Restore the Church

21 years in this life. Thought I'd state that. Will be busy up until Tuesday, so I'll be quiet.

Ok, let me just state right off the bat: this has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. This is purely from the realm of Evangelical Protestantism. But it's still sickening, and warrants some notice.

Can't get your teenage girls to read the Bible? Well, then get them this new product from Thomas Nelson publishers, the "Revolve Bible!" This disgusting bit of merchandise is a translation of the Holy Scriptures, formatted to look like a girl's fashion magazine.

A great expose was carried on this product by a King James Only web site: http://www.av1611.org/kjv/revolve.html

I'm most concerned with the abundance of photos in this thing. Way too many pictures of young adult and teenage girls, dressed way too immodestly. Pity the young, hormone-driven teenage male who picks up this copy of SACRED SCRIPTURE and is tempted to commit mortal sin with himself.

Ok, I lied - this may tie into the NewChurch after all. How long do you guess it will be before we see a similar project undertaken for the New American Bible?

This is sad stuff.

From my most recent article, hosted on my web site:

My recent excursions into the prayers (the "propers") of the New Mass to see what had been omitted or changed have taken me down an unexpected detour - into the readings of the New Mass. I began to notice, in my comparisons of feasts between the two liturgies, that certain readings were being truncated or replaced altogether in the New Mass. So I got to thinking: none of these changes were made without good reason on the part of the revolutionaries, so what was the reason behind truncating or replacing this or that reading? I decided to line them all up and compile all the verses that got "left behind" in the aggiornamento, in order to see if I could find a common thread.

What follows is part I of my results, starting with St. Matthew's Gospel:

Read the entire article to see how St. Matthew's Gospel has been mangled in the New Lectionary...

After getting in the intense battle over at the Lidless Eye Inquisition between myself, Apolonio Latar, and Jim Scott(BenYachov) I decided to make a little comment box of my own. Maybe every now and then we'll get some nice comments.

I can't believe we're still arguing about this. I can't believe there are still Catholics who try to defend this.

Yet, whilst perusing Envoy's weblog, I came across a group of Catholics arguing over this very issue. They're still at it.

And, since one of those arguing in favor of Assisi was none other than Lidless Eye Inquisitor Apolonio "Communio Ecclesiology" Latar, it seemed proper to take another swipe at this "Assisi is A-OK" apologetic.

We read:

JPII did evangelize. It is just that his evangelization was different from the "apologetic evangelization" we are used to. He preached that Jesus Christ is the true peace. He said:

"...I profess here anew my conviction, shared by all Christians, that in Jesus Christ, as Savior of all, true peace is to be found, 'peace to those who are far off and peace to those who are near'" (Cf. Eph 2.17).

and

"His birth was greeted by the angels' song: Glory to God in the highest and peace among men with whom He is pleased" (Cf. Lk 2:14). He preached love among all, even among foes, proclaimed blessed those who work for peace (Cf. Mt 5:9), and through His death and resurrection He brought about reconciliation between heaven and earth (Cf. Col.1:20). To use an expression of Paul the Apostle, 'He is our peace.'" (Eph.2:14).

All the religious people who came all believed in peace.

To save reinventing the wheel, I will simply quote from an article I wrote on this topic not long ago (which, if I recall, prompted great boastings from Communio Boy about an upcoming refutation of my arguments - still no word on that development).

"In how many ways may we either cause or share the guilt of another's sin? We may either cause or share the guilt of another's sin in nine ways:

1. By counsel
2. By command
3. By consent
4. By provocation
5. By Praise or Flattery
6. By concealment
7. By being a partner in sin
8. By silence
9. By defending the ill done." (Canon Francis Ripley, This is the Faith, p. 55 [see also A Catechism of Christian Doctrine])

CCC #1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;

- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;

- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;

- by protecting evil-doers.

{snip}

Imagine for a moment: my friend, who is not a Christian, turns 21. I pay for a prostitute, buy a bunch of alcohol for him, supply him with condoms, rent him a hotel room, and arrange for him to have one extremely wild night. As he and the prostitute arrive at the hotel, I meet them in the room, and tell them: "In a moment you two will be in the throes of pleasure. I wish to profess here my conviction that sex is a wonderful thing inside the bounds of marriage, and I personally would never get drunk. See you tomorrow, have a good time, and if you need anything while you're here, just call me, I'll make sure you get it." What message am I really sending?

That is exactly what the Holy Father did at Assisi. He arranged for pagans to commit spiritual fornication with false gods, and to continue in the drunkenness of their unbelief, with a short pause before it all began to say "my conviction" - not that he should force it on anyone, mind you, and he'll make sure those crucifixes are out of sight so no one will be offended - "is that Jesus is the true source of peace." I don't think anyone really heard that message. In fact, I can guarantee no one heard that message. Why?

Because "one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion," and "they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ." So says Pope Pius XI, and the entire Ancient Church with him. There is no chance of preaching the gospel when you are "altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion," and "giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ." No, the pope did not preach the gospel at Assisi. Perhaps he mentioned it. But he did not preach it, not if he was - as the Neo-Catholics are so fond of claiming - preaching in the style of St. Francis of Assisi: "preach the gospel, and if you must, use words."

Let the matter rest already.

One of the many complaints some prominent anti-traditionalists have against the trad camp is that we aren't willing to look at things from a "theological perspective." And on some issues, yes, guilty as charged. I have a disdain for this Neo-Catholic notion of "theology."

It's theology that can't really be criticized to it's effectivness. They treat theology in a vacuum. I personally, tend to look at something's effectivness, especially when it was supposed to correct all these errors, and instead, only caused a heap of problems.

Today's point, one can be theological, but again, being theological does not mean living in a vacuum.

Who said it?

"The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions.

Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them...

We cannot consider as altogether blameless the silence which purposely leads to the omission or neglect of some of the principles of Christian doctrine...

Let it be far from anyone's mind to suppress for any reason any doctrine that has been handed down. Such a policy would tend rather to separate Catholics from the Church than to bring in those who differ. There is nothing closer to our heart than to have those who are separated from the fold of Christ return to it, but in no other way than the way pointed out by Christ."

This short quote, taken from the encyclical against Americanism, Testem Benevolentiae, is just as true (and relevant) today as it was back in 1899, when it was written.

As I continue to immerse myself in studying the propers of the New Mass and comparing them to the Traditional Mass, this quote takes on a very realistic tint.

Does not the New Mass, as we saw in two different examples (see below), "relax some of [the Church's] ancient severity," "make some concessions to new opinions," "omit certain points of her teaching," and "suppress... doctrine that has been handed down?"

Are not these suppressions and concessions in the New Mass made "to more easily attract those who differ from her," and "to gain those who differ from us?"

Do we not see in these abrogations and changing of prayers "the silence which purposely leads to the omission or neglect of some of the principles of Christian doctrine?"

And has not the result been "rather to separate Catholics from the Church than to bring in those who differ?"

Pope Leo XIII, you saw with the Prophet's eyes.

Another visit to the "what happened to the prayers" department. This time, we'll look at the prayers and readings which will take place (or not take place, as the case may be) this coming Sunday: the 23rd Sunday after Pentecost in the Traditional calendar, the 33rd Sunday in Ordinary Time in the Novus Ordo calendar (note already how the Traditional calendar marks its time from a liturgical feast, Pentecost, while the NO calendar has introduced the a-festive concept of "Ordinary Time").

"O Lord, we beseech Thee, absolve Thy people from their offenses, that through Thy bountiful goodness, we may be freed from the bonds of those sins, which by our frailty we have committed." (Collect, 23rd Sunday after Pentecost)

"Let us pray: Father of all that is good, keep us faithful in serving you, for to serve you is our lasting joy." (Opening Prayer, 33rd Sunday in Ordinary Time)

In the traditional Collect, we ask God to "absolve" our "offenses," and we ask to be set free from the "bonds of... sins," sins which are owing to "our frailty." All of this is far too negative for the Modern Man, and so instead he prays that he may be "faithful," that he may find "lasting joy." Note the positive emphasis over the negative. You will search long and hard to find instances (if in fact there are any) of prayers in the NOM which admit that Man is "frail," and in need of being set free from "offenses" and "sins."

In the epistle for the Traditional Mass (Phil. 3:17-21; 4:1-3) we hear St. Paul warning us to walk not in the way of the "enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction... whose glory is their shame... who mind earthly things." This takes us from verse 17-19. After this, the Apostle's direction changes somewhat, and he begins to speak of our heavenly citizenship, the changing of our bodies from "lowness" into "glory." This epistle is not used on the 33rd Sunday in Ordinary Time. Rather, since this NOM Liturgy seems to have apocalyptic things as its theme, Daniel 12:1-4 is used.

You didn't expect all that talk of "enemies" of Christ and "destruction" to find its way into the NOM, did you? Actually, the Philippians passage is in the NOM cycle of readings, but for the 2nd Sunday of Lent in Year "C." But guess what? Those offensive verses, 17-19, are placed in brackets, with a note: "If the 'Shorter Form' is used, the indented text in brackets is omitted." Surprise, surprise.

In the Gospel reading for the Traditional Mass, we have Matt. 9:18-26 prescribed, which contains two miracles of Our Lord: the healing of the woman who suffered an issue of blood, and the raising from the dead of the ruler's daughter. Inexplicably, this passage is omitted completely from the NOM Lectionary. Perhaps it is too much to ask today's Catholic to believe that Our Lord actually performed miracles - who can say? We will certainly find in future installments that the NOM has an abnormal aversion to miracles, whether they appear in Gospel readings or in liturgical prayers (see, for example, the suppression of the prayer on the Feast of St. Nicholas, which mentions his "numberless miracles").

Instead, keeping with the apocalyptic theme, the Gospel for the 33rd Sunday in Ordinary Time comes from Mark 13:24-32, Our Lord's Olivet discourse.

"We offer to Thee, O Lord, this Sacrifice of praise, as an increase of our service: that what Thou hast conferred on us who are unworthy, Thou mayest mercifully accomplish." (Secret, 23rd Sunday after Pentecost)

"Lord God, may the gifts we offer you increase our love for you and bring us to eternal life." (Prayer Over the Gifts, 33rd Sunday in Ordinary Time)

As is the pattern for NOM prayers, this prayer focuses on "love" and "life," deleting the language that refers to the congregation as an "unworthy" people. I am reminded of something one of my RCIA catechists told us candidates and catechumens during our preparation studies: "The Church used to teach that we are unworthy, but we don't teach that anymore."

As is also the pattern for NOM prayers, the terminology of "gifts" prevails over that of "Sacrifice."

"We beseech Thee, O almighty God: that Thou suffer us not to yield to human dangers whom Thou dost grant to rejoice in this sharing in divine Gifts." (Postcommunion, 23rd Sunday after Pentecost)

"Father, may we grow in love by the eucharist we have celebrated in memory of the Lord Jesus, who is Lord for ever and ever." (Prayer after Communion, 33rd Sunday in Ordinary Time)

It is another hallmark of the NewChurch that there are no "dangers," "adversities," "adversaries," or "enemies" that threaten us. Such is the out-dated talk of paranoid "prophets of doom." Thus, where the Traditional prayer asks for protection from "human dangers," the NOM returns to that much more pleasant sentiment of "[growing] in love."

For those of you who have visited(or currently visit) the Lidless Eye Inquisition within the past few days, one has noticed a fierce battle occuring between myself and two members of the Inquisition, Shawn and Apolonio. (Despite myself and Shawn's original fierce clashing, we've come to a better respect and working relationship for each other. Sadly, the opposite is said for myself and Mr. Latar.)

A frequent reader chimed in saying that I(and many traditionalists) are being entirely inconsistent, for failing to condemn our traditionalist brethren when they make a statement that is out in left field or scandalous. There are numerous ways I can answer this.

First is I have dealt with those comments. I've mentioned names and I've even called some of them as crackpot conspiracy theories, or warped geopolitics. Your humble journalist himself came under fire from both Tom Woods and Chris Ferrara for allowing an article to be published which was highly critical of the aggressive polemicist Mr. Ferrara is. So to say that we at Restore the Church, or the Defenders Apologetics Ministry have been afraid to call a spade a spade on both sides of the fence is to do some very selective reading.

Second, there is that thing the Neo-Catholics tell us to exhibit, reverent silence. Take the issue up in private, which I have done. Do not cause scandal by issuing a stern public rebuke, isn't that what Neo-Catholics counsel us to do when we have aberrant theologians, bishops, priests etc? So they want us to handle things privately, but they don't. Will you Neo-Catholics please get consistent?

Third, there are some traditionalists who, while respecting the Traditional Churches relationship to the Jews, make some extreme comments, which could appear right out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or "Horse without a Horseman" (the notoriously anti-semitic movie based off the "protocls" of a bunch of Jewish bankers who meet together and secretly plot to take over the world). I'm going to be quite honest, some of these statements are so out in left field they do not even deserve a response, and I would argue the majority of traditionalists with any decent sense would ignore such.

This reader then is appalled that when Kasper committs a scandal, us "rad-trads" are up in arms, yet when the likes of Bishop Williamson of the SSPX makes an insane statement on Jews, us rad-trads condone it. A few telling points here.

1.) The fact that he even admits that Kasper has committed scandal is going a lot farther than the majorityof Neo-Catholics would dare go, since Kasper must be staunchly Orthodox, for he is the model of how to conduct Neo-Catholic ecumenism.

2.) To say it's on the same weight is false. Williamson is one whom the majority of the Church views as schismatic. He has very few people that really listen to him. Kasper is viewed as an orthodox prelate, who has a top job in the Vatican!

3.) Williamsons remarks were of a non-dogmatic nature. Jews and greed is not of a dogmatic nature. The nature and extent of the Holocaust is of a non-dogmatic nature. Now telling someone they shouldn't convert, or that Apostolic succession is false since it can't be proven historically, this is QUITE of a dogmatic nature!

We aren't being inconsistent, we're being quite consistent here, and this still doesn't explain the ostrich approach Neo-Catholics take to the situation around us today. When I say ostrich approach, I don't mean they deny there's a problem. No, they tried that for many years, and we're well beyond that now. They must admit there is a serious problem. The head goes into the sand when you suggest that the Pope's leadership and some of his decisions could've directly caused this problem.

Another friendly reminder about how much has changed in the New Mass, despite the insistence by the revolutionaries and their Useful Idiots that nothing of substance has changed.

There will be more of these comparisons in the weeks to come.

Since we just celebrated All Souls' Day, let's have a look at those prayers, shall we?

"Let us pray: Merciful Father, hear our prayers and console us. As we renew our faith in your Son, whom you raised from the dead, strengthen our hope that all our departed brothers and sisters will share in his resurrection." (Opening Prayer, Novus Ordo)

"O God, the Creator and Redeemer of all the faithful: grant unto the souls of Thy servants and handmaidens the remission of all their sins: that through devout supplications, they may obtain the pardon, which they have ever desired." (Collect, Tridentine Mass)

What's changed? No more mention of "souls." Modern man doesn't believe in that. No more referring to our dearly departed with the servile terms of "servants and handmaidens." Far too degrading. The NOM prayer prays merely for the "departed," as opposed to the "faithful departed" - that is, those who were faithful to their Holy Catholic religion, who persevered in that faith and did not fall into heresy or schism. Gone is the request for "the remission of all their sins," which is precisely what is needed here, since this feast is for the Poor Souls in Purgatory. Purgatory is far from even hinted at in the NOM prayer. In fact, the opening prayer is not even for the Poor Souls, but it is offered for us, that God would "console us," and "strengthen our hope" that our "departed" will rise again someday.

The lacuna here is glaringly obvious.

"Absolve, O Lord, the souls of all the faithful departed from every bond of sins. And by the help of Thy grace may they be enabled to escape the avenging judgment. And enjoy the bliss of everlasting light." (Tract, Tridentine Mass)

There is no equivalent to this prayer in the Novus Ordo. This prayer has simply been suppressed. Not hard to see why, is it? The prayer mentions "souls," it mentions the "avenging judgment," and it mentions the "bond of sins." Forget that - the Protestants and Modernists won't come to the Mass if we leave that in there!

Also suppressed is the sequence, Dies Irae. Did you really expect the happy-go-lucky Novus Ordo to include a sequence that begins with the words, "Day of wrath," and goes on to say, "What terror there will be when the Lord will come to judge all rigorously?"

"Lord, we are united in this sacrament by the love of Jesus Christ. Accept these gifts and receive our brothers and sisters into the glory of your Son." (Prayer Over the Gifts, Novus Ordo)

"Mercifully regard, we beseech Thee, O Lord, the Sacrifice which we offer Thee for the souls of Thy servants and handmaidens: that to those to whom Thou didst grant the favor of the Christian Faith Thou wouldst also grant due reward." (Secret, Tridentine Mass)

A few things to point out: the word "Sacrifice" in the Tridentine Mass, as opposed to "gifts" in the Novus Ordo. One is clearly referring to a living Sacrifice, Our Lord Himself. Note again that, for some mysterious reason, "souls" are not mentioned in the NOM prayer - odd, since this is the feast of All Souls. Finally, the Tridentine prayer explicitly narrows this prayer to those who had the "favor of the Christian Faith." Once again, the NOM only mentions our "departed brothers and sisters," apparently with no regard to what faith (if any) they professed.

"Lord, may the death and resurrection of Christ which we celebrate in this eucharist bring the departed faithful to the peace of your eternal home." (Prayer after Communion, Novus Ordo)

"May the prayer of Thy suppliant people, we beseech Thee, O Lord, avail for the souls of Thy servants and handmaidens: that Thou mayest both deliver them from all their sins and make them to be sharers in Thy Redemption." (Postcommunion, Tridentine Mass)

Strike three, you're out: once again, the NOM fails to use the word "souls" on the very Feast of All Souls'. Also missing is the teaching that our prayers here on earth can "avail for the souls" of the Church Suffering. Once again, there is no mention made of God delivering the Poor Souls "from all their sins," only a nebulous request that they be brought to the "peace of your eternal home." The NOM doesn't tell us where the departed are right now - are they in Purgatory, or are they just experiencing soul sleep until the day of Resurrection? The Tridentine prayer keeps us focused on Purgatory, where the "souls" have need of Our Lord to "deliver them from all their sins," not so that they can share in the resurrection (as was prayed in the opening prayer of the NOM), but so that they can "be sharers in Thy Redemption."

The NOM is one-too-many steps ahead - the souls in Purgatory have not yet fully shared in Redemption, much less the resurrection. Let's keep things in order here.

A few more notes:

"O Lord Jesus Christ, King of glory, deliver the souls of all the faithful departed from the pains of hell and from the bottomless pit; Deliver them from the lion's mouth, that hell swallow them not up, that they fall not into darkness, but let the standard-bearer holy Michael lead them into that Holy Light; which Thou didst promised of old to Abraham and to his seed. We offer to Thee, O Lord, sacrifices and prayers; Do Thou receive them in behalf of those souls of whom we make memorial this day; Grant them, O Lord, to pass from death to that life which Thou didst promise of old to Abraham and to his seed." (Offertory, Tridentine Mass)

Of course, there is no "Offertory" in the NOM, only the "Preparation of the Gifts," which is a Jewish prayer having nothing to do with Purgatory. Thus, this beautiful (dare I even say "necessary") prayer has simply been suppressed in the Novus Ordo - gone forever, both from the Liturgy and from the minds of those who subject themselves to this "updated" feast year after year. You think today's kids, growing up in the Novus Ordo, never having had the benefit of hearing these prayers in the Tridentine Mass, are going to be the worse-off as a result of this prayer's suppression?

Count on it.

There are no less than five prefaces for the priest to choose from in the NOM, every one of which has the resurrection as its focus, one even going so far as to imply that there is no Purgatory involved: "When the body of our earthly dwelling lies in death we gain an everlasting dwelling place in heaven." (Preface 77, Christian Death) Odd that none of these prefaces make mention of the souls' present need to be delivered from sin (the word "soul" is never even used), instead choosing such phrases as:

- "the sadness of death gives way to the bright promise of immortality" (P77)
- "He gave his life that we might live to you alone forever" (P78)
- "In him the word is saved, man is reborn, and the dead rise again to life" (P79)
- "By your command you free us at last from sin as we return to the dust from which we came" (P80)
- "we rise at your word to the glory of the resurrection" (P80)
- "Death is the just reward for our sins, yet... your loving kindness calls us back to life" (P81)
- "in company with Christ, whose victory is our redemption" (P81)

Now, in fairness, let me say that the Tridentine preface also uses language like, "in whom the blessed hope of the resurrection hath shone forth," "those who are saddened... may be consoled by the promise of a future deathless life," and "to Thy faithful people... life is changed, not taken away." There is certainly nothing wrong with bringing out this aspect of death - the problem is that the NOM sees only this aspect, and exalts it to the near-complete neglect of the reason why we celebrate Mass on this day: to pray for the Poor Souls, that their sins may be forgiven, that they may be finally purified, that they may be released from their tortures and admitted to the Beatific Vision.

I leave you with a few passages from the Dies Irae.

"O judge of vengeance, justly make a gift of your forgiveness before the day of reckoning... My prayers are not worthy, but you, o Good One, please grant freely that I do not burn in the eternal fire... I prostrate myself, supplicating, my heart in ashes, repentant; take good care of my last moment."

Over at the Lidless Eye Inquisition, there is a posting talking about how the battle between Neo-Catholics and Traditionalists if for those who "Take history seriously." Of course, since the Neo-Catholics think this, it proves just how delusional they can really get at times. The issue is over novelties or discplinary changes, pastoral approaches, and liturgical reforms, and their relative success or failure, and how well they express the Catholic faith.

Yet in response to this, we are told "Well the Church of history didn't live in theology manuals and catechisms." This is quite true, but I would say at least those people knew what the Catechism taught, unlike the majority of Catholics today! Furthermore, they talk of a pluralistic notion of the Church that history teaches us, in which I assume they mean the "unity in diversity." Sorry, but this entire argument is a fraud, simply because under the guise of plurality, Traditionalism certainly isn't allowed by today's Church! We live in a Church today where people are offended by the feast of CORPUS CHRISTI! No, the liberals and useful idiot Neo-Catholics today have a novel definition of "unity in diversity"

"As Long as you hate the past, and agree Vatican II was the best council ever, you can speak your mind. Disagree, and you aren't allowed in this divserity."

This one's short and sweet. Like the Truth.

One thing I've noticed over and over again about the Neo-Catholic apologetic is how many words they have to use. If you've ever asked a Neo-Catholic a straight-forward question about the current crisis, you know what I mean: they open their mouths, and out comes this deluge of words that very quickly leaves you wondering what the original topic was.

Often times, they throw in a smattering of buzzwords and catch-phrases, which they are, on the one hand, apparently very familiar with, and, on the other hand, very astounded (in a condescending sort of way) that you are not also familiar with said words.

They will speak of "diversity in unity," a "Roman mindset," "contextual nuances," "largeness of mind," "thinking with the Church," and on and on and on and on and on...

The most recent example I've run across comes courtesy of those Useful Idiots of the Lidless Eye, Shawn McElhinney and Apolonio Latar. The term is "communio ecclesiology," and apparently, if one understands this buzzword (it takes a "largeness of mind" and a "Roman mindset" to do this), then one can understand completely why Cardinal Kasper's "ecumenism without return" isn't heresy. Of course, ask them what this new buzzword means, and they'll likely just sneer at you for not having kept up with the Novel Terms Generator at the Vatican.

This is called arguing ad ignorantiam. Arguing to the other person's ignorance, and supposing that this suffices to win the debate. Just make the other person look like a fool, and save yourself the trouble of actually making a substantive argument. It's a logical fallacy.

Well, here's my new rule: when a Neo-Catholic starts talking, I start counting words. Once they cross the 30-word mark, I know they're either lying or obfuscating.

It's that simple. The Truth is simple. The Truth requires very few words. Watch:

Q: Is there salvation outside the one, holy, Roman Catholic Church?
A: No.

Now try that with a Neo-Catholic:

Q: Is there salvation outside the one, holy, Roman Catholic Church?
A: Well, you have to step back and look at the issue of what is the "Church," and what constitutes being "outside" this "Church?" You see, the "Church" of Jesus only "subsists" --

Whoa! Stop right there. You're lying and/or obfuscating. The Truth doesn't take that long to affirm.

This method is fool-proof - just try it sometime. Apply this method to anything coming out of Zenit and see what happens! It's fun!

Neo-Catholic word-counters can now be purchased for $9.95 from Restore-the-Church. Operators are standing by...

The Saga Continues

It seems as if Neo-Catholics have just been suffering blow after blow these past few weeks. First a Cardinal in the Vatican openly states schismatics are part of the true Church. Then the "episcopal" ring of Rowan Willaims is kissed. Then Fatima become an inter-faith circus side show. They are quiet. They know these news stories are out there, but realize this isn't defendable. I think we're now reaching that point, where Neo-Catholics cannot defend the Revolution, and now they will condone it in silence. The Revolution no longer needs the Neo-Catholics, for they have done their job.

Not to say the Neo-Catholics didn't deliver a bunch of self-inflicted wounds. This is another it seems. A while back, there was an "interview" in which Sr. Lucia claimed Russia had been consecrated. The Organization "Rad Trad Watch" (A spoof off of Novus Ordo Watch) could not hide their glee. This doesn't help solve the situationin Russia, no, it's a chance for them to return to one of the favorite pastimes of Neo-Catholics, Father Gruhner Bashing. Now, I don't know the Reverend, never been to a Mass of his, but based on what I've seen of the story so far, this guys a priest in good standing, whose name is being wrecked. Of course Neo-Catholics feel no shame for themselves, since they did this to Gerry Matatics and Robert Sungenis with amazing precision, and regularly do this to any Traditional Catholic.

Now "Rad-Trad" watch and our friends at the Lidless Eye Inquisition seem to think us traditionalists have a "Ready Fire Aim" approach to things. Well I really hate to say it, but perhaps they are guilty of this.

It turns out the interview was not done in Portguese, but a translator was present. This translator has already been viewed as a liar by a court of law. Furthermore, other priests have already stated this man is not credible, and half the stuff the translator has written, he doesn't even remember occuring! In other words, this guy is highly dubious, and provides a very nice situation for Traditionalists. Sr. Lucia was not lying, the consecration still hasn't been done, yet once again, she has been the part of yet another ploy to re-write the message of Fatima!

I can only imagine what the major Fatima devotees and Fr. Gruhner are wondering right now. It seems every time Neo-Catholics try to attack, traditionalists are vindicated. There is definite reasonable doubt currently that this interview was authentic. Yet Neo-Catholics of course won't comment on this. Since we haven't seen an authentic beyond the shadow of a doubt statement from Sr. Lucia, it seems as if the games keep getting more and more demented each day.

Combine their arrogance and anger against Traditionalists with the simple fact the Revolution duped them, and now no longer needs them, Neo-Catholicisim is in a horrible shape. And one can't help but feel sorry for them. These Catholics wanted just to be obedient Catholics, yet they were taught a false obedience, and now are no longer listened to by their superiors, the same superiors they have spent lifetimes defending as perfectly Orthodox. The Pope they defend is ill, and never really listened to them anyways. Yet it's not too late. We would much rather have them return to Tradition now then never, because in the coming days, we're going to need all the help we can get against the Revolution, which is no longer hiding it's diabolical intentions.