New comprehensive interview by SSPX Superior-General

New interview granted by the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), Swiss bishop Bernard Fellay, to the organization's own news agency, DICI.

__________________________

Interview with Bishop Fellay, Menzingen, November 2013 from Society of St Pius X on Vimeo.

The arrival of a new pope

The arrival of a new pope can be rather like resetting our odometers to zero.  Especially with a pope who distinguishes himself from his predecessors by his way of acting, speaking, and intervening and makes quite a contrast.  This can cause people to forget the preceding pontificate, and that is what has happened somewhat.  At least at the level of certain conservative or reforming lines marked out by Pope Benedict XVI.  It is certain that the first interventions of the pope have caused a lot of haziness and even almost a contradiction, at any rate a contrast in relation to those reforming lines.

One example:  the Franciscans of the Immaculate

In their spirituality they follow the guidelines of Father Maximilian Kolbe.

This is very interesting, because Maximilian Kolbe desires a combat for the Immaculata, a combat by the Immaculata, the victory of God over the enemies of God—we really can use that term—namely the Freemasons.  It is very interesting to see that.  This combat against the world, against the spirit of the world made them close to us, almost by nature, one could say, because to enlist in a combat against the world implies the Cross somewhere.  That implies the eternal principles of the Church:  what is called the Christian spirit.  This Christian spirit is expressed magnificently in the old Mass, in the Tridentine Mass.  So that when Benedict XVI published his Motu Proprio, which once again made the Mass widely available, that congregation decided in their Chapter, in other words a decision by the whole congregation, to return to the old Mass, and really to do so across the board, realizing that they would have a lot of problems since they have parishes, but that nevertheless these problems were not insurmountable.  A few of them also began to pose certain questions about the Council.

As a result, some malcontents, a handful if you consider the number of them (there are around 300 priests and brothers in all), maybe a dozen protested to Rome, saying “They are trying to impose the old Mass on us, they are attacking the Council.”  This provoked a very strong reaction on the part of Rome, already during the pontificate of Benedict XVI—it is necessary to make that clear.  Nevertheless, the conclusions, the disciplinary measures were taken under Pope Francis.  These include, among others, the prohibition against celebrating the old Mass for all the members, with a few exceptions and permissions, possibly, here or there….  This is directly contrary to the Motu Proprio, which spoke about a right, that the priests had the right to celebrate the old Mass and therefore there was no need for permission, either from the ordinary or even from the Holy See.  Therefore that is quite shocking; obviously this is a signal.

A new approach by the Church

“We’re closing the parenthesis.”  This is the slogan used by several progressives at the coming of Pope Francis.  I think that in any case, for those who are called progressives, it was what they wanted.  In other words, after the pontificate of Benedict XVI, they wanted to consign to oblivion his pontificate and its initiatives which had the intention of reestablishing, for better or for worse, the situation by a few corrections—is it possible to say “restoration?”   In part, at any rate, there was at least a desire to get the Church out of the disaster in which she finds herself.

The new pope arrives with different positions, attacking almost everything.  Everyone understood:  Benedict XVI is forgotten!  It was useless to say:  “But no!  This is the same combat, Benedict and Francis, the same combat!”  Obviously, the attitude is not the same at all.  The approach, the definition of the problems that affect the Church is not the same!  This idea of introducing reforms that are even more extensive than anything that has been done thus far.  In any case, you don’t get the impression that they will just be cosmetic, these reforms of Pope Francis!

Then how will this affect the Church?  It is very difficult to say.

A climate of confusion

The coming of a new pope makes people forget (what preceded him), as though starting over from zero, with a lot of surprises, a lot of offenses, too, because by his words he has irritated almost everyone, not just us, but all conservatives in general.  On questions of morality, he has taken astonishing positions, for example that question about homosexuals:  “Who am I to judge?”  “Well, the pope, for one thing!”  He is the supreme judge here on earth.  Therefore if there is someone who can judge, who must judge and set forth God’s law to the world, he is certainly the one!  What the pope thinks personally does not interest us; what we expect from him is that he be the voice of Christ and therefore the voice of God, who repeats to us what God has said!  And God did not say, “Who am I to judge?”  He really said something else:  you see, the condemnations that we find in the writings of Saint Paul, and not just those of the Old Testament—think of Sodom and Gomorrah—are very explicit.  Saint Paul and the Apocalypse speak very forcefully against that whole unnatural crowd.  Therefore expressions like that, even if they have been “explained correctly” later on, give the impression that on many topics everything and the opposite of everything has been said.  This creates a climate of confusion;  people are thrown off balance:  they necessarily expect clarity about morals, and even more about the faith;  the two are connected.  Faith and morals are the two points that the Church teaches and where infallibility can be invoked, and all at once we see a pope making hazy statements…

It goes much farther than that:  during an interview with the Jesuits, the pope attacks those who desire clarity.  Unreal!  He does not use the word clarity;  he uses the word certitude, those who want doctrinal security.  Obviously people want that!  In dealing with the words of God Himself, Our Lord, who says that not even one iota should be abandoned, it is better to be precise!

A less credible pope

It is difficult to arrive at a judgment about his words because a little later on, or almost at the same time, you find words about the faith, about points of faith, about points of morality, which are very clear and condemn sin, the devil; statements that explain very forcefully and very clearly that no one can go to heaven without true contrition for one’s sins, no one can expect mercy from the Good Lord unless one seriously regrets one’s sins.  All these are reminders that we are very happy about, very necessary reminders!  But unfortunately they have already lost a large part of their force because of the contrary statements.

I think that one of the most unfortunate things about these statements is that they have spoiled his credibility; they have taken away much of the credibility of the Supreme Pontiff, so that when he has to speak about important things, now or in the future, those statements will be put at the same level as the others.  People will say:  “He is trying to please everyone:  one move to the left, one move to the right.”  I hope I am wrong, but you do get the impression that this will be one of the traits of this pontificate.

The higher a position of authority one is raised to, the more careful one must be about what one says, and this is especially true about the words of the pope.  I think that he talks too much.  Consequently, his words become muddled, vulgar, perhaps in the deeper sense of the word.  Non decet:  it is not fitting;  this is not how a pope ought to act.

You can no longer tell what is a private opinion and what is doctrine…  The mix-ups occur immediately.  “Oh, but this is the pope speaking!”  Now the pope is not a private person.  Of course he can speak as a private theologian, but just the same it is the pope speaking!  And the journals will not say, “This is the pope’s private opinion,” but rather “The pope is the one who says that;  the Church thinks this way.”

The pope, a man of action

I do not think that I could dare say that I can already make a synthesis.  I see many disparate elements, I see a man of action.  This is the primacy of action, no doubt about that; this is not a man of doctrine.  An Argentine said to me:  “You Europeans will have a lot of difficulty understanding his personality, because Pope Francis is not a man of doctrine, he is a man of action, of praxis.  He is an extremely pragmatic man, very close to the ground.”  You see that in his sermons;  he is close to the people and that is perhaps what makes him very popular, because what he says touches everyone.  He also irritates everyone a little, but he is very close to the ground.  There is not much theory.  You see this clearly:  this is action, pure and simple.

This is what you see.  But how will that affect the Church?  What will be the consequences for the life of the Church as a whole?  Is this quite simply a voice crying out in the desert, which will have no effect at all, or on the contrary will one part of the Church, the progressive part, benefit from it?  You can tell that they would like to take advantage of it.

What is interesting, even now—in this analysis of the situation of the Church—is to see that clumsy words are pronounced, some draw conclusions from them, and after that comes a “clarification” (an attempt to reestablish the doctrine).  There have already been one or two remarkable clarifications—interventions by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who restates quite clearly and firmly the points unsettled by the Pope.  It is almost as though the Prefect of the CDF had to censure or correct… it is a bit awkward!  Finally, the progressives, at a certain point, will change their tune and say that this is not what they were expecting.  Meanwhile, the pope is giving them a hope, a false hope….

A modernist pope?

I used the word “modernist;”  I think that it was not understood by everybody.  Perhaps I should have said a modernist in his actions.  Once again, he is not a modernist in the absolute, theoretical sense:  a man who develops a whole coherent system;  that coherence does not exist.  There are lines, for example, the evolutionary line, which is precisely connected with action.  When the pope says that he wants a haziness in doctrine, when doubt is introduced, and not just haziness, but doubt, going so far as to say that even the great leaders of the faith, like Moses, allowed room for doubt….  I know of only one doubt of Moses:  the time when he doubted and struck the rock!  Because of that the Good Lord punished him and he was not able to enter the Promised Land.  Well then!  I do not think that this doubt is to Moses’s credit;  the rest of the time he was rather forceful in his assertions… without a doubt.

It is really surprising, this idea that there must be doubts about everything;  it is very peculiar!  I will not say that this is reminiscent of Descartes, but…  it creates an atmosphere.  And what is really dangerous is that they leave it at that in the newspapers and the media…  He is to some extent the darling of the media, he is well regarded, they praise him, they showcase him, but that does not get to the bottom of the matter.

An unchanged situation

This is an atmosphere that has come alongside the real situation of the Church, but the situation itself has not changed.  We have gone from one pontificate to another, and the Church’s situation has stayed the same.  The basic lines remain the same.  On the surface there are variations:  one might say that these are variations on a well-known theme!  The basic assertions:  we find them, for example, about the Council.  The Council is a reinterpretation of the Gospel in light of contemporary or modern civilization—the pope has used both terms.

I think that we should begin by very seriously asking for a definition of what contemporary, modern civilization is.  For us and for average mortals, it is quite simply the rejection of God;  it is “the death of God”.  It is Nietzsche, it is the Frankfurt School, it is an almost universal rebellion against God.  We see this almost everywhere.  We see it in the case of the European Union which in its Constitution refuses to acknowledge its Christian roots.  We see it in everything that the media propagate, in literature, philosophy, art:  everything tends toward nihilism, to the affirmation of man without God, and even in rebellion against God.

Then how can we reread the Gospel in that light?  It is quite simply not possible;  that is squaring the circle!  We agree with the definition just given and from it we draw consequences that are radically different from those of Pope Francis, who goes so far as to show, to expose the continuation of his thought by saying:  “Look at the fine fruits, the marvelous fruits of the Council:  look at the liturgical reform!”  Obviously that sends a chill down our spine!  Since the liturgical reform was described by his immediate predecessor as the cause of the crisis of the Church, it is difficult to see and to understand how all of a sudden it should be described as one of the finest fruits of the Council!  It certainly is a fruit of the Council, but if this is a fine fruit, then what is beautiful and good or bad?  It makes your head spin!

For the moment, nothing is being done to heal the Church

For the moment, nothing has been done to remedy the situation of deviance, of decadence in the Church, absolutely nothing, no measure that affects the whole Church.  We might mention the Encyclical on the faith; I don’t think that we can consider that as an effective measure.  Certainly not.  That does not touch, that does not heal the sick Mystical Body, sick to the point of death, the dying Church.  What are they doing to get out of this situation?  Nothing, after all;  until now, nothing.  Words, a few passing words that go in one ear and out the other—someone might say that I am being too harsh;  I don’t know, but practically speaking where are the measures being taken or announced to correct the aim?  There aren’t any.  Quite simply.

The Church however has promises of eternal life

Our Lord said it very clearly:  the gates of hell will not prevail against her.  You would love, on the basis of these very words, you would love to turn to Our Lord and say to Him:  “But what are You doing?!  Look, You are letting things happen that seem to go against Your promise!”  In other words, we are bit surprised by what is happening.  Here I am talking about the history of the Church.  These words, I am convinced of it, have been for most theologians the source of statements about the impossibility of seeing in the Church precisely what we are seeing now.  Considering that it is absolutely impossible, because of this promise by Our Lord.  Well, then, we will not deny Our Lord’s promises;  we will try to say how these promises, which are infallible, are still possible in a situation that seems contrary to them.  It seems to us that this time the gates of hell have made a first-class entry into the Church.  I think that it is necessary to be careful; we must not equivocate.  Especially with such statements, prophetic statements by our Lord, it is necessary to keep the basic meaning.  These are very forceful analogies; there is a reality being asserted here that is undeniable:  the gates of hell will not prevail.  One point, and that’s the whole thing.  But this does not mean that the Church is not going to suffer.  Well, then, to what point can this suffering go?  And here there is room for interpretation;  we are obliged to extend a bit further what we used to think.

When we think of Saint Paul, who speaks about the Son of perdition, who will have others adore him as God, it is therefore not just a military or, one might say, a civil Antichrist;  this is a religious person, a person who has people adore him, who claims acts of religion for himself.  And the abomination of desolation, is that connected with this?  I think so.  Therefore this means that there are, alongside this announcement of the promises of the indefectibility of the Church, the announcements of a terrible time for the Church, in which people will ask themselves questions.  In fact, this very question:  but then what about this indefectibility, these promises of Our Lord?  The Blessed Virgin…  the famous sayings at La Salette, which are repeated almost word for word by Leon XIII—these are not revelations, this is the Church and, we might say, the Church itself in an act:  Leo XIII composes an exorcism, that famous exorcism of Leo XIII, but later on they deleted the most solemn expression of that exorcism, which announces that Satan will reign and set up his throne in Rome.  Quite simply.  Therefore the headquarters of the Church will suddenly find itself the headquarters of the Antichrist.  These are the very words of the Blessed Virgin:  “Rome will become the seat of the Antichrist.”  These are the words of La Salette.  Just like:  “Rome will lose the faith,” “the eclipse of the Church”;  thus very forceful words contrasting with the promise.  This does not mean that the promise is null and void;  obviously it remains, but it does not rule out a moment of such suffering for the Church that one could consider it as an apparent death.

Passion of Christ, Passion of the Church

I think that we have arrived at that point.  The question remains:  to what extent will the Good Lord ask His Mystical Body to accompany, to imitate what His physical body had to endure, which was even unto death.  Will it go to that point, or will it stop short of it?  We all hope that it stops short.  I think—it would not be the first time—that the Good Lord will intervene to reestablish things, at the moment when everyone thinks:  This time it’s over.  I think that this will be one of the proofs of the divine origin of the Church.  At the moment when all human efforts are over, exhausted, in other words, when everything is finished, that is precisely the moment when He will act.  I think.  And then it will be an extraordinary manifestation, indeed, of the fact that this Church is the only one that is really divine.

The attitude of the faithful

First of all, they must keep the faith.  This is the primary message, we can say, of Saint Paul;  it was also the message for the times of persecution:  be firm, state [in Latin], hold on, remain standing, stand firm in the faith.  Keeping the faith cannot be merely theoretical.  There is such a thing as what I would call “theoretical” faith:  the faith of someone who is capable of reciting the Creed, he has learned his catechism, he knows it, he is capable of repeating it, and of course this sort of faith is the beginning;  you have to have it, or else you do not have the faith.  But this faith does not yet lead to heaven.  This is what you have to understand.  The faith that Scripture speaks about is the faith that is—to use the technical expression—informed by charity.  Saint Paul was speaking about this relation between Faith and Charity when he said to the Corinthians:  “If I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains,” (which is no small thing, since a faith that can move mountains is not something you see every day!) “and have not charity, I am nothing….  I am only a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal….”

It is not enough to make great professions of faith;  it is not enough to attack or condemn errors;  many think that they have fulfilled their duty as Christians when they have done this, but that is an error.  I am not saying that you should not do it;  it is one part, but the faith that Saint Paul and Sacred Scripture speak about is informed faith, in other words, faith imbued with charity.  Charity is what gives form to faith.  Charity is the love of God and consequently the love of neighbor.   Therefore it is about a faith that turns toward this neighbor who is certainly in error and reminds him of the truth, but in such a manner that, thanks to these reminders, the Christian will be able to sow the faith, reestablish someone in the truth, lead this soul toward the truth.  Therefore it is not a bitter zeal; on the contrary it is a faith made warm by charity.

The duty of state

What the faithful must do is their duty in their state in life.  To keep the faith, a faith properly imbued with charity, profoundly anchored in charity, which will enable them to avoid discouragement, bitter zeal and spite, and instead to experience joy, the Christian joy that consists of knowing that God loves us so much that He is ready to live with us, to live in us through grace.  This sheds light on everything that happens, and gives a joy that makes us forget problems and puts them in their place—problems that certainly can be serious.  But what are they in comparison with the Heaven that is won precisely through these trials?  These trials are prepared, arranged by the Good Lord, not so as to make us fall but so as to make us win.  God goes so far as to live in us, as Saint Paul says:  “And I live, now not I:  but Christ liveth in me!”  That is so beautiful!  The Christian is a tabernacle of the Holy Trinity, a temple of God, a living temple!

The role of the Society of Saint Pius X

Its primary concern is truly what keeps the Church alive:  the Mass.  The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is really the concrete, everyday application of the merits of Our Lord Jesus Christ, everything that he earned, merited on the Cross, which is truly the totality of graces for all human beings, from the first ones, Adam and Eve, down to those at the end of the world.  All graces were merited by Our Lord on the Cross.  The Mass is the perpetuation, the renewal, the representation of this sacrifice; on the altar there is a sacrifice identical to the one of the Cross, which each and every day places at the disposal of Christians (by extension one could say at the disposition of mankind) the merits of Our Lord, His satisfaction, His reparation, so as to obtain forgiveness for all the sins, that ocean of sins committed every day, and also to obtain the graces that we need.  The Mass really is the pump that distributes throughout the Mystical Body the graces merited on the Cross.  This is why we can say that it is the heart that distributes by means of the blood everything that the cells of the body need.  That is what the Mass is about:  it is the heart.  By taking care of this heart, we take care of the whole life of the Church.

Restoring the Church through the Mass

If we want a restoration of the Church, and certainly we do want it, that is where we must go.  To the source, and the source is the Mass.  Not just any liturgy, but rather, I mean to say, an extremely holy liturgy.  One that is holy to an unimaginable degree.  One that has an extraordinary sanctity that was truly forged by the Holy Ghost over the centuries, composed by the holy popes themselves, and therefore having an extraordinary depth.  There is absolutely no comparison between the New Mass and that Mass.  They really are two different worlds and, I was about to say, Christians who are in the least sensitive to grace realize it very quickly.  Very quickly.  Alas, today, we observe that many people do not even see it any more!  But for me it is obvious that the restoration of the Church must start there.  Therefore that is why I am profoundly indebted to Pope Benedict XVI for having reinstated the Mass.  That was of capital importance.  It is of capital importance.

Training priests

The Society promotes the Mass, wants this Mass, and it also promotes the man who says it, and there is no other who can, but the priest alone.  Therefore this is truly the very purpose of the Society:  the priesthood, the priest, to form priests, to help priests, without any limitation, no limitations, no one is going to be ruled out, no!  It is the priest as Our Lord intended him.  By reminding him precisely of the treasures that many ignore today.  It is tragic.

Rediscovering the Christian spirit

The Mass is even more important.  The Mass is what will impart the faith;  this is what will nourish the faith.  Obviously, if someone celebrates the Mass without faith, there is a big problem.  So it is not a matter of causing antagonisms;  it is a matter of truly uniting what is supposed to be united.  But I think that already with these two elements we have enormous resources for the survival of the Church, quite frankly.  Let’s say that everyone does see that the Church has been attacked at various levels; yet the most profound problem, I am convinced, is the loss of the Christian spirit.  Christians have tried to become like the world.  They said so the whole time, it was the purpose of the Council to accommodate itself to the modern world.  Well, no:  that is not possible!  We live in this world, therefore we use a lot of things from it, which remain concrete historical circumstances that pass away.  The foundation that remains, is attachment to the Good Lord, service rendered to the Good Lord which includes, of course, faith, grace, and this Christian spirit.  You want to go to heaven?  You should go to heaven, and to do so it is necessary to avoid sin and to do good.  Both.  As long as we don’t return to those basics, the Church will continue, we might say, to be battered by a lethal virus, which is the virus of the modern world, precisely of modern civilization.

The triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary

“In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.”  This is an absolute statement; nothing about it is conditioned by what happened before.  And it is truly a statement that elicits hope and establishes it; it is a rock.  Obviously, since it seems right that this triumph is connected with the consecration (of Russia), we are asking for the consecration; that is altogether normal.  How long will we have to wait to see it done as it was requested, or will the Good Lord, once again, be content with less?  We don’t know.  What we do know is that in the end there will be this triumph.  And therefore this is a certitude.  We will not speak about a certitude of faith, because this is not a question of faith; it is a word given by the Blessed Virgin, and so we know very well what her word is worth!  That is all. 

50 years ago today: BUGNINICARE!

From Fr. Z:
Today is the 50th anniversary of the promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium.
50 years.
FIFTY. YEARS.
I went back into the archives of the blog to find my post about…
Bugninicare!
UNIVERSAL SPIRITUAL-CARE REFORM FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
(Socialized Worship)
Taking his cue from post-war European national health care programs, Annibale Bugnini, assisted by a small circle of spiritual-care specialists and church policy makers, spearheaded a massive overhaul of the Catholic Church’s spiritual care system in the 1960s. The centerpiece of “Bugninicare” was a program known as Novus Ordo, so-called because it introduced a New Order into the regulation of the Church’s worship. The NO regulations were aimed at extending spiritual-care benefits to those for whom active participation was previously thought to be inaccessible. Bugninicare guaranteed that barriers to full participation were removed, thus permitting access to spiritual care on the part of ordinary believers. Bugnini and his consultants were convinced that the costs their programs would exact would not be excessive.

Special guarantees were built in to Bugnini’s socialized spiritual care system to protect the rights of women. The program also reached out to previously disenfranchised sectors of the general population, ensuring that mainline Protestants, Pentecostals and charismatics would no longer be excluded from participation. In fact, Bugninicare so lowered the bar of spiritual care throughout the Church that other obstacles to full participation, stemming from language, education, religion, gender and sexual orientation, were also effectively removed. The goal of equal distribution of spiritual care in the Church was now guaranteed. Novus Ordo was designed by Bugnini as a monopoly, a “single-provider” liturgy that would allow no room for competition from previous forms of spiritual care delivery. In order to ensure that élite types would not be able to opt out of the Novus Ordo, spiritual care decisions in the Church were left to a small circle of bureaucrats, headed by Bugnini.
Images for your contemplation.







 

50 years of Sacrosanctum Concilium: "The Destruction of the Roman Rite"

In celebration of the 50th anniversary of the promulgation of the Constitution on the Divine Liturgy of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican (Sacrosanctum Concilium), we post today the epilogue of the revised book on the Roman Rite by Don Pietro Leone Monselice, the pseudonym of a priest who celebrates the Traditional Mass exclusively in a diocese somewhere in Italy. If he were a priest defending the ordination of women, he would have no need to fear retaliations, but alas he is a priest who defends the obvious and clear superiority of the Traditional Roman Rite, and if he is punished it is not he who is going to suffer, but those faithful he currently serves who could be deprived of regular Masses. That sad and small aberration is just an example of the bizarre new world (wittingly or unwittingly) founded by the Fathers of Vatican II when they (wittingly or unwittingly) called upon Paul VI to "reform" the Roman Rite.

_________________________________

Epilogue

         Effects and Causes of the Destruction of the Roman Rite

In order better to understand the destruction of the ancient liturgy, we shall conclude this essay with a brief look at its effects and causes.  First we shall expound its effects and then its causes. We shall proceed in this order because the former are more evident than the latter, and, once established, will help us to identify the latter.  We shall first look at its effects on the New Rite and then on the Church Herself.

A.    Effects on the Novus Ordo Missae

Cardinal Ratzinger himself, in his preface to Mgr. Gamber’s ‘Reform of the Roman Liturgy’, called the new rite a ‘fabrication’[1], and in the next sentence a ‘falsification’[2]. Mgr. Gamber called it a ‘tumor'[3]. Relying principally on the material that we have presented in this essay, we proceed to identify five main defects of the New Rite[4].

1. The Faith is Misrepresented

We have shown how the Mass is represented as a meal; how the Person and Divinity of Jesus Christ is obscured; how sin, Judgment, Hell, the Devil, the imitation of Christ, and the ascetic life are minimalized. Faith is no longer presented as the ultimate Truth[5], and the life of Faith as a spiritual battle with the powers of darkness, as a question of eternal life and eternal death.

Rather, Faith is presented as a collection of edifying stories, and the life of Faith as a commitment to some undefined, future goal. Nebulous terms such as “the people of God”, “community”[6], and “solidarity” replace those of the Church and Charity, and even the Person of God the Father and that of Jesus Christ Himself become transformed into abstract and vague concepts.

2. The Cult of God is Compromised

The Mass no longer manifests the deepest Truths of the Faith: the Presence of the Eucharistic Lord, His Death on the Cross of Calvary; it no longer answers to the deepest needs of the human heart: the desire to be loved by God with a perfect love, to receive God Himself into the soul, to love God with all one’s being, to offer oneself up entirely to Him.

 Genuflections, kneeling, and silence are discouraged; recollection is made almost impossible by the constant noise and the interaction between celebrant and congregation, all of which expresses no more than the celebration of the community by itself.

3. The Faithful are Alienated

With Faith and the Mass emptied of their content (subjectively speaking), there is no incentive to attend Mass, except for the devout. For the others, attendance becomes simply a matter of convention, of custom, or of purely cultural interest. A similar situation exists in relation to sacramental marriage and baptism. The falling-off of attendance at the Mass according to the new rite represents an intermediary stage on its path to extinction[7].

4. Graces are Reduced

Graces are reduced because there are fewer Masses, because the prayers in these Masses are fewer, and because the devotion in these prayers is less.

There are fewer Masses on account of the multitude of concelebrations, where, since Our Lord Jesus Christ is the primary celebrant of the Mass, there will only ever be one Mass celebrated, however many concelebrants there are^[8].

Moreover, since many prayers have been eliminated from the Old Rite, there will be many fewer graces also for this reason: less will be received by he who asks for less. As examples we take the suppression of prayers preparing for a devout Holy Communion, all the prayers to the Blessed Virgin Mary, to the popes, the martyrs, and the holy apostles Peter and Paul, as noted above. As a particularly egregious example we take that of the suppression of the prayer to the Archangel Michael at the end of the Low Mass. How many millions of daily prayers by priests and faithful to curb the action of Satan have thereby been silenced? How can any-one with Faith not understand the growth of evil in the world in this light[9]?

Finally, the dispositions of the celebrant and of those who attend the Mass determine the amount of graces received for the Church, for those for whom the Mass is offered, and for those present. The New Rite is less conducive to devotion, so that the quantity of these graces will be less.

5. God is Dishonoured

The gravest consequence of the New Rite is, however, the dishonour of God. This is the gravest consequence as the glory of God is the primary finality of all things, and as the glory given to God by the Holy Mass is the greatest glory that there is.

In this essay we have analyzed the New Rite in terms of its Protestantism and its anthropocentrism. Its Protestantism consisted essentially in its denial of the sacrificial nature of the Holy Mass; its anthropocentrism related to its disrespect for the Divinity of the Lord.

To express these two factors in the briefest possible synthesis, we may say the New Rite dishonours Our Lord Jesus Christ: both in His Humanity, in which His sacrifice is that which is the most sublime, and in His Divinity.

We noted that the ultimate meaning of every thing is determined by its relationship to God. We conclude that the ultimate significance of the New Rite is this: that it dishonours God, in the Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The iconostasis of silence has been dismantled. The Lord is called forth in a vulgar tongue, in words composed by His enemies[10]. His Presence is ignored, His Person is demeaned. He is handled clumsily: if He falls, it does not matter[11]. He is placed on unblessed tables, segregated from His friends[12]. His garments have been reduced[13]. He, The King of Kings in the state of Immolation, is placed in vulgar, primitive vessels. As the people stand or sit, and think that they are listening to a mere tale, He is crucified and dies before their eyes. He is raised above their heads: “Behold the Lamb of God!”: they stand and stare. He is delivered over to them: He, Almighty God, their Creator, and their Highest Good. He is placed in their unclean hands. They receive Him into their darkened hearts, they brush Him off their hands, they trample over Him unwittingly, they take Him home. He is consigned to their caprice and their malice[14].  

Pilate therefore went forth again and saith to them: Behold I bring him forth unto you, that you may know that I find no cause in him. Jesus therefore came forth bearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment. And he saith to them: Behold the Man^[15].

B.     Effects of the Destruction of the Roman Rite on the Church

We have seen how the new rite is protestantizing and anthropocentric, and how it misrepresents the Faith. As such it is informed by a spirit of ambiguity that favours non-Catholic doctrine. This spirit is none other than the spirit of Modernism in that form in which it has insinuated itself into the Church of to-day from the time of the Second Vatican Council onwards. This spirit informs not only the liturgy, but also many of the teachings of the hierarchy, especially in the area of catechism, and many of their actions, especially ‘Ecumenism’. It constitutes the spirit of the world disguised as a New Catholicism, which started by destroying that great edifice which is the Old Roman Rite, and went on to destroy an entire world.

Where is the knowledge of the Faith in the laity, or even in the clergy? Where is the sense of the liturgical year? Where the spirit of adoration of God, the sense of the Sacred or of mystery, the spirit of sanctification, sacrifice, self-sacrifice, not to speak of  martyrdom? Where is the sense of Divine Justice[16], of hierarchy, of discipline, and of order? Where are self-possession, modesty, purity, respect, or even good manners? Where are the families with numerous children? Where the innocent eyes of children? Where are the ‘fioretti’, or acts of mortification of little children? Where are the flowers offered to the Blessed Virgin Mary in the month of May? Where are the young people of the black and white college photographs of byegone generations looking down with serene and steady gaze on their families? Where is the Catholic identity? Where is the sensus catholicus: the very sense of what it is to be a Catholic?[17]

If we were to ask whether it is the Modernism of the liturgy, of doctrine, or of action that has played the greatest role in destroying the whole Catholic world, or Orbis Catholicus, then we must reply that it is the liturgy, for what one prays determines what one believes (according to the principle: lex orandi, lex credendi[18]), and what one believes determines what one does. In a word, the water has been contaminated at its very source.

The Holy Mass constitutes the heart of the theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity: Faith in the Blessed Trinity, in the Incarnation, the Sacrifice of Calvary for the redemption of mankind, in the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, and in Holy Communion – indeed it even renders these very mysteries present; it is offered in the Hope of eternal life, and it bestows Holy Communion on the faithful as a pledge of that Hope; it makes present the sacrificial love of God for man, and makes possible the sacrificial love of man for God.

When these sacred mysteries are expressed with power and clarity, they strengthen the Faith[19], Hope, and Charity of all present, even to the point of martyrdom; when they are expressed with ambiguity that favours heresy, then they impede the growth of these virtues, shake them, or even destroy them[20].

This is especially true of the priest, who is the most intimately involved in the sacred mysteries: he is the one who renders them present. If the liturgy that he celebrates every day falls short of the Truth, so will his beliefs, his teaching[21], and his actions[22]. But this is also true for the Catholic laity, even if to a lesser degree, because it is the Mass, it is what they experience and learn at the Mass (be it every day, every Sunday, or only occasionally), that determines their Catholicity. 

So much for the Church visible; but what of the Church invisible? How many souls have been lost or have not attained that degree of glory in Heaven which God has prepared for them from all eternity, as a result of the Modernism of the new rite, of its alienation of the faithful, and its reduction of sanctifying Grace?

In a word, the new rite has blocked and thwarted the very purposes of the Church, which are the sanctification of man and the glory of God.

The Holy Mass is the means by which Our Lord Jesus Christ, fount of all Truth and holiness, enters this world: the means by which the Word, the Splendour of the Father, descends from His royal throne, and, passing through an infinity of space and time[23], pierces the fabric of this finite, transient world. But His light has been dimmed at its very source, and now shines less brightly on our aching, fallen humanity.

C.    The Causes of the Destruction

      We have presented the destruction of the Roman Rite in terms of Protestantism, of anthropocentrism, and, in the ultimate analysis, of subjectivism. Subjectivism, in its turn, derives from the perfections and free-will of the creature, which makes it possible for him to adore himself in the place of God.

      We have alluded to the possibility that the Freemasons were instrumental in the Liturgical Reform.

       So much then for the human level, but what of the spiritual level? We have asserted that the ultimate meaning of the New Rite, and therefore also of the destruction of the Old, is that it dishonours Our Lord Jesus Christ. Our question is then: Who might have wished to dishonour Him in this way?

       If we glance for a moment at the history of the Universe, there is one being who has been concerned to dishonour Him, and that from the very beginning of time: a being who refused to adore Him when, according to the Fathers of the Church, he was presented with an image of Him prior to the Incarnation, before the creation of man; a being who assailed Him in the hour of His Passion and Death; a being intent to destroy all those made in His image and likeness, especially the members of His Mystical Body, the Church.

     As for his dishonour of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the liturgy in particular, we refer to the ‘tenth  characteristic of the diabolical spirit’ in that classical work of demonology, ‘The Discernment of  Spirits’ by Father Scaramelli S.J. (1687-1752): “The tenth characteristic is the alienation from Jesus Christ and His imitation. As a proof of this, it is enough to recall the great aversion towards the Person of the Redeemer, on the part of the false contemplatives and heretics in whom the diabolical spirit triumphs: the former forbidding meditation on Him and cancelling His memory from the mind; the latter impeding His worship and veneration.”

     If the Devil’s main target is Our Lord Jesus Christ in Person, his second target, as we have just observed, is His Mystical Body, the Church. We have meditated on the damage done to Holy Mother Church in the previous section.

     The hypothesis that the liturgical reform on the spiritual level represents an attack of the Devil on our Lord Jesus Christ is corroborated by the following factors:

i)                    the prophesies about the creation of the New Rite which we have quoted at the end of the Part I of this essay: that of the apostate Canon Roca being certainly of diabolical inspiration, and that of Cd. Billot linking the creation of a new liturgy with the Devil;

ii)                  the suppression of the readings about the devil and the prayer to Saint Michael at the end of Low Mass;

iii)                the universal nature of the destruction, relating, as it does, to the entire world;

iv)                the systematic nature of the destruction, which followed a programme on all fronts, concerning every aspect of the Rite even down to its smallest details; a programme implemented gradually but relentlessly by a series of persons over a considerable period of time, with the precision, the concerted efforts, and the full rigours of a military campaign;

v)                  the ruthless violence of the destruction, its cold and implacable logic, and its hatred and scorn for all that is sacred, as we have already noted above in regard to the destruction of the altars and the altar-rails;

vi)                the fact that taken together this act of destruction represents an act of hybris and sacrilege without parallel in Church History;

vii)              the audacity of the Evil Spirit, if indeed he was the driving force behind these events, in taking possession, as it were, of the principal actors in this drama unbeknownst to them, including the highest authority on earth: to destroy the Roman Rite, to create a New, and to impose it incontestably on all mankind.

    However this may be, the ultimate cause of this, as of all things, is God Himself.  He has permitted the destruction of the liturgy for His Own unfathomable purpose, which we might suppose to be that of chastising the Church for evils of the most extreme gravity. Are these the evils, we might ask, that according to the revelations of Fatima, were to be chastised in the world with a punishment that was visible, physical, and of limited duration  by the wars of last century?  evils, which continuing, are now being chastised within the Church  with  a  punishment that is invisible, spiritual, and eternal?

One thing is certain however:  God does not permit evil unless for a higher good, such as the glorification of His Justice and the purification  of His elect.

And yet it is not the part of a Catholic to be disheartened or to make laments, so rather than dwelling on the unhappy legacy of the past, let us conclude this study by thanking God that by the wisdom and courage of his Supreme Pontiff, Benedict XVI, the Old Rite is at last returning after 40 years of wilderness[24], and pray that this rite which (alongside its parallel rites) provided the foundation for Catholic Christendom in every land on every continent in the world, and which, when removed, made it fall, may, by its return, restore that great and holy civilization to its former splendour, for the salvation of innumerable souls and to the glory of the Most Blessed and Undivided Trinity.

                     Amen.

[NOTES]

[1] quoted in the Introduction of the book.

[2] Verfaelschung

[3] in the French version of the book one reads (p.95) : “Où sont les éveques qui auront le courage de faire disparaitre cette tumeur ...qui est la théologie moderniste implantée dans le tissu de la célébration des saints mystères? Where are the bishops courageous enough to remove this cancerous tumour, which is the the modernist theology implanted in the tissue of the celebration of the sacred mysteries?”.

[4] In view of these defects, it is clearly impossible for us to ascribe an equal worth to the two rites, that is in an unqualified sense. We may ascribe an equal worth to them in fact only inasmuch as both render present the Sacrifice of Mount Calvary (with the caveat expessed in the Brief Critique).

[5] We refer in this connection to the removal of ‘the true Faith’ for which St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen died (in verae fidei propagatione); of the conquest of heresies in the feast of St. Irenaeus (veritate doctrinae expugnaret haereses); of the prayer for the return to the unity of the Church and for the salvation of those who are in error in the feasts of St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Peter Canisius; and the suppression of the prayers for the conversion of heretics and schismatics in the solemn orations of Good Friday: the oldest prayers of the Roman rite, which go back to the times of the first persecutions (WHH p.29).

[6] with its spatial and temporal limitations

[7] The new rite has not sufficient vitality to endure (cf. the Devastated Vineyard ch.8 p.73). Indeed even to hold the attention of the faithful for a short time it requires ‘animators’, who have recourse to elements proper to other forms of public action such as the television show or dance, to fill the void. The old rite, by contrast, has this vitality: it has lasted two millenia, and, despite all the efforts of its enemies to destroy it, is (at the time of writing) inexorably returning. In this connection we quote ‘la Révolution liturgique’ by Jean Vaquié (Diffusion de la Pensée Francaise, Paris 1971, p.45):  « Les antiques architectes de la messe traditionnelle l’ont construite pour durer. Elle est concue dans un esprit de stabilité et de vérité. La nouvelle messe, au contraire, est concue dans un esprit d’apostasie et de tolérance. Elle est transformable. Elle capte le vent et se laisse entrainer par lui. Il est évident que l’orage éclatant dans le ciel de l’Eglise, la messe de Paul VI sera entrainée contre les récifs. La logique de son pluralisme le brisera. Au contraire, la vieille messe traditionnelle résistera encore une fois aux assauts, parce qu’elle est faite pour cela: The ancient archtitects of the traditional Mass constructed it to last. It is conceived in the spirit of stability and truth. The new Mass, by contrast, is conceived in the spirit of apostasy and tolerance. It is changeable. It sails with the wind and lets itself be drawn along by it. It is obvious that when the storm breaks out in the sky of the Church, the Mass of Paul VI will be blown against the reefs. The logic of its pluralism will smash it. By contrast, the old traditional Mass will resist once again against the attacks, because it is made for that.”

^[8]  cf.L’Eucharistie, salut du monde II ch.3.II.1, Fr. Joseph de Sainte-Marie OCD, Editions du Cèdre DMM.

[9] we recall Pope Leo XIII’s vision of devils plotting evil against the Church which led him to compose the prayer and to append it to the low Mass.

[10] cf. book, Part I 2 (iii) on the words of consecration modified after the example of the Reformers.

[11] cf. book, Part I 3 on the indications about the Host falling.

[12] cf.book,  Part I 3 on the elimination of the relics.

[13] cf. book, Part 1 8 on the removal of the frontals and altar-cloths, and Part I 4 on the reduction of the vestments.

[14]   cf. book, Part I 3 (note)

^[15]  Jn.19.4-5.

[16] In tandem with the diminution of the sense of Divine Justice and of sacrifice we note the tendency within the Church towards pacifism and towards the abolition of capital punishment, and, as the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI regrets in his book Luce nel Mondo, the reluctance to punish criminal offences within the clergy in recent decades.

[17] clearly there are pockets in which these elements survive, but we are addressing the phenomenon in universal terms.

[18] We have quoted the words of Father Nocent that the new lectionary would change Catholic theology and spirituality; Fr. Braga claimed that the New Rite would alter “doctrinal reality”, would introduce “a new formulation of Eucharistic theology” (Il propium de sanctis, p.419), and would have a transforming effect on catechesis (Il nuovo, p.274) WHH p.396.                                                          

[19] Mgr. Gamber remarks: ‘The Roman rite is at the present time the rock amongst the breakers of faithlessness. The innovators are well aware of this: it explains their blind hatred for the ‘Tridentine Mass’. Its preservation is no matter of aesthetics but of the life of the Church: Der Ritus romanus ist gegenwaertig der Fels in der Brandung des Unglaubens. Das wissen die Neuerer sehr gut. Darum auch der blinde Hasz gegen die ‘Tridentinische Messe’. Ihre Erhaltung ist keine Frage der Aesthetik, sondern des Lebens der Kirche.’(Una Voce Korrespondenz 5, 1976, p.301) In this connection we also mention the remark of Pope Paul VI in Paul VI Secret (op.cit.): ‘Cette messe dite de St. Pie V, comme on la voit à Econe, devient le symbole de la condamnation du Concile: This Mass, called the Mass of St. Pius V, as it is viewed at Econe, is becoming the symbol of the condamnation of the Council.’

[20] One of the reasons for which the Church considers it dangerous for the faithful to assist at non-Catholic liturgies, and therefore discourages them from so doing, is that it can lead to the loss of Faith. The new rite, Catholic in one sense but Protestant in another, represents this danger to an eminent degree. In regard to the destruction of the Faith we quote the memorable words of Cd. Journet: ‘The liturgy and the catechism (of to-day) are the two jaws of the pincers with which they are tearing the Faith from the hearts of our children: La liturgie et la catechèse (d’aujourd’hui) sont les deux machoirs de la tenaille avec laquelle on arrache la foi du coeur de nos enfants.’ Lucien Méroz l’Obéissance dans l’Eglise (Claude Martingay, Genève). Fr. Bruckberger O.P. director of the film Les Carmelites de Compiègne goes further and writes (in La Révélation de Jésus Christ) ‘That which we are witnessing on the pretext of liturgical renewal is the organized apostasy from the Catholic Faith: Ce à quoi nous assistons sous prétexte de renouvellement liturgique c’est l’apostasie organisée de la foi catholique’.In this connection we refer to a passage in Les Institutions Liturgiques of Dom Prosper Guéranger (Paris 1878, pp. 388-407, esp. 398) where the author explains that all heretics have always begun their work of destruction by attacking the liturgy: ‘Every sectarian who wants to introduce a new doctrine finds himself necessarily in the presence of the liturgy which is Tradition in the highest degree of her power … Indeed, how has Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism been established and maintained in the masses? To obtain this effect all that was necessary was to substitute new books and new formulae for the old, and all was consummated.’ [21] this is of a particular relevance for bishops and those reponsible for the composition of official Church documents.

[22] in particular we note that if the central action of a priest, which, as he Council of Trent dogmatically declares, is the celebration of the Holy Mass, is emasculated, then so is the priest. (The same applies, to a lesser degree, to doctrine.) The consequences, which are of a moral nature, have been apparent in recent years .

[23] see Iota Unum s.266

[24] certainly a grievous castigation of the Church by God for unspeakable evils. We refer to “the time when the continual sacrifice shall be taken away: a tempore cum oblatum fuerit juge sacrificium”(Daniel 12,11) as interpreted by Cd. Billot, (La Parousie, op.cit. p.47 German version): “Gemeint ist also das Opfer unserer Altaere, die hl.Meszfeier, die in diesen Tagen ueberall geaechtet, ueberall untersagt sein und die – abgesehen von jenen hl. Meszopfern, die in den Katakomben, im Dunkeln und Verborgenen gefeiert werden – ueberall unterbrochen sein wird: What is being referred to is the sacrifice of our altars, the celebration of the Mass, which in these days will everywhere be despised and forbidden, and that, with the exception of those Masses that will be celebrated in the catacombs, in the dark and in secret, will everywhere be interrupted.”