The Stated Purpose of the New Mass…To Destroy the Church! Surely, No Catholic Should Attend It?
Martin Blackshaw writes…
Given the ruthless ferocity with which certain diocesan bishops are implementing Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis’s war on the Traditional Latin Mass, I thought it opportune to write a little piece reminding Catholics of the illicit nature of the New Mass of Paul VI, both in its origin and its departure from the Traditional liturgy of the Church handed down.
To begin with, we should recall from Mediator Dei Pope Pius XII’s condemnation of a liturgical reform that would see the high altar replaced with a table under the pretext of a return to earlier forms of Christian worship. This grave error His Holiness termed “Antiquarianism”. Pius XII was only too well aware of how the Protestant heretics of the Reformation had used this very pretext as a means to rid the Mass of its sacerdotal/sacrificial nature and significance.
Now, when reading Sacrosanctum Concilium, Vatican II’s Constitution on the Liturgy, there is not a single mention or hint of replacing the high altar with a table or of turning the priest to face the people. Nor is there any suggestion that the Latin language is to be eradicated in favour of the vernacular. On the contrary, Sacrosanctum Concilium specifically states: “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.”
It further declares that “…in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way…”
Further to this, there is no mention of altar girls, Communion in the hand while standing, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion or any other such heathen gymnastics in the official Council document. Hence, all these novel impositions are in defiance of the Council Fathers who certainly never suspected what subsequent interpreters really had in mind for the liturgy of the Church. It was to be less a liturgical reform than a revolution!
With the benefit of hindsight, we can now see in this document, as with others of the Council, a great number of dubious statements that read like a sub-text of what the revolutionaries would later develop into a full-blown assault on Catholic doctrine and the holy sacrifice of the Mass.
The late Michael Davies R.I.P. wrote specifically of the method employed by the radicals in the Church in order to achieve their aim. In particular, he highlighted the on-record advice Fr. Annibale Bugnini extended to his fellow liberals; that they should insert their true intentions into the documents of the Council in “embryonic” form, so that the Fathers of the Council could read what looked like a reasonably Traditional text but which was nevertheless filled with “time bombs”, as Mr. Davies described them, which would explode after the Council. This explains the oft-referred to “ambiguous wording” of the documents of Vatican II.
This brings me to what happened post-Vatican II under the powerful influence of Fr. Annibale Bugnini. Before expanding on this, however, it is worth recalling that Pope John XXIII authorised the summary dismissal of Bugnini from his chair at the Lateran University and from his secretaryship of the Liturgical Preparatory Commission for reasons that have never been revealed. We may be certain, however, that the reasons must have been very grave indeed for the Pope to act as he did with so influential a figure as Fr. Bugnini.
Sadly, Pope Paul VI recalled Bugnini upon the death of Pope John XXIII and extended to him even greater influence over the liturgy than he previously had. This Pope even raised Bugnini to the dignity of Archbishop before he too suddenly and inexplicably deposed and exiled his close collaborator.
Much ink has since been spilled by those seeking to make sense of the conundrum. The most coherent report, which has been verified at least by the priest at the centre of the controversy, is that Mgr. Bugnini was a Freemason.
Archbishop Bugnini always denied the charge, claiming it was a conspiracy against him, but the evidence, such as exists, certainly seems to point in the direction of his guilt.
The Vatican has never released details of what Pope Paul VI learned about Bugnini to make him act so swiftly and ruthlessly to remove him. Crucially, though, the Church’s authorities have never moved to dismiss the rumour of Bugnini’s Masonic affiliation, a silence which would constitute an outrage unless the authorities believed the charge to be true.
Michael Davies treats of the subject in part in an article posted on the Catholic Apologetics website, from whence I have lifted the following quotes:
“Whether Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason would seem to be an academic question (“What Went Wrong?”, Inside the Vatican, June-July 1996). For if we are to accept the testimony of Archbishop Malula of Kinshasa, Zaire, reported by Abbot Boniface Luykx (“The Bitter Struggle,” Inside the Vatican, May 1996, pp. 16-19), Bugnini had adopted the ideology of secular humanism, which even falls short of the tame Deism professed by the brethren of the Lodge. (Michael Davies).
“However, I have it on good authority that Bugnini’s abrupt dismissal was indeed prompted by incontrovertible evidence that he was a member of the Lodge. A priest who was a longtime personal friend of Pope Paul VI was informed, by a Freemason whom he had reconciled with the Church, that Bugnini was a member of the same lodge, whose date of initiation and code name he could provide.” (Reverend Father G.H. Duggan, S.M.)
“In 1972 Pope Paul created Bugnini Titular Archbishop of Dioclentia. In 1975, however, the Archbishop left his briefcase behind in a conference room, where it was found and inspected by the Dominican Friar charged with restoring the room to order. In search only of the identity of the case’s owner, the Dominican found, according to Piers Compton, documents whose “signatures and place of origin showed that they came from dignitaries of secret societies in Rome” (The Broken Cross, p. 61). The letters were addressed to “Brother Bugnini.” […] Bugnini was appointed the Apostolic pro-Nuncio to Iran, and repeatedly denied that he had Freemasonic affiliations. When the Italian Register came to light in 1976, however, it showed his April 23, 1963 initiation date and number, and gave his code name as ‘Buan.’” (Carey J. Winters)
“An internationally known churchman of unimpeachable integrity has also told me that he heard the account of the discovery of the evidence against Bugnini directly from the Roman priest who found it in a briefcase which Bugnini had inadvertently left in a Vatican conference room after a meeting.” (Reverend Father Brian Harrison O.S., Rome, Italy)
“Archbishop Bugnini was a consultant in the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, and in the Sacred Congregation of Holy Rites. He was also the chairman of the Concilium which drafted the Novus Ordo Missae. Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was a freemason, initiated into the Masonic Lodge on April 23, 1963 (Masonic Register of Italy dated 1976). Monsignor Bugnini was removed from his office in the Vatican when it became public that he was a Mason.” (Most Asked Questions About The Society Of Saint Pius X (Angelus Press, 2918 Tracy Ave., Kansas City, MO), p. 26.) – Source: Catholic Apologetics.
Michael Davies concluded that it is immaterial whether Bugnini was or was not a Freemason, for it remains a fact that Pope Paul VI was convinced he was and exiled him accordingly.
This brings me to Bugnini’s influence in the construction of the New Mass prior to his exile, an influence which should have been purged by Paul VI but which was scandalously left in place to run its destructive course in the Church.
The first indication that Bugnini was up to no good was when he declared his intention for the New Mass he was constructing with the active assistance of six Protestant ministers, largely Lutherans.
In an interview with L’Osservatore Romano on March 19, 1965, he said: “we must remove from our Catholic liturgy and prayers all that can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants”.
This declared intention of Bugnini is relevant to the Masonic affiliation claim, for the Novus Ordo Missae was fabricated primarily to facilitate ecumenism, a principal doctrine of Freemasonry that the pre-Council Popes condemned as heresy.
In 1974, Bugnini triumphantly rejoiced in the success of his project, saying “the new rite is a major conquest of the Catholic Church”. (See Catholic Apologetics )
Again, the use of the word “conquest” smacks of the Masonic spirit as expressed in the Lodge’s many anti-Catholic statements over the centuries, such as: “To fight against the papacy is a social necessity and constitutes the constant duty of freemasonry.” (Masonic International Congress held in Brussels 1904, page 132 of the report).
Quite how and why Pope Paul continued with Bugnini’s liturgical butchery, knowing what he did at the time and doubtless convinced of Bugnini’s association with the Brotherhood, is a mystery; the more so given the constant teaching of his papal predecessors as evidenced by the following two quotes:
Leo XII: “They have exposed their contempt for authority, their hatred of Sovereignty, their attacks against the Divinity of Jesus Christ and the very existence of God: They openly vaunt their materialism as well as their codes and statutes which explain their plans and efforts in order to overthrow the legitimate Heads of State and completely destroy the Church.” (Encyclical, Quo Graviora)
Pope Leo XIII: “Let us, therefore, expose Freemasonry as the enemy of God, of the Church and of our Motherland.” (Letter to the Italian people, December 8, 1892)
The mystery deepens when we learn that the bishops gathered for the Rome Synod in 1967 overwhelmingly rejected Bugnini’s Novus Ordo Missae following an inaugural celebration in their presence.
This clear rejection was followed up in 1969 when Pope Paul was presented with the document we know today as the ‘Ottaviani Intervention’. This was the work of many theologians who came together to write a short critical study of the New Mass to be presented to the Pope by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, hence the title.
In his cover letter to the Pope, Cardinal Ottaviani wrote: “The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.”
In other words, the Ottaviani Intervention confirms the success of Bugnini’s plan to supplant the ancient Catholic Mass, the heart of our faith, with an alternative liturgy designed to obscure the Sacrifice of Our Lord and replace the supernatural worship of God with the cult of man. How very French Revolution! How very Masonic!
This is why Bugnini had to dispose of Latin as the language of the Mass in preference for the vernacular. The former is sacred, theologically secure and unifying; the latter is vulgar, open to manipulation and Babel-like.
Having achieved this goal, it was simply a case then of reorienting the priest so that he no longer faced God at a high altar in persona Christi but the people over a table as President presiding over the assembly. This was subsequently complimented with novelties such as lay readers, including women, altar girls, an “offertory” procession, hand shaking, extraordinary ministers of holy communion and communion in the hand.
As regards the latter abuse (Communion in the hand), this was illicitly introduced in Belgium by Cardinal Leo Suenens and then quickly spread to Holland and other nations like wildfire. Pope Paul VI lamented the crime in his Instruction Memoriale Domini, by which document he reaffirmed Church teaching on receiving on the tongue while kneeling. But it was to no avail for the abuse was then out of control and is today presented falsely in every parish as the Church’s norm.
Cardinal Robert Sarah, while Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, denounced Communion in the hand. His Eminence later wrote a book on the subject, whose Preface contains these words of the Cardinal:
“The most insidious diabolical attack consists in trying to extinguish faith in the Eucharist, sowing errors and favouring an unsuitable manner of receiving it. Truly the war between Michael and his Angels on one side, and Lucifer on the other, continues in the heart of the faithful: Satan’s target is the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated Host.”
In order to fully grasp the seriousness of what Cardinal Sarah wrote, we should recall the teaching of the Church before the citadel was infiltrated. Here are just a few of many Church pronouncements to demonstrate the point:
“It is prohibited for the faithful to touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand.” (Pope St. Sixtus I, AD 115-125). St. Basil the Great, in his Letter (93) declared Communion in the hand to be “a grave fault”.
The Council of Saragossa (AD 380) declared excommunication on anyone who continued to receive Holy Communion in the hand. This sentence was upheld by the Council of Toledo in AD 589 and later in the Sixth Council of Constantinople (AD 680-681).
The Council of Rouen (AD 650) decreed: “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman, but only in their mouths.”
It is telling that Cardinal Suenens was the prelate who introduced this appalling abuse of the Blessed Sacrament into the Catholic Mass, for he was the one who dubbed Vatican II “The French Revolution in the Church.” (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Archbishop Lefebvre). And, as any student of history knows, the French Revolution was the work of Freemasonry. We see how the threads of evidence begin to come together!
But it runs even deeper than that, and this is where “the errors of Russia,” warned of by Our Lady of Fatima, manifest themselves in the Church leading to the fulfilment of the
prediction of the Third Secret in our time.
Cardinal Luigi Ciappi, who was personal theological adviser to five Popes, including John Paul II, read the full text of the Third Secret. In a letter to Professor Baumgartner of Salzburg, His Eminence wrote: “In the Third Secret it is predicted, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.”
Now some may wonder what the link is between Communism, the principal error of Russia, and Freemasonry. Well, it can be shown historically that the theoreticians and architects of Communism were/are also members of the Lodge (Read ‘The Plot Against the Church’, by Maurice Pinay).
The link between these evil twins, whose declared aim is to eradicate the Catholic Church and faith from the face of the earth, was confirmed by Fr. Yves Congar, one of the leading revolutionaries at Vatican II. He stated publicly after the Council “The Church has had, peacefully, its October Revolution. The Declaration on Religious Liberty states the opposite of the Syllabus.”
This October Revolution referenced by Fr. Congar was an allusion to both the Communist uprising in Russia on October 13, 1917 and the rebellion of October 11, 1962 in Rome itself at the commencement of the Second Vatican Council.
In his book, ‘Open Letter to Confused Catholics’, Archbishop Lefebvre describes the latter as he experienced it:
“…Everything was ready for the date announced and on 11th October, 1962, the Fathers took their places in the nave of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. But then an occurrence took place which had not been foreseen by the Holy See. From the very first days, the Council was besieged by the progressive forces. We experienced it, felt it; and when I say we, I mean the majority of the Council Fathers at that moment. We had the impression that something abnormal was happening and this impression was rapidly confirmed; fifteen days after the opening session not one of the seventy-two schemas remained…”
These schemas the Archbishop refers to were the documents prepared over three years for discussion and deliberation by the Council Fathers. Each one was based on the Traditional teaching of the Church. Every one of them was binned and replaced with hastily-constructed Modernist alternatives.
That this was planned and orchestrated in advance is now well established. That it had its source in the Communist/Masonic mindset and world view is undoubtedly the case. Archbishop Lefebvre in his book relates it thus:
“The Catholic liberals have undoubtedly established a revolutionary situation. Here is what we read in the book written by one of them, Monsignor Prelot, a senator for the Doubs region of France: “We had struggled for a century and a half to bring our opinions to prevail within the Church and had not succeeded. Finally, there came Vatican Il and we triumphed. From then on, the propositions and principles of liberal Catholicism have been definitively and officially accepted by Holy Church.”
If anyone wants to understand how Pope John Paul II could have arranged those syncretistic gatherings of all religions at Assisi, at which a Buddha was placed upon a tabernacle and worshipped and a pagan cult was given leave to ritually slaughter chickens on a Catholic altar, then look to Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty.
If anyone wants to know how Pope Francis could participate in the superstitious rites of North American Indians, reverently receive a pagan fertility deity (Pachamama) into St. Peter’s Basilica and wash the feet (Mandatum) of Muslims, including women, on Maundy Thursday, then look to Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty.
This document together with the Novus Ordo Mass lies at the very heart of the present crisis of faith in the Church. These two poisoned arrows have combined to strike a death blow to Catholic theology, philosophy, liturgy, and doctrine.
As regards the latter, Michael Davies provided the opinions expressed by three contemporary witnesses to the immediate aftermath of Bugnini’s “banal on-the-spot fabrication”, to quote the late Cardinal Ratzinger’s view of the Novus Ordo Missae [Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI].
Note that the first opinion is that of an eminent and faithful Catholic, the second of an objective Protestant and the last of an exultant liturgical revolutionary.
“Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand expressed himself in forthright terms: “Truly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy he could not have done it better.”
“Professor Peter L. Berger, a Lutheran sociologist, was every bit as frank in his honest assessment of the Novus Ordo. He observed that: “If a thoroughly malicious sociologist, bent on injuring the Catholic community as much as possible had been an adviser to the Church, he could hardly have done a better job.”
“Father Joseph Gelineau SJ, a Council peritus, and an enthusiastic proponent of the post-conciliar revolution. In his book Demain la liturgie, he stated with commendable honesty, concerning the Novus Ordo Mass: “To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.”
This latter statement is particularly relevant for it comes straight from one who favoured the liturgical revolution and it vindicates the declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre, who called the Novus Ordo an illegitimate rite.
The Archbishop did not say “invalid rite” because the words of Our Lord necessary to confect Transubstantiation remain in the text, dependent of course upon the intention of individual priests together with the correct matter and form. No, he said “illegitimate rite” because it does not flow organically from the Roman Rite of Tradition but is rather a new creation imbued with Protestant theology which harms the faith of Catholics. In essence, the Novus Ordo removed that “...insurmountable barrier to heresies directed against the integrity of the sacrifice.” Referenced in the Ottaviani Intervention.
Hence the aforementioned altar girls, women lay readers, extraordinary ministers of holy communion, Communion in the hand and a host of other non-Catholic antics which, while not heresies per se, have no place in the Catholic Mass of the ages and invariably result in irreverence and loss of supernatural faith on a grand scale.
The bitter fruits of this destruction of the Roman Rite are present today for all to see in the demise of vocations to the priesthood and religious life, the apostasy of millions from the faith worldwide, the death of the missions, the absence of catechetical formation in the young, the closure of countless hundreds of seminaries and religious houses and thousands of once-flourishing parish churches, the loss of faith in, or reverence for, Our Lord in His Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament, the suppression or rubbishing of Catholic moral teaching and Traditional doctrine, etc., etc.
In stark contrast to this universal destruction of the Church, however, there has been the noted rebirth of faith and morals in any parish or community where the Traditional Roman rite of Mass has been re-established.
Since Pope Benedict XVI rehabilitated the ancient Latin Mass through Summorum Pontificum in 2007, in which document His Holiness reaffirmed that this sacred rite has never been abrogated, nor could be, and is freely available to all priests and faithful without a prerequisite permission from Church authorities, the flourishing of congregations in formerly-dying parishes in certain parts of the world has been nothing short of miraculous.
This is why Summorum Pontificum had to be reversed by the internal enemies of the Faith by any means. That Papal document highlighted the utter spiritual poverty of the post-Vatican II humanist religion by producing wonderful fruits, especially amongst the young, wherever the Traditional Catholic Mass of the saints and martyrs reappeared.
We’re told that Pope Francis issued Traditionis Custodes following a consultation with all bishops around the world in whose dioceses the Traditional Latin Mass had been established following Summorum Pontificum. The response from the bishops on these Traditional parishes and communities is said to have so disturbed Francis that he felt it necessary to act immediately to restrict the Traditional Mass.
Of course, this alluded-to negative report of the bishops, which in reality was very positive, has never been made available for public scrutiny. Suffice it to say a second, parallel, report was drawn up by certain functionaries within the CDF even before the consultation with the bishops around the world had been completed and it was upon reading this that Francis decided to issue his edict.
Since space does not permit a full exposure of the underhand behaviour that led to Traditionis Custodes, I am providing the link to a well-documented article on the ‘Inside the Vatican’ website for clarification purposes – click here to read The Hidden Story Behind Traditionis Custodes.
Whether duped or not into writing Traditionis Custodes, this document of Francis will doubtless enter the annuls of pontifical history as the most wicked and destructive papal edict ever issued by a Pope. It has to be stated, sadly, that Pope Francis has demonstrated in various ways since his election that he is not a man of supernatural faith. He is a secularist in mindset with subjective views on doctrine and morality.
We will see this again soon through his two latest initiatives – “The New Evangelisation” and “The Synodal Way”. These are but coded terms for his agenda to clear the way for access to Holy Communion for those in irregular unions or living immoral lives. It is also a means by which to undermine the male priesthood, which he has already begun by admitting women with a vote to participate in the synods of bishops.
In summation, then. Pope Francis is very much a Pope in the same mindset as Bugnini, Suenens, Congar, Gelineau and so many other revolutionaries who manifested their rebellion against Tradition during and after Vatican II.
I have heard some people claim that Francis must therefore be a Freemason, as must all the Popes since Vatican II who, like him, have allowed and/or encouraged the wanton destruction of the Mystical Body of Christ, His Catholic Church.
This is a false conclusion, however, as we soon discover upon review of Pope St. Pius X’s great Encyclical against Modernism, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907).
In that magnificent document the saintly pontiff teaches us that the Modernist is first a man of great pride of mind and soul who imagines himself to be blessed with religious insights not granted to others, past or present. In reality, says the Pope, he is a blind and pitiable man thoroughly imbued with the anti-Catholic philosophies of that period of history known as “the Enlightenment”, which is Masonic both in its origin and expressed principles.
Ultimately, Modernism inside the Church leads to secular humanism and the cult of man, which is precisely what St. Pius X warned of and what we have been witnessing in the Church since 1965.
The Modernist, says St. Pius X, hates everything Traditional, including the Mass, dogma, and doctrine; all of which he seeks to eradicate either by sophistry or with fury. Is this not precisely what Catholics have witnessed these past 60 years in the name of Vatican II, and what we see now in Traditionis Custodes?
Yes, it is exactly as St. Pius X described it and as Our Lady of Fatima predicted in her Third Secret as told by Cardinal Ciappi.
The best way to conclude is to leave the last word to St. Paul, who thus prophesied:
“I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.” (2 Timothy: 1-5).
Editor writes…
Some of us will never forget our reaction on learning the truth about the creation of the novus ordo – the new order of Mass. The very idea that we had been supporting a liturgy which was deliberately designed to downplay the Sacrifice of the Mass and, ultimately, to destroy the Church itself, brought us to the realisation that we could not possibly fulfil our Sunday obligation – our duty to offer true worship to God – through this illicit liturgy.
Imagine my surprise horror, then, after the final Traditional Latin Mass in Balornock last Sunday, to hear at least one man saying that he would now “attend both”. He’d go to the Traditional Latin Mass in St Brigid’s Toryglen when possible, and the Novus Ordo Missae on other Sundays. When I suggested that he attend the SSPX Masses he looked askance, and said “But I want to remain in the Church”. Gimme a break. I thought this sort of ignorance had been well and truly euthanised.
Your thoughts on Martin Blackshaw’s excellent review of the New Mass, welcome; and although I only spoke to that one youngish man last Sunday on this subject, I can’t help wondering how many other Balornock Latin Mass adherents will return to the Bugnini Mass now that there is only one TLM available and that, at a time and location which is, arguably, inconvenient for most people. Your thoughts on that, too, welcome.
Comments (57)
When Pope Benedict XVI first said that the crisis in the Church is first and foremost a crisis of the liturgy, I was for a long time at a loss to know exactly what he meant.
No longer. Paul VI’s liturgical ‘settlement’, designed to accommodate as far as possible modernity, has been an abject disaster of epochal proportions. It has been the emasculation of both the Church and the Priesthood, probably far worse in the damage it has wrought than even the Protestant Reformation.
Part of growing older and hopefully, more wise, is that one is more ready to admit one’s mistakes. Madame Editor, moved by her exquisite Catholic sense, saw that there was a serious problem with the liturgy long before me.
Health and blessings to her.
Athanasius: what a belter of a post! Sublime!
Leitourgos
Many thanks for your kind comment. If that article can win one soul back to the true Catholic Mass, or stop one soul from participating in horrendous Communion in the hand, or make people stop speaking the “extraordinary form of Mass” and the “ordinary form”, as though these are two equal and licit rites flowing from the same Tradition, then it will have been well worth the effort.
Athanasius,
Even a fool can see that the game is up for the Novus Ordo, if ever it were on.
Likewise, we all know that, by any metric, the Catholic faith in Glasgow is melting like the snow in spring. If Nolan were serious about shepherding his people, as opposed to just scattering them, he would make generous provision for the Old Mass, Francis notwithstanding.
I have a feeling that before very long Francis, Roche, Nolan and their ilk are going to look very foolish indeed.
Leitourgos
The aforementioned Church authorities would have to possess the Catholic Faith in order to feel ashamed by what they’ve done and I really don’t think that supernatural belief exists in them any more.
If you read St. Pius X’s Encyclical, Pascendi, this holy Pontiff describes the Modernist in the Church as coming to a point where he is so imbued with the poison of Modernism, “the synthesis of all heresies”, that he goes spiritually blind.
It’s almost like a divine punishment on the pride of Modernists; the shutters come down on truth and they can no longer tolerate the Traditional teaching or Mass of the Church.
This would explain why Pope Francis, Archbishop Nolan, et al, can so ruthlessly remove the Tridentine Mass from so many souls without the least conscience. The supernatural spirit of Our Lord has been suppressed in them and their entire episcopal life is now fixed on this world and what novelties they can dream up next to make them and their parishes relevant to modern man.
“Living Tradition” is, for Catholics with the faith, the same Mass and teaching handed down unchanged and unchangeable throughout the centuries. It is divine in origin and has sanctified souls through generations for almost 2000 years.
But “Living Tradition” for the Modernist is different. It is not considered to be divine and fixed. Hence, objective truths regulating faith and morals become subjective and open to reinterpretation. See the pride of Lucifer? They think they know better than God and all of their venerable predecessors and so they produce an alternative religion wherein doctrine and morals altar with changing times and fashions until there is nothing of the divine left, only humanism and the cult of man. This is why Pope Francis now speaks of this world as “our common home” when, in truth, the Church teaches that it is our common exile. Is it any wonder, then, that millions, especially the young, have abandoned the Church and the faith?
When Pope John XXIII referred to Vatican II as “opening wide the windows of the Church to let in some fresh air”, he little expected a huricane to enter and wreck the House of God. This is precisely what has happened, and it was planned.
Today, Pope Francis now stands amidst the rubble of so many high altars, the Church of Vatican II’s “New Pentecost” in ruins, proclaiming even more of the same with his “new evangelisation” and “Synodal way”. His Conciliar predecessors have all collaborated to chip away at the pillar of Faith for 60 years and now he begins the work of destroying the other great pillar, the Church’s moral teaching. The Mass and Faith of Tradition are clearly an obstacle to that process and that’s why, resurfacing as they were, he had to act to re-establish the Modernist agenda. The blindness is so great now that only Our Lord can intervene, as He surely will soon, to save His Church. Despite all appearances to the contrary, Our Lord is still in charge of His Church and we have His promise that “the Gates of Hell will not prevail”.
Yes, Athanasius, well said. As I said to Editor in various emails (edited versions below):
Honestly, I just don’t know what to do at the moment . . . we’ve tried to plot on maps where would be reasonably near to my mum/sister and also the sister of the friend who drives me to Mass and also the nearest SSPX chapel, but nothing matches up (my mother and the sister of my friend are both dementia sufferers). Honestly, this ‘merciful’ Pope – if he knew what some of us had to put up with in our daily lives – even without worrying about Mass attendance – while he lives his life of relative luxury and ease. The sooner he dies – the better. But I fear we will get more of the same, or worse. I’m at that stage where if I can’t get a TLM in London and I still have to live around here, then I wouldn’t go to the Novus Ordo. At this point in time, the person who drives me to Mass isn’t on the same page. He thinks a ‘reverent’ NO Latin Mass at the parish we attend would be the best we could hope for. But many years ago, we used to occasionally attend the NO Latin Masses at the same parish in the weekday evenings, and although they were on the whole very reverent, I was horrified to see the amount of people receive communion on the hand. What can you say?
I don’t know if you recall this, but there was a huge scandal a good while back on YouTube about a consecrated Host that was stolen from the parish I attend (all filmed by the perpetrators) and used for blasphemous purposes. I remember seeing the video. And the parish knew about it and held Masses of Reparation etc. But they didn’t learn their lesson, because they still give communion in the hand at their NO Masses, even to this day.
I’ve tried to find the original YouTube video, and I couldn’t. Then I remembered that complaints were made about it and the video was removed. But to prove it happened, a Telegraph article still exists. I can’t get into it because it’s behind a paywall, but there’s enough there to show you that what I was saying is true: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2505953/Church-holds-service-over-communion-wafer-desecration.html
Westminsterfly
I really sympathise with your situation, which is becoming more common everywhere in light of the evil edict of Francis and the willing obedience of certain careerist prelates who care nothing about saving souls.
I have two immediate suggestions for you, though. The first is to have a very genuine trust in St. Joseph. Take your problem to him with full assurance that he will resolve the issue for you. I promise you that if you truly trust St. Joseph and give the matter over to him, he will not fail you.
The other suggestion is to try to locate any priest who might be saying the Mass privately. There are still some priests around who offer the TLM privately, sometimes with a few invited souls, so think about that. In general though, we all need to pray more to St. Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church, and to Our Blessed Mother, begging them to intercede for the Church that this dreadful infiltration of evil may end.
WF.
Honestly, this ‘merciful’ Pope – if he knew what some of us had to put up with in our daily lives – even without worrying about Mass attendance.
I think you could say the same about the priests who fail to provide us with the TLM. They seem to be expecting everyone to work around them and their “needs” and “wants”. I’m very disappointed in priests, generally speaking. Caring for souls seems to be a concept that has passed them by.
Josephine
Agreed. I don’t let them off the hook either, don’t worry!
Josephine
Leave them to God. If any prelate or priest denies a soul access to the Holy Mass of Tradition under any pretext, then we may be assured that they are servants of Lucifer and not Our Lord. Of that there is not the least shadow of a doubt. They are more to be pitied than scorned for they are well on their way to losing their immortal souls.
Athanasius,
I could not agree more. Such a priest, for example, who would – for whatever reason – refuse a soul the spiritual benefits of the Mass, will answer for that neglect at their judgment.
Westminsterfly,
Have you though about attending a Byzantine Catholic/Eastern Orthodox Eucharist? Just a thought.
No Catholic should contemplate attending an Orthodox church.
Regarding the Byzantine Catholic churches – I couldn’t recommend it. It’s a beautiful liturgy but the churches have been infected with Modernism.
Petrus,
I’m glad you said that because I don’t feel any attraction to the Byzantine rite, at the best of times.
Probably not, but at the present time I feel that, regarding the faith, I have a lot more in common with the Patriarch of Moscow than with Bill Nolan.
Michaela,
I do have an attraction to the Byzantine liturgy. It’s very beautiful. However, I do think the Roman Rite is superior.
Sadly, the Byzantine Catholic Churches are catching up fast with the modernism in the Latin Church.
Leitourgos
Again, location/parking is a problem. The nearest is the Ukrainian Catholic cathedral in Duke St, London and the parking is prohibitive and from what I’ve heard you can’t get near it at the moment due to Ukrainian refugees. Fair enough.
I really do feel for you. You are in my prayers.
Excellent article, Athanasius.
Petrus,
Many thanks. I hope it inspires some good fruit, though, otherwise it’s just a page of wasted words.
I should add to what I said in my article that the involvement of Lutheran ministers in the fabrication of the Novus Ordo Missae is more significant than many realise, for it was Martin Luther who reputedly coined the slogan “Take away the Mass, destroy the Church.”
It makes perfect sense since the Mass is the heart of our faith and we worship in accordance with what we believe. Hence, if we fully hold the Catholic Faith handed down through Tradition then the only Mass for us will be the Mass of the saints and martyrs, the TLM. If, however, we reject the faith handed down and replace large parts of it with Protestant belief, then we will want a Novus Ordo liturgy to reflect our move towards apostasy.
Athanasius,
Your article is something else! I am going to copy it and keep it on my computer for when the blog closes. It’s one of those “one-offs” that I do not want to lose. It is jam packed with facts that can be used to enlighten the ignorant so you have performed one of the works of spiritual mercy by writing it. I’ve read it all, or most of it, in other places over the years but it is a treasure trove to have all in one place. Thank you SO much!
I especially think it will make priests think twice about their daily novus ordo – and hopefully trouble their conscience.
Josephine
If only one priest reads this article and decides to end his association with the destructive Novus Ordo, then it will have been worth the many, many hours I put into writing it. Alas, however, I don’t think any priest will do what is necessary because most priests, even if they really do want to return to the Mass of the ages, are faced with difficult choices.
The average parish priest, for example, could lose his parish church, his house and his financial support if he chooses to reject the Novus Ordo, which is why many who want the old Mass decide to obey the unjust edicts of bishops. Some even try to console their conscience by thinking that they can celebrate the Novus Ordo in Latin, as though that would alter the destructive nature of the theology inherent in that rite.
For these priests I would simply like to invite them to reflect on two crucial statements Archbishop Lefebvre made.
The first was when he was asked why he endured all the persecution he did for his defence of the Mass and faith handed down. His response was: “When I go to my judge and He asks me what I did with my priesthood, I do not want to hear those terrible words from His lips: “you helped destroy my Church along with the rest of them”.
The other was “The martyrs sacrificed their lives for the faith. Now they sacrifice the faith”.
Athanasius’ article is fantastic, as usual. He can write! All the content is thoroughly documented by names of books or links. It’s a work of art!
As for Balornock, my guess is that an awful lot, maybe the majority, will go to the novus ordo. When you ask them why they are going to Balornock, a lot of them would say “to support Fr Morris”. I’ve never thought that was a good reason to go to the TLM, so I can’t help thinking that they will think they need to keep “supporting” him by going to his novus ordo. It’s just showing how much ignorance there still is, out there.
Michaela
Thank you.
I think as far as Balornock is concerned, a certain number may continue to attend out of some sort of misguided support for the parish priest. But the Novus Ordo, even if celebrated in Latin, has a habit of weakening faith and that’s why I believe that sooner rather than later the people will begin to drift away and IHOM church will fall into serious decline. It’s inevitable, in my view.
Michaela,
I’ve heard people say that, as well. For years now, people have told me that they attend the Balornock TLMs because they want to support Fr Morris. Always struck me as strange, and I once, in private conversation with Fr Morris, expressed my concerns that there was almost a cult-like group formed now, where if the TLMs were suppressed, his “supporters” would think nothing of returning to the novus ordo… his novus ordo! I see this cult-like behaviour as extremely dangerous.
However, it can also be dangerous when Catholics fail to admit serious wrong-doing in priests because they have fallen into one or both of the twin sins of false charity and human respect. Such flawed thinking and motivation makes them keep silent when they should be outraged.
It would be interesting to know, for example, just how many people wrote to Archbishop Nolan to protest the suppression of the TLM in Immaculate Heart of Mary parish. Not many, would be my best guess.
Leitourgos,
They know the game is up alright. That’s why they want us back to the Novus Ordo to shore up the (drastically falling) numbers. I once heard a local priest admit that if it weren’t for the Polish community who had a (largely full) Mass in his parish on Sundays, the church would be in real trouble. I wonder how long it will take for the Polish NO-goers to lose interest.
I used to go to a local chapel for weekday Mass in the 1980’s (Novus Ordo) and it was packed to capacity every night. And standing room only on Sundays. I haven’t been there for many, many years – but I was told by one of the chapel attendees that the Sunday Mass has becoming embarrassing – so few people turning up, and all of them with one foot in the grave. I think the weekday Masses are barely attended at all. There is only one aged priest there now – the rest have been sent to parishes to back-fill the lack of vocations. And yet if you suggested a TLM to them, they would be enraged. The Novus Ordo church is dying, we understand that, but they won’t face it. And look what happened the day before yesterday – the SSPX have just built their largest church in the world, in Kansas, the Immaculata, which was consecrated two days ago – and packed with mainly younger people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3HnXJQ7LII The video is 5.5 hours long but you can scroll through to near the end and see the congregation. Francis, Roche et al are just being ‘dog in a manger’ about the TLM. They don’t want it, but they’re going to make sure we don’t get it either.
WF,
When I was attending the 10.30am TLM in Balornock, I would go into the novus ordo which began at 9.30.am to pray my rosary before the Blessed Sacrament. It was not – by any standard – a large congregation although there was a fairly large number of (lovely – always friendly, as I found out afterwards) people from immigrant communities. In other words, those who had grown up in the parish had clearly grown away from the Mass.
Thus, the prediction seems to be that, having accepted the suppression of the TLM, it’s only a matter of – very little – time, before the parish is closed down altogether.
I have been pleased to read the comments so far, and I encourage everyone to follow Josephine’s suggestion to copy Martin’s article to keep on your computer for use, quoting etc. after the blog closes in July.
Thanks Martin for that Summary. As in breaking it down it sounds just as Luther Etc done Centuries before. They knew as Pope Pius X knew that the Mass had to be attacked First and Foremost.
Even as a N.O. only attendee for many years I always knew particularly that so called Extraordinary Ministers giving out the Eucharist was wrong. Also Pope Pius X comment on Modernists sums this Man Francis to a tee . He is far from anything that is Supernatural and I stand by what I have said for a few years now. He is not nor never has been a Catholic. He is a wicked and cruel Man in reality and He knows that we know it even if He fools the secular World with His false Mercy and Humility. As for the Mass now being banned all over the World the Masonic New World Order is winning but only at the moment.
As it’s been said many times no Real Catholic Clergyman would stop Worship to Almighty God.
I don’t know how many on here read the article on The Herald about Nolan cancelling the TLMass it is worth a read . What really disappointed me but didn’t surprise me . Were the so called Catholics who agreed with Nolan in the comments. One things for sure and that is whoever counts the Collection Money for Glasgow will now have a much easier Job .
FOOF
What bothered me most about that Herald article was Archbishop Nolan’s attempt to portray himself as some kind of delivering angel for Traditional Catholics in Glasgow by insiuating that he had to go to certain lengths to secure Vatican consent to keep a once-per-week Sunday TLM in the City, namely, Toryglen.
In fact, he said months ago that of the three venues in Glasgow where the TLM was then celebrated, only one would remain. He then went about the task of eradicating the TLM at Sacred Heart by trumping up false charges aginst the priest (Fr. Dunn) who celebrated it. He removed the faculties of this good priest thereby suppressing the Mass at Sacred Heart.
That left him with two venues, Immaculate Heart of Mary church in Balornock and St. Brigid’s in Torgyglen. Since there were many TLM’s celebrated throughout the week and on Sundays at Balornock, but only one Sunday Mass in the more difficult to reach location of Toryglen, it was obvioue to many of us which of the two would be shut down. The Archbishop’s work has been more that of a fallen angel than a delivering angel and no one is fooled by it. Our Lord will certainly not be fooled by it and that’s why I now fear for his eternal salvation. To go to your judgment, having suppressed the Mass of the saints and martyrs, the eternal sacrifice of Calvary, is about as bleak as it gets.
Spot on Martin. I certainly wouldn’t want to be lying on my Death Bed knowing that I stopped the Greatest Worship Ever to the Triune God . Father Son and Holy Ghost.
They have either no Fear of God or they don’t believe in God .
I also agree with you about His trying to be a delivering Angel . As you say more like a fallen Angel.
Comment deleted – off topic.
Please do not do that – you might have guessed I would post something on the Coronation in due course, so I’ve deleted your comment. Please understand. There is nothing – NOTHING – more important than this topic especially for people who can’t see that it is wrong to attend the new Mass, no matter what.
Warning heeded Ed. But no i didn’t know you would have a post on the Coronation. I thought you may have taken The Bank Holiday.
FOOF,
You mean you can’t read minds? Stop kidding 😀
Sadly very few people will ever read this extremely long epistle. We need to ask ourselves, what are we actually doing to win others over and fight the restrictions on the old Mass, other than complaining to each other in this little echo chamber?
Chris,
Worry not. You won’t have this “little echo chamber” much longer. It is closing early in July.
All of us here have done lots in our personal and family lives to educate people about the Masses, and we have organised speakers at conferences etc for the purpose.
As for your typically apathetic attitude to the above article, some of us have sent it by email link far and wide and urged people to read it. Only this morning I encouraged a newcomer to the TLM to read it and she promises so to do, forewarned that it is lengthy but that is because it is a treasure trove. If you present it as a boring “epistle” people won’t be drawn to read it.
For the record though, can you tell us what YOU are doing to fight the restrictions on the old Mass?
I do plenty of stuff to defend faith and the old Mass thanks but unlike some, I don’t like to talk about it. As Matthew says – ‘do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.’
As Our Lord also says in Matthew’s Gospel, “Do not hide your light under a bushel…”
Don’t try to be a Smart Alex here. It was YOU who said “We need to ask ourselves, what are we actually doing to win others over and fight the restrictions on the old Mass…”
So, if you don’t want folk to talk about something, don’t ask them to do so, silly sausage. Or, put another way, gerragrip!
Actually Chris, comments like yours really annoy me. And do you know what? You’re wrong. Because if you look at one of my previous comments, I said that the person who kindly drives me to the TLM wasn’t on the same page as me, and so I gave him Athanasius’s ‘epistle’ to read. And guess what. Having read it, he now is on the same page as me, and agrees with my reservations on attending Latin NO Masses that have abuses like communion in the hand. So CT isn’t an echo chamber at all, because, in this instance, Athanasius’s writings went out and have changed someone’s mind. All that needs to happen now is wait for the inevitable cancellation of the TLM we currently attend, and then work out some kind of alternative which suits everybody. And yes, I would also like to know what you’ve been doing – about anything! I’ve known Editor since the 1990’s, in fact we met through our efforts to defend the Faith, and have both been active in various ways ever since. It’s so easy to throw off three line comments carping about other people’s efforts.
Chris
Have you never heard the phrase “the pen is mightier than the sword”? This little “echo chamber”, as you call it, reverberates far and wide, and not just in this country. I will grant you, however, that my “Epistle” is not remotely on a par with the Epistles of the great St. Paul. Well, actually, it’s not an Epistle at all. It’s an essay.
I have heard that expression but I must ask whats been achieved with that pen – Before cracking open the champagne of self congratulations, what are traditionalist Masses and vocations like in Scotland? Whats been achieved? Have they increased?
Aren’t you guys actually reducing TLM in Glasgow with still only one tiny SSPX Chapel in the city?
Chris
You appear to be just an angry person, expressing your anger here for some reason, and on Sunday of all days. Maybe you should just get on with what you’re doing for the Mass and leave us here to do what we consider to be our contribution to Catholic Action. How does that sound?
Comment deleted – off topic.
Comment deleted – off topic.
Comment deleted – off topic.
Comment deleted – off topic
Comment deleted – off topic
Comment deleted – off topic.
Comment deleted – off topic.
I have deleted a number of off topic comments.
This topic is about the New Mass and should focus on Martin Blackshaw’s exceptionally important article.
Please do not discuss anything else. Thank you.
Editor,
I apologise. I was only responding to a comment made by Athanasius on 6th May at 7.45pm. Given that you responded to my comment and asked me a question, I thought the discussion was allowed!
Editor: I replied unthinkingly, initially, because it took me a while to realise that Athanasius was referring to the denial of the TLM [by archbishop/priests] – not priests banning individual people from Mass. You misunderstood, I assume, his meaning and took the discussion in a different direction. I was slow to realise – I’m awake now 😀 and back on red alert! Thank you for your understanding.
Of course! 😃
Athanasius,
Your article is excellent.
I’ve sent it to a few friends who are really confused about the Mass situation. I have no doubt it will clear up a lot of their confusion, so thank you! What would we do without you – you teach us so much about the faith and make everything so clear.
Catherine,
I agree. Athanasius’s articles and comments are always deep and informational. I will be going through and copying as many of them as possible before the blog closes down.
Catherine & Marjory
Thank you both for your kind comments, which I appreciate. I’m sure that information will be useful to many Catholics – at least I hope it will.
Now, I’ve just sent a copy of the article to Archbishop Nolan together with, let’s say, a rather straight-to-the-point cover letter! I have absolutely no confidence in a change of heart on the part of the Archbishop, though, for the crisis in the Church is essentially the result of a 60-year revolution in cope and mitre.