Chapter I, Part 1 the problem: is it the same church? Vatican 2 can be described as a turning point in the history of the Catholic Church. Prior to this event the Church considered herself a 'perfect society' in no need of change

Дата канвертавання24.04.2016
Памер1.21 Mb.
1   ...   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33

Misreading the 'signs of the times'

'Let no one at that day say in his heart ... unless God willed it, He would not have permitted.' No: The Apostle forewarns you, saying beforehand, 'God shall send them a strong delusion,' not that they may be excused, but condemned...'
St Cyr. Catech. XV, 16-17

The new Church is promising us a social and religious utopia. Let us consider what Scripture has to say about the later days, presumably those in which we live today.

St. Paul warned us in his second letter to Timothy that 'the time will surely come when men will grow tired of sound doctrine,' and Christ Himself said 'I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock... men speaking perverse things' (Acts, 20:19). Such has occurred throughout the course of history, so we must look for further guidelines. We know that at some time in history an 'Antichrist' will arise and reign supreme. Indeed, his reign will only be terminated by the Second Coming of Christ in glory. But we are told even more. St. Paul warns us in his letter to the Thessalonians, 'Let not man deceive you by any means, for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first' and 'now ye know what withholdeth, that he [Antichrist] might be revealed in his time... He that now withholdeth will withhold, until he be taken out of the way' (2 Thes. 2:3-10) There are certain other indications of the events that will precede the second coming. Thus Christ warns us in Matthew (Chapter 24) that there will be 'false Christs,' and 'false prophets... showing signs and wonders,' 'iniquity abounding,' and 'love waxing cold.' He adds further, 'when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors... When ye shall see the abomination of desolation... stand in the holy place... then let them that be in Judea flee into the mountains.'

It would seem then that the coming of Christ will be immediately preceded by a very awful and unparalleled outbreak of evil, called by St. Paul an Apostasy, a falling away in the midst of which a certain terrible Man of Sin and child of perdition, the Antichrist, the special singular enemy of Christ, will appear; that this will be when revolutions prevail, and the present framework of society breaks into pieces; and that prior to this happening, the spirit which he will embody and represent is kept under 'the powers that be,' but that on their dissolution, he will rise out of their bosom and knit them together again in his own evil way, under his own rule, to the exclusion of the true Church. Remembering that the Old Testament prefigures the New, let us look to this source for further help:.

One of the particular signs of this time will be 'the abomination of desolation' which we are warned of in both the Gospel of Matthew and Mark. This phrase occurs in several places in the Old Testament. Thus in Daniel 9:27 we read that 'The victim and Sacrifice shall fail: and there shall be in the Temple the abomination of desolation,' and in Daniel 11:31, 'and they shall defile the sanctuary of strength and shall take away the continual sacrifice, and they shall place there the abomination unto desolation.' Now, what else can 'The continuous sacrifice' be but the Mass? And are we not warned that the Mass will be taken from us? Listen to Malachi 1:7: 'You offered polluted bread upon My altars, and you say: wherein have we polluted Thee?' Does not Jeremias speak in God's Name when he says 'My Tabernacle is laid waste, all My cords are broken: My children are gone out from Me, and they are not... Because the pastors have done foolishly, and have not sought the Lord: therefore have they not understood, and all their flock is scattered' (10:20-21) Indeed, history repeats itself, for we have the words of Ezechiel who says 'Her priests have deposed My law, and have defiled my sanctuaries: they have put no difference between holy and profane' (22:26).

In Maccabees we have the story of Antiochus, the savage persecutor of the Jews, who is often taken as a type of Antichrist. Let us consider a few passages from this text that might well apply to the present situation. 'In those days went there out of Israel wicked men, who persuaded many, saying, let us go and make a covenant with the heathen that are round about us; for since we departed from them, we have had much sorrow. Then certain of the people were so forward herein, that they went to the King, who gave them license to do after the ordinances of the heathen... and [they] made themselves uncircumcised, and forsook the holy covenant and joined themselves to the heathen, and were sold to do mischief...'

And after these events, Antiochus returning from Egypt, attacked Israel. 'And he [Antiochus] entered proudly into the sanctuary and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light and the vessels thereof, and the table of the shew-bread, and the pouring vessels, and the crowns...' Still later, when he had returned to his own country, 'King Antiochus wrote to his whole kingdom THAT ALL SHOULD BE ONE PEOPLE, AND EVERY ONE SHOULD LEAVE HIS [own] LAWS; so all the heathen agreed according to the commandment of the king. Yea, many also of the Israelites consented to his religion and sacrificed unto idols and profaned the Sabbath...' Eventually, the continual sacrifice having been abandoned, he set up 'the Abomination of desolation upon the altar, and built idol altars throughout the cities of Juda on every side... And when they had rent in pieces the books of the law which they found, the burnt them with fire.' Even then there were those who refused to comply: 'Many in Israel were fully resolved and confirmed in themselves not to eat any unclean thing, wherefore they chose rather to die..'

St. Paul also tells us that Antichrist will 'sit in the temple of God.' While the early fathers interpreted this as the Synagogue, and some spiritual writers such as St. John of the Cross teach it refers to the individual soul, there is nothing to preclude the possibility that it can refer to some part (in place or time) of the Roman Church itself. Such a suggestion is far from remote when one considers the statements of the Blessed Virgin who told us at Lasallette that 'Rome will become the seat of Antichrist,' and at Fatima: 'Even in the highest places, it will be Satan who rules and decides the march of events. He will even insinuate himself into the highest summits of the Church. It will become a time of difficult trials for the Church. cardinals will be opposed to Cardinals, Bishops against Bishops... Satan will be entrenched among their ranks... The Church will be hidden and the world plunged into disorder...'

And what do we see in these times when the 'continual sacrifice' is but rarely performed. And what is the 'autodestruction of the Church' but the 'destruction of the Vineyard?' 'O God, they have defiled Thy Holy Temple' (Ps. 78:1) with 'dance liturgies' and 'picture-slide services.' 'Thy Holy Places are come into the hands of strangers' (1 Maccabees, 2: 8-12) in the manner of heretics and 'separated brethren' preaching from our pulpits. 'Behold our Sanctuary and our Glory is laid waste'(ibid), for the tabernacles have been removed and the altars turned into tables. No wonder 'My people have forsaken Me' (Jeremias 2:13).

One could of course search the Scriptures for still more clues - but we shall rest with one, the Apocalyptic 'mark of the beast.' This is usually assumed to imply that man will worship some 'animal' such as the 'golden calf.' However, one possible understanding of the 'beast' is man himself, that is man qua man which is so strongly stressed in the Documents of Vatican II. This is man who is 'the author of his own culture,' man who 'is striving to come to an authentic and full humanity.' After all, the curse of the angel in 16:2 is 'upon men who had the character of the beast.' This is man who no longer prays and acknowledges God in other than vague and sentimental terms that have no meaning in reality. This is man whose relationship with the supernatural is one of personal 'feeling' and 'encountering' rather than one of 'knowing' and 'accepting Revelation.' This is man who 'through his dealings with others, through reciprocal duties, and through fraternal dialogue develops all his gifts and is able to rise to his destiny'(Pastoral Constitution on the Church, Para. 25). This is man whose faith is a 'simple sublimating aspiration' rather than a 'belief in the doctrines of the Catholic Church. This is man who no longer needs God or His Church, and who, if he does not proclaim that 'God is dead,' at least relegates Him to a 'nursing home.' This is modern man who has divorced himself from all Tradition and is convinced that he can 'make it on his own.' This is man who has reduced himself to the level of a 'beast.' This is man who needs no special 'mark,' but rather leaves his mark on every thing he touches.

Finally Christ repeatedly tells us that when He comes again, he will find but a small 'remnant' that is faithful (Luke 18:8) - a remnant upon which Antichrist will visit persecutions - a remnant that 'shall call upon His Name.'. 'Two parts in all the earth shall be scattered, and I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined: and I will try them as gold is tried. They shall call on my Name and I will hear them. I will say 'thou art my people': and they shall say, 'the Lord is my God.'' (Zacharias, 13: 8-9). To quote St. Paul, 'God hath not cast away his people... God forbid. Know ye not what the scripture saith of Elias; how he calleth on God against Israel? 'Lord, they have slain thy prophets, they have dug down thy altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life' but what saith the divine answer to him? I have left me seven thousand men that have not bowed their knees to Baal. Even so then, at this present time also, there is a remnant saved according to the election of Grace...' (Romans, 11:1-5)

Scripture and Vatican II are obviously in direct contradiction with regard to what the end of times will bring - or are they? The destruction of the Mass, the great Apostasy, and the small persecuted Remnant are hard if not impossible to reconcile with the 'unity of the People of God' under the aegis of the United Nations. The promised 'conversion of the Jews,' the 'restoration' before the final coming, are things remote to our understanding. But as always, mankind is faced with choices. Man's freedom is bound to his responsibilities and he must accept the consequences of his acts.

CHAPTER XV, part 7

Has catholic layman the right to judge these matters?

One constantly hears the statement that it is not within the provenance of the average Catholic layman to judge such issues, and that one must be a trained theologian to understand them. Such is false. If an individual is unable to judge of such matters, not only would there be no conversions to the Church; there would also be no guilt incurred in embracing heresy or apostatizing from the Faith. What the Church condemns is our making judgements about souls, for only God really knows the 'bowels' of a human being. As to discerning between truth and falsehood, that is our obligation.

As for current training in theology, if one is to judge by the post-Conciliar hierarchy, this is proscription for damning one's soul. Theology has never been the sole prerogative of those in holy orders, and it is perfectly conceivable that a given layman may be more intelligent and discerning than many priests; indeed the times would seem to supply more than ample evidence of such. In point of fact, the laity have an obligation to know their catechism and to judge innovations and doctrinal changes by it. It is tradition and orthodox doctrine that provide the laity with the means of making such judgments. By following these infallible guides they will neither be led astray, nor will they be guilty of presumption.

The final solution

What then can the traditional Catholic do? Faced with the present situation, he must still be primarily concerned with the salvation of his own soul. No man can offer his neighbor what he does not himself possess, and no man can change the world without first changing himself. The kingdom of God, Modernist opinion to the contrary, is still within us. Let us turn to St. Vincent of Lerins for advise in the present circumstances.

'So what shall the Catholic Christian do if some part of the Church should come to detach itself from the communion, from the Universal Faith? What other side could he take than to prefer to the gangrenous and corrupted member, the body which is whole and healthy? And if some new contagion should seek to poison, not only a little part of the Church, but the whole Church at once, then his greatest care should once again be to adhere to antiquity, which obviously cannot be seduced by any deceitful novelty.'

This has always been the attitude of the true Church. St. Athanasius was willing to stand alone against all the bishops of the world - even to the point of having his excommunication confirmed by a Pope who allowed himself to be pressured by the 'power structure' of the then existing 'world.' Yet today he is a canonized saint and who but the scholars of the Arian heresy have even heard of the name of Pope Liberius, to say nothing of 'the bishops in union with him?' Witness the words of St. Hilary of Poitiers who advised the Catholics of Milan to abandon their churches and assemble in the woods and caverns, rather than to remain under the Arian Bishop Auxentius: 'Of one thing I bid you beware - of Antichrist. The love of walls ill possesses you; ill do you venerate the Church of God in roofs and edifices. Ill do you bear under these for the sake of peace. Safer to me are the mountains, the woods, lakes, prisons and deep caverns; for in these the prophets, either remaining or thrown, prophecy with the Spirit of God.' Witness the words of St. Thomas More who said 'I do not care if I have against me all the Bishops; I have with me the saints and all the doctors of the Church.' As St. Athanasius said, when he was informed that all the bishops disagreed with him - 'This only proves that they are all against the Church.'

In a certain sense, the faithful Catholic has no choice. He cannot ask with Pilate 'what is Truth?', but must accept that 'infallible Truth' that Christ revealed to His Church. Now there can be no doubt but that the post-Conciliar 'popes' and the bishops in union with them have abandon the faith. (Even on the human plane they have abandoned mankind by their acceptance of Communism.) There can be no doubt but that Vatican II is a modernist and hence an heretical (theologically a 'robber') Council, that places man on a par with God. There can be no doubt but that the validity of the Sacraments and even of the Apostolic Succession has been undermined if not destroyed. Given this situation, and even granting that some of the issues can be debated, the faithful Catholic has no choice but to adhere with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his mind, to that same body of Truth which is the Truth of All Times. It is not just our 'right,' but our 'obligation' to do so.

One cannot expect the average Catholic to be a well-read theologian or Canon lawyer. But one can expect him to reject anything in the Second Vatican Council that in any way departs from the 'deposit of the faith' as taught in any standard traditional catechisms. He must also reject any ambiguous manner or equivocal way of stating the Truth, as well as anything that in any manner even slightly suggests innovation. He must refuse obedience to anyone who attempts to Protestantize his religious beliefs and practices. He cannot accept 'dubious' sacraments, for as the theologians say, a dubious law/sacrament/pope is no law/sacrament/pope at all. If the traditional 'Canon of the Mass' is of 'Apostolic origin,' there is no way in which he can accept an ersatz canon of purely 'human origin.' All this is NOT a matter of his exercising 'private judgment' or of his personal 'freedom of conscience'' it is a matter of an OBLIGATION in conscience - a well-formed conscience - a conscience molded by that traditional body of doctrine which has been 'believed by all, believed always and believed everywhere' since the time of Christ. Any attempt by the New and post-Conciliar Church to hinder him in this is a direct attack on his soul.

Nor can the Catholic hide behind the mask of ignorance. No one can claim that it is not his responsibility to know his faith. To do so is to liken oneself to those who were unable to come to the 'marriage feast' because they had to care for their oxen. As St. Augustine said, 'It will not be imputed to you as a fault that you are ignorant; but that you neglect to seek that of which you are ignorant.' Indeed, it is only in the face of an overwhelming ignorance of the faith that the new theologians are heard at all. It is only in a society, the members of which are satisfied with television shows and picture magazines, that the Modernists can even hope to gain an audience. The almost absolute lack of any internal consistency makes the sophisms of the new Church totally indefensible. It takes a prodigious lack of spiritual perception for anyone to take the contemporary theological thinking of such individuals as Karl Rahner, Bernard Haring, or the recent 'popes' as in any way being a 'crystallization' of sacred or even worldly wisdom. If one seeks any intellectual integrity in one's beliefs, if one wishes to have a faith that is more than a 'feeling' and 'a simple sublimating aspiration,' one must return to the hallowed authors that have throughout history been given us as 'exemplars' by the Church of All Times. In this regard it is worthy of note that, since the Council of Trent, only two Popes have been canonized; Pope Pious V who spoke out clearly on liturgical issues and promulgated the Bull Quo Primum; and Pope Pius X who did the same in the realm of doctrine. To reject what these remarkable men have said is tantamount to Apostasy!

Every post-Conciliar Catholic brought up in the traditional faith knows that something is very wrong. Every parent who sends his children to the services of the New Church knows that they are being taught a different faith. And hence it follows that no Catholic can evade the central issue raised by this book. He must either show that its contents are inconsistent with the teaching of the Church, or he must accept the logical consequences that its thesis demands. Be he 'simple layman' or a priest, he has an obligation to believe, and he must therefore accept the responsibility of 'discerning' what it is he should believe. To argue that such is not incumbent upon us is to claim that no one has any obligation to be a Catholic, that all conversions are based on fortuitous or emotional circumstances, and that there is no sin in apostasy -a thesis not far from the heart of Vatican II's declaration on Religious Liberty.

While I have by no means covered the entire scope of the post-Conciliar deviation, nor marshalled all the available evidence, it can honestly be stated that nothing in this book is either 'new' or 'original.' All these things, as is obvious from the innumerable quotations, have been said before. Just as the New Church has never answered the challenge of the Ottaviani Intervention - but only ignored it, so also she has refused to discuss or debate these issues when raised by numerous other individuals. Her entire attitude towards traditional Catholicism is to pretend it doesn't exist while doing all it can to seduce the real faithful by offering conservative masses and demanding their 'obedience.'

CHAPTER XV, part 8

Avoiding the issues

Some would-be loyal Catholics have attempted to avoid these issues by taking a 'conservative' stand. They accept Vatican II as a 'legitimate' Council and stretch its statements to force them into an orthodox mold. They accept (admittedly with regret) the Novus Ordo Missae and seek out priests who will say it 'properly' and with some modicum of dignity. They stress the intermittently orthodox statements of the post-Conciliar 'popes' and ignore those that conflict with tradition and the faith. Such is not an acceptable stance for a traditional Catholic.

Others insist on declaring that the post-Conciliar 'popes' are true and valid popes, and advocate a policy of disobeying them, not only on doctrinal issues, but also on the administrative level. For them Vatican II is legitimate when 'interpreted in accordance with tradition.' Since they insist on deciding what is and is not traditional, they assume to themselves Magisterial authority. While declaring that the post-Conciliar sacraments are in se valid (another Magisterial statement), they administer pre-Conciliar sacraments in clear cut disobedience to those whose authority they proclaim. And further, while declaring that the new Canon law binds, they refuse to follow its commands. Such an attitude is far from being Catholic. It is one thing to adhere to traditional forms while holding that one doesn't know whether a given 'pope' is a true and valid pontiff, and quite another to declare him valid and disobey him. Such a position not only lacks logic and, if not heretical, is clearly schismatic.

Still others avoid the issue by attending Eastern Uniate churches. Such is only a delaying action, for the these Churches are also under attack. Those in the United States are usually too small to have their own teaching staffs and hence their clergy are trained in the post-Conciliar seminaries which is a prescription for spiritual disaster. Moreover, their liturgies are in the process of being brought into line with the Novus Ordo Missae. Uniate Churches are highly vulnerable because most of them are quite unfamiliar with the Modernist enemy and hence, even apart from their adherence to Rome, provide a most unsafe haven for the Roman Catholic.

There is another group of Catholics that admit all we have said is true, but who stay within the new church because they hope to reform it from within. They see themselves as 'infiltrators' whose function it is to preserve the 'true faith.' The problem with such an attitude is that they give witness -however regretfully - to all that Vatican II teaches and all that the Novus ordo Missae implies. Examples of such are priests who say the new mass with the proper words of consecration (is this not disobedience?), or who provide the laity with 'benediction' or rosary services. Such individuals do a great deal of harm for they lend 'respectability' to what they claim to abhor. There are two fundamental errors involved. First, they are seemingly (if not in fact), denying the true Catholic faith, which no Catholic can do. What saint of the Church has ever infiltrated the Lutheran or Anglican bodies to bring them back to orthodoxy? What martyr ever became a follower of the Roman gods to convert Caesar? The second error is to suppose that it is possible for Truth to infiltrate error. The very act involves a dissimulation and a lie. It is a 'freedom' given to Satan that he can act in this manner, for he is not bound by the rules of morality. The Modernists, the Albigensians, the Communists and the Freemasons do such things. Catholics never can, for they must declare their faith - and if they are not obliged to do so under every circumstances, they can never deny it or give witness against it. To act in such a manner is to give support to the enemies of the true Church, and hence to the enemies of Christ.

To admit that there is room within the new Church for conservative priests (and for a conservative laity) is to admit in one and the same breath that there is also room - and on an equally legitimate basis - for 'liberal' priests, a 'liberal mass' and a 'liberal theology.' One might well ask if Christ was a 'conservative' or a 'liberal' priest - recognizing of course that various answers would be given by Novus Ordo Catholics. One must remember that if there are those who travel at great pains to attend a service that is faintly recognizable as 'Catholic,' There are also those who attend a variety of bizarre 'masses' who can claim and who are recognized as being just as 'Catholic.' If the Latin Novus Ordo is approved, so is the 'clown 'mass,' or whatever enthusiasm will replace it in an attempt to keep the attention of the congregation. For a Catholic to take a 'conservative stance' is for him to admit (and indeed, to connive at) the fact that the new Church is in fact a 'pluralistic' and 'open' Church. He is, within this framework, simply 'picking and choosing' what seems right to him. The conservative Catholic in fact is one who leans towards orthodoxy, but one who refuses to make the necessary commitment. As St. Jerome said many years ago: 'If you wander off the track a bit, it makes no difference if you veer to the right or to the left; the important thing is that you are not on the right road' (Commentary on St. Matthew).

Many dream and claim that the post-Conciliar Church is returning to tradition and point to miniscule concessions as evidence of such. Others beg for patience and charity. What they do not understand is the revolutionary principle of two steps forward, one step back. Every revolutionary stage has embraced this principle and the new Church is no different. To those who assure us of a return to tradition a simple answer is to be given. When Vatican II is thrown out, when the Novus Ordo Missae is discarded and condemned, when the true and unequivocally valid sacraments are returned to the faithful, then we will believe the leopard has changed its spots. When that occurs the post-Conciliar Church will have returned to unity where traditional Catholics already are. Till then, we owe no charity to error.

CHAPTER XV, part 9

A traditional Catholic (can there be any other kind?) is one who adheres to the teachings of the Church as they have always been. He insists upon the traditional sacraments administered by validly ordained priests. As such he rejects the teachings of Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Missae and all the other post-Conciliar sacraments.

The argument that Vatican II contains many orthodox statements does not impress him. He knows the Church has never mixed poison with her medicine; that error and truth make poor bedfellows. The only traditional attitude towards ambiguous and inconsistent teachings is to reject them in toto.

Traditional Catholics avoid making magisterial statements. Only the true Church can speak with the authority of Christ. This in no way precludes their having strong and reasonable theological opinions. Hence they will not say absolutely that the new mass (or any given sacrament) is invalid, but simply that its validity is highly doubtful or almost certainly absent. Now it is a principle that to accept dubious sacraments is a sacrilege. Hence it is that a traditional Catholic insists upon priests ordained before 1968, or conditionally reordained by traditional Bishops with the ancient rites. It is a farce for a minister ordained by the new rites to say the ancient Mass. It is also a farce to accept the Mass of John XXIII, the so-called indult Mass, which while valid, is only allowed on condition that one accepts the validity of the Novus Ordo Missae and the contents of Vatican II. If a true Mass is not available, the traditional Catholic will either say his rosary or read the Missal. If his heart is pure, God will provide him with the necessary graces.

And what of the post-Conciliar 'popes'. Here various positions are held. Once again, individuals cannot claim magisterial authority, and hence, no once can say with absolute certainty what these individuals are. But if we cannot speak for the magisterium, we are not obliged to abandon all logic. Hence it follows that one can say these individuals, on the basis of their statements and actions are not Catholic. And knowing that a non-Catholic cannot be a pope, one can hold to the firm theological opinion that these men are not popes. Such is the essence of the Sede Vacante position. On the other hand, one can also hold as a 'theological position' that they have some 'material' function, without any 'formal' or spiritual authority. Finally, one can simply say that one is unsure of their status, but regardless of what it is, one is going to remain Catholic in one's beliefs and practices. What one cannot do is declare they are popes, that they are Christ's Vicar on earth, and then disobey them with impunity.

Now there are many who will not accept such criteria for being a traditional Catholic. Knowing that an 'untraditional Catholic' is a contradiction in terms, they appropriate to themselves the designation regardless of where they stand on the issues. There is a spectrum of belief in the new Church and most unlikely segments claim the designation. Paul VI asked us to accept his new 'mass' in the name of tradition and even Liberation Theologians claim the desugbatuib. Hence, to find out where a given Catholic stands, one must ask him his position on the Mass, on the teachings of Vatican II and on the individuals who currently sit on Peter's chair. These are and will remain the issues that unite and divide the faithful.

A Catholic who adheres to the traditional position cannot be accused of turning his back on the 'existing' Church. On the contrary, in opposing the new 'mass' and the doctrinal changes introduced by Vatican II, he is only remaining faithful to what the Church has always taught. There is no such thing as the 'existing' Church in opposition to 'the Church of the past.' There is only one Church, a Church that traces its origin back to Christ, and those of Modernist or 'conciliar' persuasion have apostatized from it. This is something we dare not do. Using the analogy of the 'bark of Peter, we are not 'rebels' because we are faithful to the 'owner' and refuse to join with those who would 'mutiny' and steer the ship into unknown and perilous waters. The accusation that traditional Catholics are 'rebels' is as absurd as labeling Thomas More and Cardinal John Fisher rebellious to God because they refused to obey the legitimately crowned king of England. Was Christ a 'rebel' for refusing to bow down to Satan?

Nor for the same reason are traditional Catholics 'schismatic.' There is not doctrine of the Church that we deny - not even that of the primacy of Peter. It is not the traditional Catholic that is schismatic, but the post-Conciliar Church - and that body is not so much schismatic - that would be to place it on a par with the Greek Orthodox - as it is heretical. Equally offensive is the post-Conciliar practice of labeling us 'Protestants' because we choose to reject their Modernist beliefs. We are not picking and choosing because we adhere to the constant teachings of the Church; rather, we are choosing to be Catholic. It is not our Mass the Protestants use, but the 'mass' of those who would tar us with this brush.

Nor are traditional Catholics in 'disobedience.' No one can command one to sin, and to go to the new 'mass' is a sin and a sacrilege. No one can command one to deny the teachings of Christ, and to accept Vatican II is to deny His teachings. That those who insist on being Catholic are in disobedience is an absurdity. And what makes this accusation both hypocritical and offensive is that it comes from those who have made a virtual profession of being disobedient. Threats of excommunication by the post-Conciliar Church are also a 'joke.' A traditional Catholic is delighted to be outside the new Church, for that Church is not the Body of Christ. Such threats mean no more than if they came from some other Protestant sect or from the Freemasons. No traditional Catholic can be in communion with the new Church because that would place him in communion with a host of heretics.

CHAPTER XV, part 10

1   ...   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33

База данных защищена авторским правом © 2016
звярнуцца да адміністрацыі

    Галоўная старонка