Remove wordpress and place in browser each day for a different sermon from traditional priests and saints everywhere on every subject.
Remove wordpress and place in browser each day for a different sermon from traditional priests and saints everywhere on every subject.
What is the Tridentine Mass?
It’s the Mass used in the Catholic Church for almost 1500 years, until the introduction of the “New Mass” of Paul VI following the Second Vatican Council.
Why is it called the Tridentine Mass?
Because it was codified by the Council of Trent in the 16th century. But the Mass itself is far older than that. The Canon, or central part, of the Mass dates back to the time of St Gregory in the sixth century where he made it official, but it can be found even earlier in the writings and practices of Saint Ambrose and Saint Antony the Great in the third century.
In 1570, Pope St Pius V – in his Papal Bull Quo Primum – said that priests could use the Tridentine rite forever, “without scruple of conscience or fear of penalty
Wasn’t the Tridentine Mass banned?
No, but following the Second Vatican Council, its public use was (unjustly) suppressed by most Paul VI and the Bishops.
After the introduction of Paul VI’s new Mass, the only priests given permission to say the Tridentine Mass publicly were priests of England and Wales, thanks to an indult (or permission) granted by the Vatican to Cardinal Heenan of Westminster.
Other priests – such as Padre Pio- continued to use the old Mass privately instead of the new rite.
After a thorough review of the teachings of the Catholic Church, this Mass could never be revoked and it is impossible to say that the perfect Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a bad thing or needs to revamped. Never listen to those, even Bishops and “Popes”, who tell you to do less for God. By going to the invalid Novus Ordo Mass, you are turning your back on the true sacrifice on Calvary, since the New Mass is directly connected to the wishes of the reformers (Protestant) of the Reformation and Freemasons. Do not believe those who try to tell you it is “just going back to its original form”. That is like saying you can plant a seed, watch the tree grow, and then cut it down and ignore all the fruits through the centuries.
Furthermore, this way of thinking is against Church teaching and has been previously condemned. Pope Saint Pius V warned us and made it clear that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass could never change. Please read the encyclical Quo Primum.
What’s the advantage of the Tridentine Mass?
The validity of the Tridentine Mass is shown, not only by the Papal Bull, but also its uniformity and experiencing the words of the Holy Ghost. Wherever Catholics go in the world, the Tridentine Mass is exactly the same. The movements and gestures of the Mass are clearly prescribed and each have a purpose, so there’s no room for “personalization and innovations” and other abuses of the liturgy. And the time-honored Latin and Prayers of the Mass reverently reflects the sacrificial nature of the celebration and the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. This Mass expresses the Dogmas such as Purgatory and Blessed Mother, as well, there is no doubt that something heavenly is happening.
So are Catholics entitled to attend a Tridentine Mass if they wish?
Absolutely! This question was added for those of you who are nervous of going against a Bishop, and rightly so. Many members of our community went through similar experiences and were afraid that they themselves were outside the Church. As we prayed and studied more, we started to learn the truth and stood up for the faith, the problems with the new mass and the new sacraments are simply too overwhelming to list here on this website page. Simply ask yourself, how could the Mass that all the great saints attended be now a bad thing? As well you must come to terms with the fruits of the New Mass, for example, no reverence or modesty, no unity, liturgical abuses, ill informed priest, and empty pews. Judge it by the fruits, this Mass was not written by the Holy Ghost. You do not have to wait for a Bishop to “allow” a Tridentine Mass to be said in your diocese. Unfortunately we must fight and seek the Truth, even if that means going to a small chapel where the Tridentine Mass is offered. We certainly do not approve or advocate disobedience, but only advocate obedience to Divine Law and true Popes and Bishops. You must choose God over ill informed or evil men. Obedience to God and the teachings of His Holy Catholic Church come first. For instance, if you know a priest that says that Blessed Mother was not the Immaculate Conception, he would be denying a Dogma of the Catholic Church, therefore making him a heretic. You would not listen and follow this priest, in fact it is your responsibility to inform him otherwise. The truth is, many priest do not believe that Blessed Mother was the Immaculate Conception, and it gets much worse than that. The present authority of the Catholic Church is overwhelmingly corrupted by heresy and therefore the men who support these errors in Holy Mother Church do not hold any authority. The Devil is trying his best to destroy the One True Faith.
**Please investigate each place you go to for Mass. There are traditionalist, many with good intentions, that think they can be ordained by anyone and be a priest. Also please stay away from Traditional groups that have completely gone too far,. For instance, groups that have “elected” their own pope.
Lastly, it is very important to know that your priest should be validly ordained in the traditional rite. The reason for this is because the New Church has changed the consecration formula of Bishops in the late 60’s . On November 13, 1947, Pope Pius XII had given us a specific form of consecration for validity in his encyclical Sacramentum Ordinis. This consecration has been used for centuries and has always had the essential words
Pope Pius XII said the words in the consecration were absolutely needed for validity. The only word in the new consecration that remains the same as in the old is the word “and”. The bishops that were ordained by this new consecration are in fact invalid (Roman Rite), therefore not making them priests. We realize that this is a lot to digest, but if you want valid sacraments you must find a priest that does the traditional rites and is validly ordained by a valid Bishop. Our Holy Mother Church is in a great spiritual war. We must continue to pray the rosary and read the teachings of the Doctors, saints and theologians of the pre-Vatican II era.
This was an article on http://www.willingshepards.net
here is some more modernism disguised as Catholicism
God Bless BJS!!
A Typical Modern Mass:
In a typical modern parish on a Sunday, the entire service is conducted in English. The priest sits or stands facing the people throughout, and often makes spontaneous remarks to them during the course of the service. Lay people in the sanctuary add comments or proclaim the Scripture readings. Part of the service takes place at a table. The tabernacle is never on the table, but at the priest’s back, or off in a corner. The Sign of Peace is an occasion for handshaking, emotionalism, or socializing. The priest gives Communion in the hand to most people, and he is assisted by lay men and women. The priest makes few genuflections, if any. It is rare that two celebrations of the new Mass are exactly alike. They vary from priest to priest and from parish to parish. In many places some bizarre things have been incorporated into the Mass: there are “Clown Masses,” “Puppet Masses,” Balloon Masses,” and masses featuring movies, slide shows, skits, and popular music.
The Traditional Mass:
Contrast this with the traditional Latin Mass. It is celebrated in the ancient and venerable language of the Catholic Church. The priest faces Our Lord in the tabernacle throughout. He makes no spontaneous comments on his own, but recites exactly the same prayers that priests have used for centuries. The priest alone touches the Sacred Host with his hands. The people kneel for Holy Communion before their Lord and Savior, and receive Him on the tongue alone. There is no handshaking and socializing before the Blessed Sacrament. The people follow the Mass silently and reverently with Missals (Mass-books) which translate the words of the priest. The gestures of the priest are reverent and restrained, and include numerous genuflections out of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. The texts and rites of the traditional Latin Mass are the same everywhere and do not vary from priest to priest or church to church. Everything is governed by uniform and very specific rules.
Liturgy Expresses Doctrine:
Even the casual observer would conclude that the modern Mass and traditional Mass seem to send out radically different “signals” about what the Mass is, what it does, and what those present believe. The new rite leaves the impression that the Mass is a common meal or instructional service; the old rite, that it is an action primarily directed at adoring an all-holy God. This brings us to a principle which is a key to understanding why some Catholics adhere to the traditional Mass: liturgy of its nature expresses doctrine. Pope Pius XII spoke of this in his Encyclical on the liturgy:
The worship she [the Church] offers to God, all good and great, is a continuous profession of the Catholic faith…In the sacred Liturgy, we profess the Catholic faith explicitly and openly.
Liturgy not only expresses common doctrine; it also influences what people believe. Prayers and ritual gestures expressing adoration of Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist, for instance, reinforce and reaffirm our common faith in that doctrine. If you remove from public worship prayers and gestures that allude to a particular truth such as this, you can be fairly sure that in time worshippers will cease to believe in it.
The Traditional Mass & Doctrine:
Because liturgy both expresses doctrine and influences what people believe, the Church down through the centuries has closely guarded the text of the Missal, in order to insure that it accurately reflected her beliefs and excluded anything that compromised them. The Catholic Church has always first and foremost spoken of the Mass as a “sacrifice.” It is infallible teaching that Christ left a visible Sacrifice to His Church “in which that bloody sacrifice which was once offered on the Cross should be made present” (Council of Trent) The doctrine that the Mass is primarily a sacrifice offered to God is wonderfully and precisely expressed in the traditional Latin Mass. So too are Catholic teachings on countless other points, such as the Real Presence, the nature of the priesthood, purgatory, the identity of Christ’s true Church, and the intercession of the saints.
Making Catholics Protestants:
The Protestants also understood how well the Mass clearly expressed the Church’s doctrine. When they wanted to spread their new and false teachings, they changed the liturgy. In the 16th century, Luther made Catholics into Protestants by getting Catholics to worship like Protestants. From Luther’s biography:
“Next came the reform of the Liturgy, which touched the common man more intimately because it altered his daily devotions. He was being invited to drink the wine [sic] at the Sacrament, to take the elements into his own hands, to commune without previous confession, to hear the words of institution [consecration] in his own tongue, and to participate extensively in sacred song.”
Luther laid the theoretical groundwork for the most significant changes. His principle was that the Mass is not a sacrifice…(Roland Bainton, Here I Stand, Mentor ed., p.156)
Liturgical changes thus became a means for undermining the Catholic faith and spreading a doctrinal revolution. On the face of it, the liturgical practices Luther introduced in the 16th century in order to destroy the belief that the Mass is a sacrifice resemble to a remarkable degree the changes made in the Mass since the early 1960’s/ What is the explanation of this? And since worship and belief go hand in hand, what principles or beliefs were behind the 1960’s changes in worship? To answer these questions we have to speak about the Second Vatican Council.
Vatican II & Its Reforms:
The Second Vatican Council (October 11, 1962 to December 8, 1965) was called by John XXIII. He said he wanted to “open the windows” of the Church to the modern world. He said he hoped to “update” the Church, make it more relevant to the times and thus draw more people to the Church. He called the Catholic bishops together so that they could discuss sweeping changes in Catholic worship, discipline and doctrine. After the death of John XXIII, the work of this Council continued under Paul VI and resulted in many radical changes. Catholics soon found themselves faced with “reforms” in every phase of their religious life. Millions of words have been written about these “reforms.” Catholics were told time and time again: “the essentials of the faith have not been changed” and that Vatican II brought about a true “renewal” in the Church.
The Fruits of Vatican II:
However, Our Lord said that we can judge a tree by its fruits – that a good tree brings forth good fruits and a bad tree brings forth bad fruits. What have been the fruits of Vatican II? Priests and sisters abandoned their sacred calling by the tens of thousands, priestly vocations dried up (in the U.S. from 1965 to 2002, ordinations decreased by 72% and the number of seminarians by 90%), convents emptied (in the same period, the number of teaching sisters decreased by 93%), attendance at Mass dropped dramatically (from 74% of U.S. Catholics in 1958 to 17% in 2002), and the Church’s doctrines and moral teachings are openly denied or studiously ignored by clergy and laity alike (in 1997, 85% of U.S. Catholics polled denied that artificial contraception was morally wrong; in 2000, 65% believed that Catholics may divorce and remarry). Obviously, these fruits are bad. This leads straight to the conclusion that the tree that produced them – Vatican II – was bad as well.
Principles Behind Vatican II:
The “renewal” of Vatican II produced such disastrous effects because it was founded on two dangerous principles: ecumenism and modernism.
Ecumenism – Seeks to fuse Catholicism with non-Catholic religions. Doctrines or ritual practices which Protestants or other non-Catholics find objectionable must therefore be eliminated, downplayed, or rendered ambiguous.
Modernism – Teaches that truth changes from age to age, and that the Church must therefore change as well, in order to be “relevant” to the modern secular world. Modernist clergy gut traditional Catholic worship, doctrine and morality by filtering it through modern relativist philosophy and various secular “dogmas” and “values.” Modernists strip the faith of those teachings and practices the modern world deems intransigent, exclusivist, difficult, unenlightened, fanatical or embarrassing. As a result, the notion of objective religious truth disappears, religion is reduced to little more than emotions and symbols, and the principles of morality (if any) become fuzzy.
It was Vatican II’s program of ecumenism and modernism that led to the creation of the New Mass.
The Creation of the New Mass:
Since concepts and practices spurned by non-Catholics and modern secular society abounded in the traditional Mass, the innovators in the post-Vatican II church decided to jettison the old rite and create a new Mass to replace it. It would be designed to please two constituencies:
To satisfy Protestants, the new rite needed to eliminate or downplay the Catholic teaching that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice (one which makes satisfaction for sin), offered by an ordained priest, in which Christ becomes present under the appearances of bread and wine through Transubstantiation.
To placate modern man, it needed to abolish or de-emphasize ideas such as hell, penance, punishment for sin, miracles, the soul, and separation from the world.
The work of formulating such a rite was entrusted to a Vatican commission called “Consilium.” Among the participants were six Protestants: Ronald Jasper, Massey Shepard, Raymond George, Friedrich Kunneth, Eugene Brand, and Max Thurian, representing the Anglicans, the World Council of Churches, the Lutherans, and the ecumenical Taize community. Of their role, Bishop (later Cardinal) William Baum said:
They [were] not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participated fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical renewal. It wouldn’t mean much if they just listened, but they contributed. (Detroit News, 27 June 1967.)
The end result was the promulgation of the New Mass in April, 1969.
A Revealing Document
In the 1969 General Instruction which originally introduced the official text of the New Mass, its authors presented the doctrinal principles behind the rite they created. It is a very revealing document. Here are some salient points:
Definition of the Mass. The General Instruction refers to the Mass as “the Lord’s Supper” – a term favored by Protestants – and defines it as “The sacred assembly, or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.” Luther himself could have written this definition. Father Luca Brandolini, who participated in creating the New Mass, said of the passage: “It defines it [the New Mass] exactly, beginning with the assembly.”
Community Meal. The Instruction presents the Mass primarily as a community meal or a memorial, rather than a sacrifice.
Presence of Christ. The Instruction makes no mention of Christ’s Real Presence and of transubstantiation. Instead, it teaches that Christ is “present’ in the assembly, in the scriptural readings, and in the priest, and that the “Last Supper” is made present.
Role of the Priest. The congregation “offers” the Mass, and the priest merely “presides.” His role is now to be “president of the assembly.”
The Consecration. What in the old rite was called the Consecration is in the new rite called the “Institution Narrative.” This term is used by Protestants to mean that the Eucharist, instead of being a sacrifice, is merely a “retelling of the story” of the Last Supper. But when a priest recites the words of consecration as a mere narrative, his intention is considered defective and his Mass is invalid – i.e., Christ does not become truly present and the sacrifice does not occur.
When faithful Catholics sounded the alarm about how the new rite promoted these dangerous ideas, the creators of the New Mass tried to cover their tracks. In 1970 they issued a second edition of the General Instruction, one which retained most of the objectionable language but also introduced some traditional terms. The Vatican also revised this document in 1975 and again in 2001. Conservatives haled each new version as a “return to reverence” or “Rome cracking down,” but the revisions were no more effective than a Band-Aid on a cancer, since the essence of the 1969 rite itself – ecumenist and modernist – remained unchanged. This new rite is the one now used in churches throughout the world.
An Ecumenical and Modernist Rite:
When you place the prayers and ceremonies of the traditional Latin Mass side by side with those of the New Mass, it is easy to see how the foregoing principles were put into practice, and how much of the Church’s traditional doctrine was “edited out” to placate Protestants and modern man. Here are some examples:
Common Penitential Rite. The traditional Mass begins with the priest reciting personal prayers of reparation to God called “The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar.” The New Mass begins instead with a “Penitential Rite” which the priest and people recite together. Who were the first to introduce a common penitential rite? The 16th century Protestants, who wanted to promote their teaching that a priest is not different from a layman.
The Offertory. The Offertory prayers of the traditional Mass contain specific allusions to a number of Catholic teachings: that the Mass is offered to God to satisfy for sin, that the saints are to be honored, etc. The Protestants rejected these teachings and abolished the Offertory prayers. “That abomination called the Offertory,” said Luther, “and from this point almost everything stinks of oblation!” In the New Mass, the Offertory is gone – it has been replaced with a ceremony called “The Preparation of the Gifts.” The prayers offensive to Protestants have also been removed. In their place is the vague prayer “Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation,” based on Jewish grace before meals.
The Eucharistic Prayer. The traditional Mass has only one “Eucharistic Prayer,” the Roman Canon. This ancient and venerable prayer was a favorite target of Protestant diatribes. Instead of just one Canon, the New Mass has eleven Eucharistic Prayers – all but the first newly composed, including three for children that are written in theological baby-talk. All the Eucharistic Prayers now incorporate some typical Protestant practices: they are recited in a loud voice instead of silently, and they have an “Institution Narrative” instead of a Consecration. The various signs of respect toward our Lord present in the Blessed Sacrament (genuflections, signs of the cross, bells, incense, etc.) have been reduced, made optional or eliminated.
Communion in the Hand. The 16th century Protestant Martin Bucer condemned the Church’s practice of placing the Host on the tongue of the communicant as: something introduced out of a double superstition; first, the false honor they wish to show this sacrament, and secondly, the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration. The basis for the Protestants’ practice of communion in the hand, thus, is a rejection of Christ’s real Presence and the notion of sacrificing priesthood. Introducing the practice into the New Mass – a rite where Christ is “present” in the assembly and where the priest is merely a “presider” – betokens a similar rejection of Catholic doctrines. But the men who created the New Mass went the Protestants one better: a member of the laity is not only allowed to receive Communion in the hand, but also to distribute it as well – and she may very well be wearing shorts or a miniskirt. The symbolism of communion in the hand also appeals to contemporary man. He likes to think of himself as “autonomous,” “adult,” and subject to no one – notions completely at odds with the symbolism of the traditional practice.
Veneration of the Saints. The prayers of the traditional Mass frequently invoke the saints by name and beg their intercession. The Church’s veneration of the saints in her worship was another practice which Protestants dismissed as “superstition.” The New Order of the Mass dropped most invocations of the saints by name or made them optional. In the new Missal, moreover, the weekday prayers for saints’ feast days (most of which are also optional) have been rewritten for the benefit of Protestants – allusions to notions such as the merits of the saints, the triumph of the Catholic Faith, the Catholic Church as the true Church, the evils of heresy, and the conversion of non-Catholics have disappeared.
The Faithful Departed. As a Catholic, you know that when someone dies, you pray for the repose of his soul. This Catholic belief is reflected in the Prayers for the Dead in the traditional Mass – “Be merciful, O Lord, to the soul of N.” etc. The Protestants reject the teaching that we can pray for the soul of someone who has died, and modernists reject the traditional doctrines on purgatory and the soul. The New Mass provides 114 Prayers for the Dead. In all but two prayers the word soul has been removed. An oversight? Father Henry Ashworth, who helped compose the New Mass, stated in 1970 that the omissions were intentional.
“Negative” Theology. Modern man is uncomfortable with the “hard” side of the Catholic religion, and post-Vatican II theologians have done their best to explain it away. The creators of the New Mass therefore systematically suppressed from the orations of the new Missal concepts such as hell, divine judgement, God’s wrath, punishment for sin, wickedness of sin as the greatest evil, and the evil of the world. (Ask yourself when you last heard these notions even mentioned at the modern Mass.)
Our Lord’s Words. When Our Lord instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper, He said His Blood would be she “for you and for many.” This is exactly what the words of consecration say in Latin in the traditional Mass. In Vatican-approved translations of the New Mass for the major
Western languages, however, the “many” disappeared for nearly forty years. In English, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish, for instance, it was replaced with “for ALL” – a rendition of the words of consecration that had never previously appeared in any Eucharistic rite in the history of Christendom. The theoretical justification given for the change turns out to have been the writings of Joachim Jeremias – a German Protestant and modernist. The real point of the fraudulent translation, however, was to depict Our Savior as the premier ecumenist who will save “all,” no matter what they believe. In 2006 the Vatican finally told national bishops’ conferences to change the phrase back to “for many.” But the modernist and ecumenical nature of the entire rite that surrounds it is still the same.
Irreverence and Sacrilege:
Over and above promoting false doctrine, the New Mass is a sacrilege. A sacrilege is an act of omission which demeans the sacred character of something holy. Consider how the practices in the New Mass insult and demean the sacred character of the Eucharist. Christ’s own words for the consecration of the Precious Blood have been falsified. Communion in the hand, whereby hosts are placed in unconsecrated hands, is officially approved. Non-ordained men and women hand out communion. Crumbly communion breads are used, and particles fall to the floor. People casually pop the host into their mouth, as if it were a little snack. When hosts are dropped, no one bothers to purify the floor of particles. A handshaking sessions takes place when people should be quietly preparing for communion. Priests no longer purify their fingers after handling the host. Kneeling for communion is abolished nearly everywhere. Everyone now goes to communion, but next to no one now goes to confession.
Then there is the general atmosphere of irreverence in most churches where the New Mass is celebrated, all of which conveys the idea that what is going on is not really particularly holy or sacred. People carry on conversations in church before and after Mass. The priest’s way of speaking intentionally folksy and casual. Sometimes the priest behaves like a ham actor starring in an amateur dramatic performance. The laity dress informally, as they would for shopping or recreation, or even immodestly in tight or revealing clothing. The music, often accompanied by guitars, piano, and percussion, has a secular or pop-sounding tone. Churches are stripped bare of statues and sacred symbols inside, and left looking no more “holy” than an airport terminal.
All this conveys one idea: the Mass and Christ’s Real Presence are “no big deal.” As such, the New Mass degrades the most sacred act that exists on this earth – renewing in an unbloody manner the sacrifice of the Cross – and insults the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Him who won our redemption. The New Mass is therefore grossly sacrilegious. That countless Catholics of good will have been led to accept it unquestioningly is a testament to the diabolical cleverness of its creators who launched a doctrinal revolution under a false flag of obedience.
The Fruits: A Loss of Faith:
Liturgy of its nature, as we have noted, affects the beliefs of those who participate in it. The fruits of the New Mass, then, should come as no surprise. Catholics have stopped believing the central tenet of Catholic teaching on the Mass – that the bread and wine become Christ’s Body and Blood through transubstantiation. In a New York Times/CBS News Poll (April 1994) U.S. Catholics were asked whether the bread and wine at Mass were:“changed into the Body and Blood of Christ” (the traditional doctrine), or “symbolic reminders of Christ” – the classic Protestant position.
In the 18-44 age group 70% of Catholics said the bread and wine were only symbolic reminders of Christ. In the 45-64 group, 58% also said “symbolic reminders,” while only 38% chose the traditional doctrine. Even in the 65-and-above group, 45% still chose “symbolic reminders,” with only a bare majority (51%) opting for the traditional doctrine.
In past ages, Catholic martyrs chose to die rather than say that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist was nothing more than a symbolic reminder. Now the average Catholic’s beliefs about the Eucharist are indistinguishable from that of a Lutheran, a Presbyterian, or a Methodist. The principal cause for this corruption of the man in the pew’s beliefs on the Eucharist is the New Mass. He has been exposed to its doctrinal errors and sacrilegious practices every week for decades. He has gotten the message of the New Mass – and he has lost the faith.
The Practical Consequences:
In light of the foregoing, it should be easy to understand why certain Catholics will have absolutely nothing to do with the New Mass and will assist exclusively at the traditional Latin Mass. The traditional Mass is faithful to doctrines the Church has constantly held and proclaimed – while the New Mass waters down or obliterates these doctrines in order to accommodate non-Catholics. The traditional Mass treats the Blessed Sacrament with the greatest possible reverence – while the New Mass treats the host like ordinary bread. The traditional Mass is Catholic and rooted in apostolic tradition – while the New Mass is Protestant, modernist and corrupts the faith.
The practical attitude the Catholic ought to take regarding the New Mass may be summed up in two words: Stay Away.
If this sounds surprising or radical, consider this: the primary purpose of the Mass is to honor and adore God. A rite that compromises His Church’s doctrines, passes off falsehoods as truths, falsifies His Son’s words, mistreats His Son’s Body, corrupts the faith and is imbued with Protestantism and modernism cannot honor God. All it can do is dishonor Him.
No Catholic, obviously, wants to dishonor God. For this reason, Catholics who reject the errors of the New Mass and Vatican II will not go to church at all on Sunday if no traditional Mass is available to them. Rather than offend God by participating in a service that dishonors Him, they (like Catholics of 16th century England when the Protestant liturgical changes were introduced) will stay home, read their missals and unite themselves spiritually with the true Masses being said throughout the world.
“Approved” Traditional Masses:
From 1969 onwards, Catholics who rejected the Vatican II errors and the New Mass have been keeping the traditional Mass alive. Beginning in the 1980s, however, the modernist hierarchy has been trying to win these Catholics over to the Vatican II religion by allowing “approved” traditional Masses under the auspices of the diocesan bishops, and by authorizing the foundation of organizations like the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) that use the 1962 Missal and other older liturgical books.
The first step in this direction came with the 1984 “Indult.” This was followed in 1988 by the Vatican approval of the FSSP, and finally by Benedict XVI’s 2007 Motu Proprio, which authorized any priest to celebrate Mass using the 1962 Missal. Because of Indult and Motu Masses and groups like FSSP, more Catholics have been exposed to the traditional Mass, many perhaps for the first time in their lives. This certainly has a positive side to it. But this phenomenon also presents serious problems. At a Motu Mass, hosts doubtfully consecrated beforehand at the New Mass may be distributed from the tabernacle at communion. The priest from the FSSP or the local diocese who celebrates the Motu Mass is now almost always doubtfully ordained – because either he or the bishop who ordained him received Holy Orders according to the dubious post-Vatican II ordination rites. Hosts consecrated at a Motu Mass may be placed in the tabernacle and later distributed sacrilegiously in the hand at a celebration of the New Mass.
Motu Masses and groups like FSSP neutralize and compromise resistance to Vatican II and the New Mass. This is precisely why they receive official approval. Vatican guidelines issued in 1991 require priests who celebrate Indult Masses to preach and teach adherence to the Vatican II changes, as well to emphasize “their acknowledgement of the doctrinal and juridical value of the liturgy as revised after the Second Vatican Council.” A 1999 Vatican document exhorts FSSP priests to concelebrate the New Mass with diocesan bishops to “facilitate this ecclesial communion.” Motu priests and FSSP priests, then, are by definition sold men. Approval from the modernist hierarchy buys their silence about the errors of Vatican II and the evil of the New Mass, and they become (perhaps unwittingly) just a ritualist High Church wing in the one-world ecumenical super-church.
This serves the modernists’ purposes well. Resistance to the New Mass and attachment to the traditional Mass can then be portrayed as nothing more than nostalgia, aesthetics, antiquarianism, preference or warm feelings, as is evident from a 2004 interview with Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, head of the Vatican commission that regulates Indult Masses. These Masses, he said, are part of “a great variety of gifts” in the Church, in which the traditional Mass and the New Mass “proclaim the same Catholic faith, with different emphasis and expressions that are both legitimate, in full and reciprocal fraternal respect.”
Benedict XVI made this equivalence quite explicit in his 2007 Motu Proprio: he designated the New Mass the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, and the old Mass the Extraordinary Form. Thus along with the New Mass, kiddie liturgies, altar girls and communion in the hand, the “Latin Mass” then winds up as merely one more option on the post Vatican-II buffet table, where all the dishes are supposed to be treated as equally good, and where your choice is just a matter of your personal taste.
Fulfilling the Sunday Obligation:
The modern clergy sometimes claim that going to a traditional Latin Mass at a church not approved by the diocese does not fulfill the Sunday obligation or is a sin. Implicit in such a statement is the notion that a Catholic is somehow obliged to go to the New Mass. This is dead wrong. Your first obligation is to honor God and save your soul. No one can legitimately oblige you to assist at a Mass that both dishonors God through its irreverence and endangers your salvation through undermining the Catholic faith. As regards sin, if you’ve gone to the New Mass for a while, you’ve probably figured out that the modern clergy have just about managed to do away with the idea of sin. If going to the traditional Mass is a sin, it’s probably the only one the post-Vatican II clergy still believes in.
Ironically, the modern clergy’s pronouncements on the Sunday obligation have contradicted their own Code of Canon Law. The 1983 Code states that the Sunday obligation “is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite.” Our situation today is akin to that of Catholics in 16th century England. Nearly all the bishops and priests in those days had adopted new doctrines – Protestantism – and attempted to impose a heretical new Mass on the faithful. Catholics ignored the innovator’s laws and pronouncements which commanded them to fulfill their Sunday obligation at what was in fact a non-Catholic service. Instead, good Catholics sought out faithful priests who would provide them with a true Catholic Mass and with sound Catholic doctrine.
So too in our own days. Our churches and cathedrals are occupied by a clergy who promote a false doctrine and a non-Catholic form of worship. Like Catholics in 16th century England, we have no
obligation to follow the commands of a clergy that has publicly defected from the faith. However, since we have both the right and the obligation under divine law to sound doctrine and pure worship, we can and must seek out faithful Catholic priests who will provide what we need to save our souls.
Since Vatican II, Catholics throughout this country have banded together to preserve the traditional Mass and sacraments. In some areas traditional Catholics have acquired and furnished splendid churches to give their Lord and Master a home. In other areas, the Holy Sacrifice is offered in rented rooms, just as the first Mass, the Last Supper, was offered in a rented room. In either case, it is the Mass that matters, and it is the Mass, at St. Leonard said, upon which the sun rises and sets. If what we have said here has filled you with the desire to assist at the traditional Latin Mass, we invite you to join us the next time Mass is celebrated (daily).
What we have said here is necessarily only a brief exposition of the position of Catholics who “stand fast and hold the traditions” (2 Thess 2:15). For this reason, we invite you to investigate further the matter through reading and studying. There are a great number of traditional books and periodicals which offer an explanation and a defense of our position.
Finally, we invite you to pray, and to seek the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints. May you be granted the grace to be true to the one, true Faith till death.
For directions, assistance, mature questions, comments, and concerns; including Mass locations, traditional Catholic websites, books, sacramentals, and videos please e-mail TradCat4Christ@gmail.com
A 1988 pamphlet by Rev. Anthony Cekada (revised 1994, 2004, 2006, 2008)
Abridged and distributed by TradCat4Christ@gmail.com
God Bless you and your families, Blessed Virgin Mary pray for us!
Churches founded by anyone but Christ do not call in the name of God, and indeed, they are not even churches. They have no legal basis to exist. For example, if you want to found a business you must go to the state and found a corporation or a partnership. If you do not go to the state and receive a legal basis from the state for this business and you open up your business and claim to be a corporation or partnership, and you arie discoverlmd, you are consitdered a fraud. You might even see time in jail for such a thing, because you have no legal status, and according to the state you do not exist. The same is true of so called “churches” who present themselves as “churches” andlkkp5 “religions” as if they have posole l8license or charter from God. They have no such charter or license; they have not been established by God they have been established by human beings. And in each of those cases if you look at their history you can trace right back to the point where some human being invented them. So they should be called collections of heretics or schismatics. But not churches.
The modern heresy is that we all worship the same God, how many times have you heard that said? That despite all of the differences that people may have about dogma and religion that we all worship the same God and it really doesn’t matter fundamentally what religion we belong to. This is supremely false and is a blasphemy. It is based on a subtle fallacy, a subtle fault of reasoning, because it is true that anyone who has a religion worships a supreme being. There were people in the Old Testament who worshipped flies. They worshipped something that they considered to be a supreme being. But “supreme being” is merely a descriptive term for God, it does not identify the True God. No one in his right mind would say that the worship of a fly is the same thing as the worship of The Blessed Trinity, that they are the same God. You would have to be crazy to say such a thing. Yet, in both cases they are “supreme beings” in the minds of those who worship. And so because “supreme being” applies to both, the conclusion is we all worship the same God. And that’s nonsense. This heresy that we all worship the same God is based on another fallacious reasoning process. It is true that someone may, through invincible ignorance (ignorance that they cannot overcome), may want to worship the same God when they are worshipping a false God. They may think through no fault of their own that their false God or false Christ is true. Just as you may think when you are going down the wrong way on the freeway that you are in fact going the right way on the freeway. It’s possible. If they do labor under this invincible ignorance God will not hold that against them, the false worship. God will not count that as a sin. It still remains however, that they are worshipping a false God. Just as if through invincible ignorance you get on the freeway on the wrong side and go down the wrong way you might be perfectly innocent because you made some mistake that you did not realize, but it does not change the fact that you are going down the wrong way on the freeway and that you are going to probably have a terrible accident.
Because people might be guiltless, because of their ignorance in worshipping a false God; it does not in any way canonize, or justify, the false worship or false God. But because subjectivism is the philosophy of the day, what you think in your head becomes reality. That is the mental disease that practically the whole world has today. That if I think it, than that’s reality. So if I am sincere in my false religion, well then that religion becomes true and good and legitimate. And that’s false. Because the mind must conform itself to reality, it is not the author and creator of reality. Just as the camera is made to take pictures, it is the reality that imposes itself on the camera and not the camera that imposes itself on reality. Our perception of God is very important because it is the truth and it is the most important truth. It is more important than all of the truths of biological science, or medical art, or of mathematics or civil engineering. Much more important that we know the truth about God than we know the truth of any of those things. Much more important that we know the truth about God then that we have wheels to roll on. And had man never invented the wheel but known the true God he would be in a much better condition today. To say we all believe in the same God but we perceive Him differently abandons the very idea of truth about God. Imagine students saying we all know the same mathematics but we just perceive it differently. Or doctors in medical school saying we all know the same human body we just perceive it different and where one doctor might prescribe a medicine another might prescribe a poison. That’s absurd, if you perceive something differently than someone is wrong. You may even both be wrong, but you can’t both be right if you perceive it differently. And so this idea that we merely perceive God differently abandons the very notion of truth about God which is the most important truth that we have.
This idea ruins the very notion of the incarnation and the establishment of the Catholic Church, if it is not necessary to know truth about God then why did God come down upon the earth, and assume human flesh. If it is not important that we know the truth about God, why did Christ establish the “Catholo” or universal church to be a constant beacon of truth throughout all the ages? Why did the martyrs go to their tortured deaths in the early ages and throughout the history of the church if it is not important what God we know, or what the nature of that God is? It is the most important thing and it is more important than our own lives because we must give up our lives for the truth of the faith, for the true God, the true church, the true religion, as many of our ancestors have. And if there is no such thing as a strange God then what is the purpose of the first commandment; “I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have strange Gods before Me?” That becomes a meaningless commandment in the face of, “we all believe in the same God we merely perceive Him differently.” And when Moses came down from Mt. Sinai and found the Jews in front of their golden calf, dancing and fornicating like idolaters did he say, “Well we all believe in the same God we merely perceive Him differently?” No he took the tablets of the Ten Commandments and destroyed the golden calf and then put to death 23,000 people at the command of God because they worshipped the wrong God. At the command of God those people were put to death by the sword, because they worshipped a false God. Where is ecumenism in that? Where is, “we all worship the same God’’ there? Rather, do we not hear loud and clear that the most important truth of our lives is the true God, the true faith, the true church? Yet, the modern heresy is the basis of uniting the human race today.
John Paul the 2nd has been considered a Saint, when he died the people clamoring in St. Peter’s square said, “Make him a saint, right away!” There was frenzy about him. Precisely because he abandoned the existence on Catholic dogma and he tried to unite the world according to the principles of this modern heresy which has been described above. He kissed the Quran, he praised the voodoo religion, and he participated in just about every false right, false religion, on the face of the earth. With the message that these religions, although they may have certain falsehoods in them they admit, have supernatural truth and value because they are man’s sincere movement toward God. They are not man’s movement toward God just as going down the wrong side of the freeway is movement towards your goal. In fact it is the opposite; you are moving away from your goal and you are in grave danger of dying when you go done the wrong way. But he praised these false religions as Ratzinger, and Francis does, he praised them. As if they had a certain value, a certain license from God to exist. And he praised them as means of salvation. Tools that God uses for the sanctification of souls, voodoo. So this heresy that rots out the very basis of Catholicism has become now the great truth of mankind. Let us not be sucked in by the attitude that all we need is the traditional mass. Modernists have not taken a single step backward from this religion rotting heresy. That we all worship the same God, and that the true religion doesn’t matter, and that all religions have a certain value in the eyes of God. False religions are an abomination in the sight of God and if someone is saved who is in those false religions it has nothing to do with that false religion, it has to do with the grace of God and their ignorance. And as a matter of fact their false religion is actually something that works against their salvation. And is in no way a tool of God.
This was an abridged version of a sermon given by his Excellency Bishop Donald Sandborn of The Most Holy Trinity Seminary Brooksville FL
God Bless BJS!
”By tacit resignation through operation of law, all offices become vacant automatically [ipso facto] and without ANY declaration if a cleric… (4) publicly defects from the Catholic faith.”
That quote is from the Code of Canon Law 188 (4). The following is a link that puts some of the errors of Vatican 2 teaching side by side with Catholic teaching.
It is important to note that as a Catholic you either accept all the Truths in which Christ and His Church have given us or you do not. If you do not you can not be Catholic. With this in mind and looking at some of the statements and declarations that these so-called modernist popes have made is enough to make a sane Catholic shutter at what has happened to the Church of the Living God.The faithfulness of it’s people is truly being tested. Here are some quotes from the infamous Bergolio or the so-called “pope Francis” and the past teaching of the church on each subject. Courtesy of and article posted on http://www.faithfulcatholics.com I put Francis’ remarks to each topic in bold and the statements below are the actual Catholic teachings. I hope this helps clear some views.
Teachings of Francis I
Scripture or Past Church Teaching
Last edited August 2016
The Omnipotence of God
Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences10, Oct 27, 2014: “When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so.”
“And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible” Matt 19:26
“Behold I am the Lord the God of all flesh: shall any thing be hard for me?” Jer 32:27
Interview with the Italian newspaper La Repubblica1, September 24, 2013: “I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being.”
Comment: Our Catholic God is the Trinity, which is different from the God professed by non-Catholics:
“the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.” Athanasian Creed
“Q. 1400. Name some of the more essential religious truths we must know and believe. 2.(2) That in God there are three Divine Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these Divine Persons are called the Blessed Trinity.” Baltimore Catechism
On Heaven and Earth2, pp. 12-13: “I do not approach the relationship in order to proselytize, or convert the atheist; I respect him… nor would I say that his life is condemned, because I am convinced that I do not have the right to make a judgment about the honesty of that person… every man is the image of God, whether he is a believer or not.”
“If any one deny the one true God, Creator and Lord of all things visible and invisible, let him be anathema” (Conc. Vatican., Sess. III, “De fide”, can. i).
“If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and our Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema” (First Vatican Council, Sess III, can. 2/1: Denz. 1806; cf. D. 1785).
“And to you who are troubled, rest with us when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with the angels of his power, in a flame of fire, giving vengeance to them who know not God, and who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall suffer eternal punishment in destruction, from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.” II Thessalonians I: 7-9
Francis I response to open letter3 published Sep 2013: “First of all, you ask if the God of the Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith. Given that – and this is fundamental – God’s mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience. In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil. The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision.”
“…faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God…” Council of Trent, Chapter VIII
Conversations with Jorge Bergoglio4, p. 208: “Not long ago I was in a synagogue taking part in a ceremony. I prayed a lot and, while praying, I heard a phrase from one of the books of wisdom that had slipped my mind: ‘Lord, may I bear mockery in silence.’ It gave me much peace and joy.”
“If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any Bishops or Priest or Deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion”Third Council of Constantinople
“It is not permitted at all for the faithful to assist in any active manner at or to have any part in the worship of non-Catholics.”1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1258
“The Code declares the following persons as suspect of heresy: 1. The propagators of heresy and those who participate with non-Catholics in divinis (Can. 2316)” Commentary on Canon Law (Augustine, 1918)
“So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it” Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (1928)
“Speaking generally, the faithful are forbidden to take part in any religious rites, considered as such, of pagans, Mohammedans, or Jews, and all the more to practice them through a kind of survival of their primitive superstitions. If this prohibition is inspired not so much by a fear of the danger of perversion as by the law forbidding the faithful to communicate in sacris with non-Catholics, aversion to false religions and especially from idol worship justifies the rigor of the law” Catholic Encyclopedia, Infidels
Francis I, Address in St. Peter’s Square5, May 18, 2013: “… promote religious freedom for everyone, everyone! Every man and every woman must be free in his or her profession of religion, whatever it may be.” L’ Osservatore Romano, May 22, 2013, p. 11.
General Audience with representatives of the world’s various religions11, Oct 28, 2015: “the Church regards with esteem the believers of all religions, appreciating their spiritual and moral commitment…Now, to conclude this Audience, I invite everyone, each one on his or her own, to pray in silence. May each one do so according to his or her own religious tradition.”
L’ Osservatore Romano, October 30, 2015, pp. 3-4
“The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.” Encyclical “Mortalium Animos” (On Religious Unity), by Pope Pius XI in 1928
“Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.” Encyclical “Mortalium Animos” (On Religious Unity), by Pope Pius XI in 1928
In 2012, Cardinal Bergoglio held an interreligious prayer meeting in the Cathedral of Buenos Aires with the leaders of false religions including Judaism and Protestant sects. In this prayer meeting he allowed the members of these false religions to pray aloud in the Cathedral. Bergoglio has been known to organize other similar meetings (similar to his two predecessors) that are well documented and photographed in the news.
“Q: What else does the First Commandment forbid?
A: The First Commandment also forbids all dealings with the devil, and all association with anti-Christian sects.“
The Catechism of Saint Pius X, The First Commandment
“When it is said: Thou shalt not have strange gods before me, it is equivalent to saying: Thou shalt worship me the true God; thou shalt not worship strange gods.” The Catechism of Trent, The First Commandment
“As the true God can tolerate no strange gods, the true Church of Christ can tolerate no strange Churches beside herself, or, what amounts to the same, she can recognize none as theoretically justified.” Catholic Encyclopedia, Religious Toleration
Evangelii Gaudium6, November, 2013: “Non-Christians, by God’s gracious initiative, when they are faithful to their own consciences, can live ‘justified by the grace of God’, and thus be ‘associated to the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ”
“Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”.” Encyclical On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism, Pope Gregory XVI, 1832
“Condemned: Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” The Syllabus of Errors 1864 – Pope Pius IX
“Condemned: Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.” The Syllabus of Errors 1864 – Pope Pius IX
Vatican radio message8, May 24, 2015: “I feel like saying something that may sound controversial, or even heretical, perhaps. But there is someone who “knows” that, despite our differences, we are one. It is he who is persecuting us. It is he who is persecuting Christians today, he who is anointing us with (the blood of) martyrdom. He knows that Christians are disciples of Christ: that they are one, that they are brothers! He doesn’t care if they are Evangelicals, or Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics or Apostolic…he doesn’t care! They are Christians.”
“…because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their own homes or in other public or private places.” Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther (Exsurge Domine), Pope Leo X, June 15, 1520
Evangelii Gaudium6, November, 2013: “We must never forget that they [the Moslems] ‘profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, who will judge humanity on the last day’.”
Address to the President of Religious Affairs in Turkey and Muslim and Christian political and religious leaders12, Nov 28, 2014: “We, Muslims and Christians, are the bearers of spiritual treasures of inestimable worth. Among these we recognize some shared elements, though lived according to the traditions of each, such as the adoration of the All-Merciful God, reference to the Patriarch Abraham, prayer, almsgiving, fasting… elements which, when lived sincerely, can transform life and provide a sure foundation for dignity and fraternity.”
Catholics and Muslims do not adore the same God (Catholics adore the Blessed Trinity):
“But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 10:33
“For he that shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him the Son of man shall be ashamed, when he shall come in his majesty, and that of his Father, and of the holy angels.” Luke 9:26
“Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.” 1 John 2:23
“Q. 1400. Name some of the more essential religious truths we must know and believe. 2.(2) That in God there are three Divine Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these Divine Persons are called the Blessed Trinity.” Baltimore Catechism
“The doctrines of Islam concerning God — His unity and Divine attributes — are essentially those of the Bible; but to the doctrines of the Trinity and of the Divine Sonship of Christ, Mohammed had the strongest antipathy” Catholic Encyclopedia, Mohammed and Mohammedanism
Same-sex marriage / Homosexuality
Press conference on flight from Brazil, July 28, 201313: “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”
“Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
“Neither fornicators nor adulterers, nor the effeminate nor sodomites shall possess the kingdom of God.” Catechism of the Council of Trent, The Sixth commandment, Other Sins Against Chastity Are Forbidden
On Heaven and Earth2, p. 114: Concerning same-sex marriage: “Religion has the right to give an opinion as long as it is in service to the people.” “The religious minister does not have the right to force anything on anyone’s private life. If God, in creation, ran the risk of making us free, who am I to get involved? We condemn spiritual harassment that takes place when a minister imposes directives, conduct, and demands in such a way that it takes away the freedom of the other person. God left the freedom to sin in our hands.” He later adds: “I insist that our opinion about the marriage between two people of the same sex is not based on religion, but rather on anthropology.”
“Q: Which are the sins that are said to cry to God for vengeance?
A: The sins that are said to cry to God for vengeance are these four: (1) Willful murder; (2) The sin of sodomy; (3) Oppression of the poor; (4) Defrauding laborers of their wages.” The Catechism of Saint Pius X, The Vices and Other Very Grievous Sins
“As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighboring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire” Jude 1:7
Sacrament of Marriage
Address to the Diocese of Rome’s Pastoral Congress, Q&A Session14, Jun 16, 2016: “….the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null. Because they say ‘yes, for the rest of my life!’ but they don’t know what they are saying. Because they have a different culture. They say it, they have good will, but they don’t know.”
“Marriage enjoys the favor of the law; therefore, in case of doubt, its validity ought to be maintained until the contrary be proved…” Canon Law 1014
In-flight interview from Mexico15, Feb 17, 2016: “The great Paul VI, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use a form of artificial contraceptives in cases of rape…..On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one (the Zika virus outbreak), or in the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear.”
“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”
“…any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
“…No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil.” Pope Pius XI, Encyclical On Christian Marriage, Dec 31, 1930
“A negative precept of natural law which prohibits a thing intrinsically evil can never be lawfully transgressed not even under the influence of the fear of death, (Lib. I, tr. ii, c. iv, dub. 2, n. 1) So that it is not lawful to do a thing which is wrong in itself, even to escape death” Catholic Encyclopedia, Hermann Busembaum
Cohabitation / Concubinage
Address to the Diocese of Rome’s Pastoral Congress, Q&A Session14, Jun 16, 2016: “They prefer to cohabitate, and this is a challenge, a task. Not to ask ‘why don’t you marry?’ No, to accompany, to wait, and to help them to mature, help fidelity to mature.”…….. “I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity.”
“It is a grievous sin for unmarried men to have concubines …Wherefore, the holy Synod, that it may by suitable remedies provide against this exceeding evil, ordains that these concubinaries, whether unmarried or married, of whatsoever state, dignity, and condition they may be, if, after having been three times admonished on this subject by the Ordinary, even ex officio, they shall not have put away their concubines, and have separated themselves from all connexion with them, they shall be smitten with excommunication; from which they shall not be absolved until they have really obeyed the admonition given them.” Council of Trent, Ch. VIII, Concubinage is severely punished
“13. But in all these affairs, one of your aims should be to instill in the faithful a greater aversion for sins which scandalize others; your priests should share this aim. You are aware of the increase in the number of those who sin in a scandalous manner: those who blaspheme the heavenly saints and the holy name of God as well; those who live in concubinage…..So, make the faithful consider the seriousness of sins of this kind and the heavy penalties for them, both for the guilt of the sin itself and for the spiritual danger in which they place their brothers by the infection of their bad example. For it is written: “Woe to the world because of scandals . . . Woe to that man by whom the scandal comes!” Pope Pius IX, On the Church in the Pontifical States, December 8, 1849
“The scandal of concubinage is removed by marriage, which should be made known to those who were scandalized, either by the pastor or by the parties themselves.” Canon Law 1043
“Hence if both parties intended and expressed the intention in some way or other to enter upon a mere Concubinage, there would be no marriage.” Canon Law 1082
“If a marriage is found invalid, as, for instance, among the Gallas, where slaves contract a contubernium or legalized concubinage, the parties must be separated until they are lawfully married” Canon Law 1084
“Therefore concubinage must be given up because incompatible with Christian morals” Canon Law 1124
Sacrament of Confession
Vatican radio7 June 15, 2013: “True reconciliation means that God in Christ took on our sins and He became the sinner for us. When we go to Confession, for example, it isn’t that we say our sin and God forgives us. No, not that! We look for Jesus Christ and say: ‘This is your sin, and I will sin again‘. And Jesus likes that, because it was his mission: to become the sinner for us, to liberate us.“
“In the Sacrament of Penance the repentant Christian confesses his sins to a duly authorized priest, who, standing in the place of God, pronounces the absolution by means of which they are forgiven” The Catechism Explained (Spirago-Clarke, 1899), Sacrament of Penance
“Q: How many conditions are necessary to make a good confession?
A: To make a good confession five things are necessary: (1) Examination of conscience; (2) Sorrow for having offended God; (3) A resolution of sinning no more; (4) Confession of our sins; (5) Satisfaction or penance” Catechism of Saint Pius X, The Sacrament of Penance
On Heaven and Earth2, pp. 92-93: “There was a time when they did not perform funerals for those that committed suicide because they had not continued on towards the goal; they ended the path when they wanted to. But I still respect the one who commits suicide; he is a person who could not overcome the contradictions in his life. I do not reject him.”
“Q: Why does God, in the Fifth Commandment, forbid the taking of one’s own life or suicide?
A: In the Fifth Commandment God forbids suicide, because man is not the master of his own life no more than of the life of another. Hence the Church punishes suicide by deprivation of Christian burial.” Catechism of Saint Pius X, The Fifth Commandment
Conversations with Jorge Bergoglio4, p. 111: “The Church is not opposed to sex education. Personally, I believe that it ought to be available throughout children’s upbringing, adapted to different age groups. In truth, the Church always provided sex education, although I acknowledge that it hasn’t always been adequate.”
“Another very grave danger is that naturalism which nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate matter of purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were to harden them against such dangers.” Pope Pius XI, Dec. 31, 1931
Conversations with Jorge Bergoglio4, p. 39: “It’s true that I was, like the rest of my family, a practicing Catholic. But my mind was not made solely for religious questions… I read Our Word and Proposals, a publication by the Communist Party, and I loved every article ever written by Leonidas Barletta, one of their best-known members…”
“See to it, Venerable Brethren, that the Faithful do not allow themselves to be deceived! Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever. Those who permit themselves to be deceived into lending their aid towards the triumph of Communism in their own country, will be the first to fall victims of their error. And the greater the antiquity and grandeur of the Christian civilization in the regions where Communism successfully penetrates, so much more devastating will be the hatred displayed by the godless”Encyclical On Atheistic Communism by Pope Pius XI, 1937
“To this goal also tends the unspeakable doctrine of Communism, as it is called, a doctrine most opposed to the very natural law. For if this doctrine were accepted, the complete destruction of everyone’s laws, government, property, and even of human society itself would follow.” Encyclical On Faith and Religion by Pope Pius IX, 1846
Capital Punishment (The Death Penalty)
Letter to the President of the International Commission against the death penalty9, March 20, 2015: “Today capital punishment is unacceptable, however serious the condemned’s crime may have been. It is an offence to the inviolability of life and to the dignity of the human person which contradicts God’s plan for man and for society and his merciful justice, and it fails to conform to any just purpose of punishment.”…..
“All Christians and men of good will are thus called today to fight not only for the abolition of the death penalty, whether legal or illegal, and in all its forms, but also in order to improve prison conditions, with respect for the human dignity of the people deprived of their freedom”
“The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time. The agent who executes the killing does not commit homicide; he is an instrument as is the sword with which he cuts. Therefore, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill’ to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of public authority to put criminals to death, according to the law, that is, the will of the most just reason” St. Augustine, The City of God, Book 1, chapter 21
“Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6)” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Whether It Is Lawful to Kill Sinners?
“Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life” Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology of the Nervous System, 14 Sep 1952, XIV, 328
“The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians” Catholic Encyclopedia, Capital Punishment
On Heaven and Earth2, page 188: “The Jewish People can no longer be accused of having killed God, as they were for a long time. When one reads the account of the Passion, it is clear.”
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified.” Acts of the Apostles (2:36)
“And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing, but that rather a tumult was made; taking water washed his hands before the people (the Jews), saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just man; look you to it. And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children Matt 27:24-25
Francis I response to open letter3 published Sep 2013: “What I can say, with the Apostle Paul, is that God has never stopped believing in the alliance made with Israel and that, through the terrible trials of these past centuries, the Jews have kept their faith in God.”
“Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” Matthew 16:15
“Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.” John 14:6
“By these salutary instructions it desires to provide measures whereby Jews and other infidels may be converted to the orthodox faith and converts may remain steadfastly in it.” Council of Basil 1431-1435
Baltimore Catechism: “Q. 554. Could a person who denies only one article of our faith be a Catholic?
A. A person who denies even one article of our faith could not be a Catholic; for truth is one and we must accept it whole and entire or not at all.”
Galatians 1:8: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.”
Pope Innocent III: “The Pope should not flatter himself about his power nor should he rashly glory in his honor and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged, In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savor, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’”