living in the Shadow of the Cross, has been given in twenty different venues across the United States. Another lecture program, "To be Catholic from the Womb to the Tomb," was given in eleven different places across the nation. His work is dedicated to the restoration of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and of the Social Reign of Christ the King. Droleskey is devoted to the establishment of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ and the Queenship of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. His first book, Christ in the Voting Booth, was published by Hope of Saint Monica, Inc., 1998. His second book, There Is No Cure for this Condition, was published by Chartres Communications in 2001. G.I.R.M. Warfare (The Traditional Latin Mass versus the General Instruction to the Roman Missal) was published in 2004; Restoring Christ as the King of All Nations, Droleskey's compendium of fifty-three articles about the immutable doctrine of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ, was published in June of 2005. Three e-books, There Is No Shortcut to Cure This Condition, Conversion in Reverse: How the Ethos of Americanism Converted Catholics and Contributed to the Rise of Conciliarism and Meeting the Mets: A Quirky History of a Quirky Team, have been published in the past four years. The latter book, for which this particular Word Press site was created initially in 2012, is also available in a paperback format. Droleskey served for some years on the Board of Advisers of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists. He has served on the boards of the National Association of Private and Independent Catholic Schools and on the board of 100% Pro-Life Pac. He is listed in the 2001-2002 edition of the Marquis Who's Who in America. Droleskey, who was born on November 24, 1951, is married to the former Sharon Collins. Their first child, Lucy Mary Norma, was born in Sioux City, Iowa, on March 27, 2002. A native of Long Island, Droleskey and his family now live in the United States of America.