Boston Catholic Journal
 

“Salus animarum supemus lex esto” — the salvation of souls … must be the supreme law in the Church.” Canon Law (1752)
 

Suggested Reading:


The Problem
of Evil

The Problem of Evil: Exonerating God

Exonerating God


CCD

CCD: Crisis in Catholic Doctrine

Crisis in
Catholic Doctrine:

the Grave State of Religious Education in America



Boston Catholic Journal

Write us:

editor@boston-catholic-journal.com Boston Catholic Journal
 


Boston Catholic Journal

Today’s Martyrology

 

Welcome Home to the One, True, Holy, Catholic Church

 


Home ... the One, True, Holy, Catholic Church
 


 “That understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding
(Blessed Pope Pius IX, 1st Vatican Council, S.3, C.2 on Revelation, 1870 ex cathedra)

 

We no longer recognize the Catholic Church since Vatican II
 

Stinging Truth from a Pulpit — but not a Priest

We are not worthy of persecution. We are Christians not worth killing.
Matthew Walsh


 

Cardinal O'Malley wkipedia

 

Philadelphia as Boston:
 

A Shameful and Deadly Remix

 

“We remain shamed by these egregious failures to protect children and those who are vulnerable and affirm our commitment that these failures will never be repeated.” (Cardinal O’Malley of Boston — 16 August 2018)

 

“Failures”? … I really bristled at this.

What Hypocrisy! What Hogwash!

Who can believe that? Who in Boston? In Brighton?  On Planet Earth?  

He came here, to Boston, in 2003 — 15 years ago — to “correct” the criminal behavior, the homosexual deviancy that infested the priesthood and raped our children — and especially festered at Saint John’s Seminary where, if you could not pass the Color Pink, you would never see Holy Orders. Why? Because it was the seedbed of the homosexual culture that infiltrated, dominated, shamed, and broke the Church in Boston — and then the rest of the world.

Where do you first look when attempting to uncover widespread crime? How about a Criminal Organization? If it is theft, a gang of thieves! If it is political corruption, the State House and the Legislature!

If it is perversion in the priesthood — how about the seminary? “Elementary, my dear Watson.”
 

Never again?

He came. He saw. He “conquered” — and left Saint John’s Seminary as filthy as it was when he arrived as the Vatican’s “White Knight” in 2003. And now he wishes to “affirm our commitment that these failures will never be repeated.”

Did he not say something of that nature 15 years ago?

He is, presumably, putting together yet ANOTHER PANEL to investigate what was already “investigated” long before? According to NECN,

Cardinal Sean O’Malley from the Archdiocese of Boston says he’s not able to verify or disprove these allegations, but wants the investigation to start as soon as possible … Cardinal O’Malley said in a statement, The allegations made this week are a source of serious concern to me as Archbishop of Boston.”

He must be scratching his head: “Haven’t I heard something like this before?” As we see, O’Malley is STILL only tentatively scandalized by homosexual predators in the Episcopacy! (“Cardinal Sean O’Malley from the Archdiocese of Boston says he’s not able to verify or disprove these allegations”).  

Let us offer our clueless Cardinal in absentia … a few clues obvious to most Catholics, but apparently opaque to most cardinals:

Doesn’t a cardinal or bishop have to be a priest first? And do not priests first have to be seminarians? And do not seminarians attend places like Saint John’s Seminary? “Elementary, my dear Watson”.

How about “starting that the beginning”, O’Malley? You know, like the people responsible for admitting candidates to the seminary? And the teachers who instruct them?

You MUST have been there before. It is on Lake Street in Brighton. Of course we know that you share the habits of Francis — who is enamored of you — by living in a simple residence, and maybe you cook your own meals, too? But how about the weightier matters? The Faith? The Flock? Remember them? “The Little Ones” … you remember them, too?

Ask yourself: when was the last time you saw O’Malley? At a photo-op with Francis? You have listened to his “sermons” — mostly monetary appeals — ON RECORDINGS in your parish — in place of a homily embodied in a physical presence?

Did you ever write him about an abuse in your parish? If you did, you never heard from him. You heard from his “secretary” who told you that Father so-and-so was held in O’Malley’s “highest esteem”. In other words, GFY! This is a Catholic Journal so I will not spell it out for you.
 

Insincerity is too good a word

O’Malley is the poster boy of all the insincerity we now find in the Church. He talks the talk. He kind of looks the part. But face it, by now it is apparent that he is most likely one of the Old-Boy boys from the 60’s culture that devastated the Church and has no real intention of correcting a vicious crime.

That would mean gathering the criminals and clapping them in irons! But then … who would “man” the emptying churches which, since Vatican II, have been largely emptied of meaning anyway. Salus animarum? The Salvation of souls? That is last on the list of O’Malley, just as it is last on the list of Francis. The Beatle’s song “Imagine” invokes two things indispensable to both men from that hallucinogenic era of the 60s: imagine a world of “the brotherhood of man” and “no religion too?” This is the “Post-Conciliar” Church. This is Vatican II. This is Francis — and, apparently, O’Malley.

God? Heaven? Hell? Salvation? All such silliness was stamped out by Vatican II — and both men are eminent products of that “Council” that became the ecclesiastical equivalent of Dresden. Once again O’Malley comes, not as a shepherd, but to collect the ashes of faith, mix them with the tears of the sodomized, and somehow to mold a monument to this crushing horror with the promise, yet again, that “these failures will never be repeated.”

“Failures”?  You call them mere “failures”?

The rest of us— your “Eminence”,  call them our “Children”.

Vae vobis!

 

Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
August 19, 2018

   Printable PDF Version

 


 

 

Vatican II:

 

The legacy of Vatican II

 

The Model of the Failed Corporation

 

 

Imagine a corporation that is very large; indeed, has many thousands of managers and employees, and what is more, more than a billion customers. The corporation has prospered for 2000 years with the business model it had developed and which had been rigorously maintained by a succession of over 200 presidents and many more board members. The customers have been satisfied and in no way found the business wanting in the way of customer service and business policy.

A new president is elected — and without any compelling warrant or reason decides to change the business model dramatically. The managers and the employees are told — despite any evidence — that the business is wanting and could prosper more, even though it is at the apex of any competing businesses by several magnitudes of order. Business had been good, the customers happy, and the employees as well, but he and a handful of likeminded board members wished to change not only the model, but the erstwhile universally admired architecture of its thousands of stores throughout the world, as well as dramatically simplifying the interiors to more accord with its less successful competitors — and what is more, totally changed the business language itself — so that these formerly unifying features were to be discarded in favor of disunity. Once again, it must be emphasized, there was no compelling reason to make such drastic changes to a remarkably successful corporation.

The model is changed according these new principles that differ greatly from the former.
 

Decline Hailed as Growth

Within a few years, this once monolithic business, viewed as a paradigm of success in its area of competence, then loses tens of thousands of employees and managers and — most importantly —  the customer base, once in the area of 75% repeat business became 40%, and in a few more years less than 25%.

Remarkably, the new president — and his successors — hail the change as a success, despite metrics in every area that show it in decline — almost in receivership! The stores close by the thousands, or are consolidated in an effort to stop the hemorrhaging of customers.

Then, in the middle of this disastrous downward spiral, the corporation is hit, in successive years, with over $3 Billion dollars of loss in the way of lawsuits due to negligent hiring practices resulting in employees’ large-scale and sordid misconduct of the most vile sort — and the incessant litigation that followed. To pay for their negligence — or rather, to pay the lawyers and the victims for the negligence of the managers — the corporation must sell off large portions of its portfolio and close many, many of its stores. The customers are fewer and fewer, and what is more, there are no new employees to be had as a result of the magnitude of the scandal. The schools of management (Seminaries) must, of course, close also, for there are no more candidates (seminarians) for the positions which themselves are fewer and fewer.

Despite all this, the Chairman (in the case of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis) and the Board (the bishops and cardinals) are determined more than evernot to return to the successful and prosperous method of the last 2000 years (the Tridentine or Latin Mass that preceded Vatican II for two millennia) — but to continue in its new business model which is crumbling daily with still further departures from the past, and is itself becoming increasingly arthritic — together with its remaining customers.

What do you see in all this? What is your assessment of its management and its future as a viable business? The question, of course, is rhetorical, except for a doctrinaire few who maintain that — despite all appearances and metrics — it is actually prospering in its manifest decline.

This is a vignette of the state of the “modern” Catholic Church subsequent to Vatican II. It is the state of the Church today. And many increasingly wonder if it is the same Church at all — given the changes that followed  — and still follow — that ill-fated Council that effectively defected from the Faith and went the Way of the World.
 

Counterfeit: another religion altogether

The profanity euphemized as “The Church of Vatican II” and “The Post-Conciliar Church” or the “Novus Ordo (New Order) Church” is, in fact — and increasingly clearly, given the vast network of homosexual perversion that pervades it at all levels —   an imposter, a meretricious simulacrum; in fact, it is another religion altogether : that is to say, distinct from, and not identical to, nor in continuity with, the Holy Catholic Church that preceded it for 2000 years.

In a Word — Vatican II was a Schism

“The Schismatics” are not — as the liberal media and the godless homosexual priests, bishops, and apparatus would have us believe —  those who return to the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as it was celebrated for generations going back to Christ — and who faithfully adhere to the Teachings and Magisterium of the Church, and to the Sacred Deposit of Faith entrusted to it by Christ Himself — who are . It is the Post-Conciliar Church of Vatican II itself that is Schismatic!

Children’s parents and grandparents tell them of something which once was unspeakably beautiful — and manifestly holy. They pray it will be again.

So do we.
 

Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
August 18, 2018

 

   Printable PDF Version

 



 

Francis — the Great Divider

in the “Post-Modern” Catholic Church

 

 The Two Faces of Pope Francis

 

The Two Faces of Pope Francis
 

Will the Pride and Arrogance of Francis dare even defy God Himself?

 

Much depends upon which side of a Radically Liberal Agenda you Stand

 

Francis is a man of inversions.

If you stand on the right side of him you are well-treated and heard; if you stand on the wrong side of him (as, say, Cardinal Burke) you are dispatched to the Ultima Thule. But the “right” side of Francis is on the Left; and the wrong side of Francis is on the Right.  For all his putative benignity, Francis can be ruthless. It is a side of Francis that receives little attention from the media. He autocratically tolerates no disagreement and is quick to punish or exile. He is not “the man-made-by-the-media”. In an irreconcilable juxtaposition he is ostentatiously humble, trumpeting the humility he tries to equate with himself while failing to exercise that “humility and gentleness” among his own courtiers. That “an atmosphere of fear” pervades the halls of the Vatican is no surprise. His disdain for, and antagonism toward, traditional Catholics and the those who adhere to the Tridentine Mass is well known. But there is no such disdain for openly dissident Catholics such as Kasper and Danneels, both cardinals, who enjoy his favor and to whom he is keen to listen. Indeed, they are part of the inner circle of his closest advisors.

Unlike his immediate predecessor, Francis is openly antagonistic and condescending toward those who do not align themselves with his unquestionably revolutionary  — many would say destructive — liberal agenda that would not only “decentralize” the 2000 year old teaching authority of  Rome, but effectively abdicate the papacy itself ,  leaving all matters ecclesiological in the hands of broadly dispersed Synods (a 1965 creation of Vatican II), Episcopal Conferences (another creation of Vatican II in 1966), local Ordinaries (bishops), and even in parishes themselves, free to articulate the Faith as a “praxis” unique to each local parish’s “creative” expression of the Faith — which may differ entirely from a neighboring parish’s creative impulse and expression of the Faith. The two needn’t be uniform in either teaching or “praxis”. If there is contradiction in the teaching of each — and, eo ipso no unity among them — then that is the most genuine expression of the Church for those particular parishioners, priests, and Parish Council (yet another 1965 creation emerging from Vatican II that deprived the pastor of his authority in the parish. While it is ostensibly an “advisory” group — often comprised of disaffected Catholics — it often works to undermine the unique pastoral responsibility of the priest. Here you find the feminists, the liberal Catholics, the “progressives”, the people who really run the Church). That contradiction exists and flies in the face of reason and logic (specifically the Principle of Non-Contradiction) is beside the point. After all, according to Francis, we must be open to “God surprising us”.

Let us put it bluntly: Francis is not a particularly bright man. This is not to say that being intelligent, coherent, and articulate is indispensable to being holy — but it certainly helps in every other aspect, especially as it pertains to the Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth.

Understanding what Francis is saying concerning extremely important issues should not be an exercise in verbal Sudoku,  an effort to make sense of what he is attempting to say — presuming that he himself “knows” rather than solipsistically intuits what he is saying, leaving the rest of us to guess.

He is a man of tremendous ambiguity despite his vaunted simplicity. There is a distinct lack of clarity often couched in awkward phrases — often neologisms — doubtlessly written for him by others, and the tone, the phraseology, is one often encountered in the lexicon of distinctly liberal circles and among “New Age” thinkers.  What are we to make of such statements as:

“If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: We need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. 'But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!' But do good: We will meet one another there.

Q: Where is “there”? And how is it different from “here” if one is talking with an atheist? Will the atheist no longer be an atheist in that nebulous “there”? Will the Pope no longer be a Catholic when he reaches “there”? If “there” is “in the doing of good”, what is the outcome he suggests will result? That we will find that “we are both doing good and that is good — and it really does not matter if we believe in Christ or not … as long as we are doing good? As long as we are being nice to each other we both will find that Christ is really beside the point and quite unnecessary. We can trade places and our ultimate destiny will be unaffected … as long as we “meet each other there”. In Whom we believe or do not believe is really unimportant (despite what that Person in Whom we believe or do not believe has said concerning belief in Him in very clear and unequivocal terms.)

On the other hand, however insipid and incoherent the statement, it is the logical and inevitable result of an emerging policy in Francis’s papacy that discourages, even forbids, any attempt by a Catholic to convert another to Christ (and through Christ to come to salvation, and ultimately to Heaven (the best possible will we can have toward another: their ultimate, ontological and eternal good — for which we were created in the first place — at least according to authentic Catholic doctrine).

He is also an accomplished showman. His repudiation of the emblems of his office, his refusal to live where his predecessors lived, to deliberately be chauffeured in sub-compacts, to make his own meals — ostensibly to reveal his simplicity —  appears not so much an example to the faithful for their own edification  — as it does a reproach to his predecessors who chose to accept the historical tradition accorded their ecclesiastical office. A cynic may say that it is a carefully and publicly orchestrated slap in the face to his predecessors — which hardly accords with humility.  In fact, the press, the media, are invited to witness and to broadly publicize this exaggerated “humility”. There is something troubling in this ostentation of “humility” which immediately invokes Jesus’ parable in Matthew 6.5: “Do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.”
 

If that is not confusing enough, let us look at another bewildering statement by Francis, invoking one of his “blessed” predecessors:

“Blessed Paul VI expressed this eloquently: “We can imagine, then, that each of our sins, our attempts to turn our back on God, kindles in him a more intense flame of love, a desire to bring us back to himself and to his saving plan …” 

In light of what precisely that “plan” is, and “Who” is putatively involved as quite necessary to it, Francis is not clear, given his rapprochement with the straw atheist. This is a decidedly queer notion with no clear Scriptural or theological credentials, for we had been taught (note the past tense) that sin is an offense to God, an evil so great that it required the very Son of God to die in expiation for it. Following this logic, then, if I wish to be more loved by God then I should sin more often … and the graver the sin, the more intense God’s love, yes?

But that ability to confuse, to render indistinct, is precisely the sine qua non of the agenda of those who boasted of putting him in office (Cardinal Danneels of the infamous “Vatican Mafia” who openly declared that Francis was “their man”, that is to say, the candidate favored by the notorious “St. Gallen Club” who regularly met for years to undermine Pope Benedict’s election, and ultimately his papacy, in order to replace him with “their man”. And who was “their man”? Bergoglio! Surprise! And now, as Francis, the devolution of the Church has been inaugurated. He is merely “the Bishop of Rome” as he fondly refers to himself, and concomitantly diminishes and undermines the universal authority of the papacy itself). This is to say nothing of:

  • Danneels cover up of the pedophile Bishop of Bruges, Roger Vangheluwe, despite the insistence of the bishop’s own nephew who was sexually victimized by him for 14 years and demanded that Danneels bring it to the attention of the pope — which he refused to do.
     

  • This same Cardinal Danneels also vigorously attempted to convince King Baudouin of Belgium to legislate an abortion bill despite the king’s moral reluctance as a matter of conscience (The king stepped down for 36 hours rather than associate his name with the bill that was subsequently passed)
     

  • His approval of and his lobbying for same-sex “unions” which he considered, in his own words, and as a Catholic Cardinal, “a positive development”.
     

  • This same Cardinal Danneels  was the number two appointee to the Synod on the Family! (of all things)  — despite being disgraced … and did we mention that  he is retired? Why was he given this position of such prominence? It is simple: Quid pro quo: something for something. In other words, Francis’s personal invitation and appointment of Danneels was a blatant “thank you!” for Danneels part in having engineered his ascent to the Throne of Peter (the Holy Ghost, of course, is parenthetical to all this). Did we mention that the extremely liberal Cardinal Walter Kasper of Germany — also a member of the same “St. Gallen Club” — was number one on the list? Quid pro quo x 2.

Let us put this into clearer perspective that, unfortunately, requires less imagination. Let us assume that a presidential nominee is elected to office. It is later found that a powerful coterie of conspirators had done everything legal and illegal to place him in office to further their own interests (which may in fact coincide with the president’s). One of the conspirators is found to be deeply involved in criminal activity of the most loathsome sort and the media, seizing upon it, expose him to public outrage. However, the statute of limitations required by law expires before he can be convicted. He then goes on to publicly boast of how instrumental he was in getting the current president elected, and had, in fact, engineered it. Soon after the president assumes office, he assembles a group of advisors. The number one appointee is someone openly disaffected with the Constitution of the United States and makes every effort to undermine it. We are astounded. But that was just the jab. The real blow comes when the number two appointee is the very man who had engaged in unscrupulous and criminal activity — and who had publicly boasted to the news outlets that he was the kingpin in getting the president elected. He is not simply a personal, but a public disgrace!

Would a politician really make so blatant, so egregious, so open a payback as to place this man in his inner circle of advisors — and as the second in the position of influencing the president? Would not the president, rather, distance himself from that figure at all costs as a liability to his own credibility? Of course he would! Obama even distanced himself from his “friend” and “pastor” the “reverend” Jeremiah Wright after preaching “God damn America” … three times in one homily … among many other incendiary remarks? It was political poison to the president.

But it is not a theological and moral outrage that Francis appoints Danneels and Kasper to his own inner circle? It is not just theology and morality — it is stupidity … or worse yet, utter arrogance: “If I can get away with this, I can get away with anything.” And he has. And, to the detriment of the Church, likely will continue to.

 

Very Proud of His Humility ... an Oxymoron

Of course this assessment goes against the prevailing narrative of a man “renowned for his humility” in the secular press. Indeed, he completely agrees with and personally endorses this narrative. In discussing the dismal results of Vatican II we find the following:

“He said the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that brought the church into the modern world, had promised such an opening to people of other faiths and non-believers, but that the church hadn't made progress since then.”
 

“I have the humility and ambition to do so,” he said.” 1
 

What does this say of his predecessors?  That all of them lacked the requisite personal attributes (humility and ambition) to fulfill the revolutionary vision of Vatican II—  while Francis unflinchingly asserts that he possesses what they lacked — and flatly tells us so. Because he possesses the … unique … combination of (self-acclaimed) humility and ambition lacking in his predecessors, he can achieve what they failed to.   Even the most casual Catholic recognizes an inherent conflict in this perplexing and troubling statement. Self-ascribed humility strikes us the wrong way — think of Christ’s parable of the Pharisee and the Publican praying before God), especially when it is coupled with ambition. Are self-acclaimed humility and ambition really exemplary or even complementary virtues in any remotely Catholic discourse? The hubris less-than-implicit in this remarkable statement is given clearer, bolder relief in the following story we find quite revealing and not a little unsettling:


Bankrupt Benevolence:  And I am the pope; I do not need to give reasons.”
 

This is what Pope Francis unceremoniously told Cardinal Müller of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — who dared to disagree with Francis on issues within Amoris Laetitia — when Francis effectively fired him. Technically what he stated is true. It is true of any corporation or business: one can be called in at the end of the day of twenty years of faithful service and be summarily dismissed for no reason — but is rarely exercised because of the odor of autocracy that surrounds it together with the blatant exercise of pitiless power uncommon even in business and industry. Certainly we found no such crude exercise of power within other pontificates of recent memory.  Human dignity demands reasons for such curt dismissals — and so do human beings. It is callous and stinks of supercilious authority, prepotency and crude superiority. In other words, earmarks that have characterized the authoritarian papacy of Francis. It is no more than a slap-down: “I am the Pope ... dammit! ... just do as your told, man!”

So much for the much vaunted mercy, tolerance, gentility, and good-will of this deeply confused and even more confusing pope.

According to Lifesite News,
In an interview with the German newspaper Passauer Neue Presse, Cardinal Müller revealed details of the meeting in which he learned of the Pope’s refusal to renew his 5-year mandate as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).”

Pope Francis, Cardinal Müller said, “communicated his decision” not to renew his term “
within one minute” on the last work day of his five-year-term, and did not give any reasons for it.

The same Cardinal Müller found his own peremptory dismissal reminiscent of Pope Francis’s summary and inexplicable dismissal of three extremely worthy priests from his office at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith; priests that Cardinal Müller found indispensible just before Christmas last year. On that occasion Cardinal Müller politely inquired about their abrupt dismissal as follows:

“Your Holiness, I have received these letters (demanding their dismissal), but I did not do anything because these persons are among the best of my dicastery… what did they do?”
 
The answer was, as follows:
“And I am the pope, I do not need to give reasons for any of my decisions. I have decided that they have to leave and they have to leave.”

He got up and stretched out his hand in order to indicate that the audience was at an end.” (if you wish to read more of this dramatic episode, see: “Before Dismissal of Cardinal Müller,
Pope Asked Five Pointed Questions
”. Note particularly the following: “The pope wants to speak to you.” “Did you tell him I am celebrating Mass?” asked Müller. “Yes,” said the
secretary, “but he says he does not mind—he wants to talk to you all the same.” The cardinal went to the sacristy. The pope, in a very bad mood, gave him some orders and a dossier
concerning one of his friends, a cardinal.”
).


HYPOCRISY

This is the same author of Laudato Si who literally pontificated about “the immense dignity of each person, who is not just something, but someone.” (65) and that “In our time, the Church does not simply state that other creatures ... have no worth in themselves and can be treated as we wish. The German bishops have taught that, where other creatures are concerned, “we can speak of the priority of being over that of being useful” (69)

Why do we even bring this up? Is it character-assassination?  Malice?  No. It is simply relevant. Let us be clear. We wish Pope Francis every good and no evil. This is the correct understanding of loving anyone. We love Pope Francis as Christ commands us to love everyone.

Is this assessment lacking in charity? I think not. Saint Paul rebuked Saint Peter himself  “when [he] saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel but that Peter, "fearing them who were of the circumcision" had acquiesced to what may be considered the first attempt at "ecumenism" (Gal 2.11-14). Did Saint Paul not love Saint Peter? And because he loved him — and because he loved Christ more — he reproached him.

Rarely, in the history of the Church, has a Catholic had to choose with whom to side: Christ or the pope? To side with the pope was to side with Christ! This is no longer so clear, and it is puzzling to many faithful Catholics when Francis advocates that which Christ opposes, or opposes that which Christ mandates. How is a Catholic to accept two contrary counsels ... even commands?

Christ:  “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. (St. Matthew 28.19)

Francis:  “Proselytism is solemn nonsense.

How do we reconcile such completely contradictory exhortations? Have we come to such a state of affairs that Catholics are confronted with choosing between what our Blessed Lord commanded and what Pope Francis disdains as nonsense? This is not simply scandalous ... it verges on — and is a broad and deep current toward — nothing less than heresy: the rejection of what Christ Himself unquestionably taught. There is no other plausible explanation for this contradiction. Such contrariety cannot co-exist in the Church. It is a violent breach of 2000 years of Catholic teaching and doctrine. The heresy of Indifferentism 2 was not repealed by the Second Vatican Council, nor can it ever be, for Christ simply and forcefully stated:  “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. (St. John 14.6)
 

Who are we to Judge?

Is Francis dismantling the Barque of  Peter — plank by plank — or simply following the prevailing winds and steering it into the rocks? Cardinal Burke aptly used the analogy of a ship without a rudder in reference to Pope Francis's apparent lack of reference. Look at the confusion about you and tell us. If the ship is heading toward Lesbos driven by a furious and feckless wind, what are we to do?  Reproach the pilot to avert disaster? But to reproach — however pressing — is to judge, and in in Francis's own words, who are we to do so... ?
 

Amoris Laetitia — the First Apostolic Exhortation to Sin!

And this ... this is to utter nothing of the horrific scandal and heresy inherent in Francis’s troubled Amoris Laetitia, an Apostolic Exhortation — to sin! Perhaps the first ever: against Christ's own teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, the sin of adultery, His unequivocal injunction against divorce, and Saint Paul’s stern admonition against receiving Holy Communion unworthily (1 Corinthians 11.27) — the very Body and Blood of Christ — while in a state of mortal sin (adultery)!

And Francis presumes to abrogate what Christ Himself established? Indeed, all 4?

Two days ago (August 2, 2018) Francis had the audacity to change the Catechism of the Catholic Church, abolishing the more than 2000 year old Church Teaching that the State has the right to impose the death penalty on individuals for certain heinous crimes (Luther and Calvin  agreed with this as do Muslims and many Atheists). The point to consider, however, is the precedent Francis is establishing in no longer preserving and protecting 2000 years of Church teaching, which is his primary duty as the Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth, but in fact abolishing it! This is to say nothing of the egregious implication that what the Church has taught from the beginning has been corrupt, and up until  now (that is to say, up until Francis) immoral!

He is the first to have done so.

Does Francis’s defection from Church teaching constitute formal heresy? We cannot answer that, although the odor is distinct. That is the competency of the College of Cardinals which, up until now, has been habitually and remarkably silent and — dare we say — pusillanimous. Courage and careerism seldom coincide — as we have repeatedly witnessed in today’s ... “delicate” ... Episcopacy. As G.K. Chesterton appositely noted, “only live fish go against the current.

This much is vital: we must ask, perforce, how many more corrections, deletions, and amendments to Catholic Teaching found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and in violation of the Sacred Deposit of the Faith are now open — by Francis’s precedent? This is an extremely serious question.

Did not someone speak of the reek of sulfur in the Vatican? How prescient!

Archbishop Tomash Peta who sat on the Synod that produced this document observed that: “Blessed Paul VI in 1972: 'From some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.' I am convinced that these were prophetical words...” https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/bishop-vatican-synod-one-can-still-perceive-smell-smoke-satan-synod-document

So are we.

_______________________________________


1  http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2013/10/pope_francis_urges_reform_want.html

2  “Indifferentism” is the belief that it does not matter what religion a man professes; he can attain to salvation by any religion. The Church has roundly condemned this notion as a heresy in very strong language, holding it to be a denial of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation). Here, we feature a brief passage from Mirari Vos, by the last great monk-pope, Gregory XVI (August 15, 1832). All emphasis (bold and italics), are ours; paragraph numbers, and reference numbers appear as in the original:


"13. 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”[16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,”[17] and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”[18] Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: “He who is for the See of Peter is for me.”[19] A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?”[20]

14. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit”[22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty."

— Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos
http://catholicism.org/indifferentism-is-a-condemned-heresy-gregory-xvis-mirari-vos.html 

 

Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
Friday August 3, 2018
 

   Printable PDF Version

Comments? Write us:  editor@boston-catholic-journal.com

 

Further Reading on the Papacy of Francis:

 

 


 

 

Francis as “the Prince”

 

Francis: The Machiavellian Prince

 

and the Logical Conclusion of Vatican II

 

 

Francis is the logical conclusion of the Second Vatican Council understood as the Assisted Suicide of the ChurchHe is the logical consequent of nearly every flawed statement, every questionable postulate, and every sophistical premise either substantive or implicit, within Vatican II as so many antecedents to a catastrophically spurious argument.  As he himself stated as early as 2013 — but not before a rude  slap in the face to all his predecessors (one still alive: Pope “Emeritus” Benedict):   
 

“In the interview, Francis denounced the “Vatican-centric” nature of the Holy See administration and acknowledged that popes past had been infatuated with the pomp of the
Vatican and its “courtesans.”
and then:

“He said the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that brought the church into the modern world, had promised such an opening to people of other faiths and non-believers,
but that the church hadn’t made progress since then.”
1
 

He then went further, to make the paradoxical claim that:

I have the humility and ambition to do so,” he said.” 1


In other words, “I, Francis the celebrated, acclaimed, and famously humble and unpretentious — propose to fully actualize all the nonsense embodied in the equally celebrated (albeit spurious) ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ because I alone among all my predecessors have the real humilityand ambition — that they lacked — and the iron will to do so! Bet on it.”

 

 Let us ponder that for a moment, for it is fraught with significance.

Does a humble man boast of his humility? Of course not, for he sees the contradiction inherent in such a question.

More troubling still is the question: is ambition consonant with humility in a pope?

At the apex of power (at which Francis now sits) ambition can dangerously verge on Machiavellian. As Niccolo observed  in his famous work, The Prince, “Ambition is so powerful a passion in the heart, that however high we reach we are never satisfied.”
 

How Far?

Machiavelli was a vehement atheist. Francis is an unbridled progressivist (radical liberal).  In both cases, however otherwise divergent, the pressing question appears identical: “How far can I go? What can I get away with? To what extent can I push the limits of this power vested in me? To the point where power prevails over truth?”

These are serious questions, especially as they pertain to the Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth.

Has the Church, as Francis insists, really been stagnant for 50 years — until the epiphany of Francis who alone can achieve what Vatican II proposed — because he alone has the humility to accomplish this, coupled with an unbending determination? Is there something disconcerting about this statement? Even contradictory?

What is more, we need only look at the anemic state of the Church following Vatican II:  the dearth of clergy, religious, seminarians — the aging and emptying pews … to see that no such “stagnation” in the Church occurred. To the contrary, prior to Vatican II it was a Church full of vitality in every conceivable metric — and growing exponentially!

To understand how Francis arrives at this spurious conclusion we must first understand that Francis is the quintessential product of a unique generation.  He is among the last of that now dwindling generation (thank God) who themselves were products of the psychotropic culture of the 1960’s — which, in our rear-view mirror — is a now barely visible, and from which we cannot speed away fast enough. It has long begun to fade to fatuity. Most of us have, by now, come to our senses and recognize this.

 
A Deadly Age

It was a deadly age, a noxious age whose poison still leeches into Western society. At a given stratum it will be percolated through reason, eventually strained of its poison, and become the historical nonsense it was — even if it contaminated so much and so many lives before it was bleached out of our consciousness and finally became innocuous , together with the psychedelic caricature of a reality it had never known. Timothy Leary, et alia, “Turned on, tuned in, dropped out” and in alignment with his not-so-famous literary micropiece “Design for Dying — Dying? Throw a House Party! ” — dropped dead.

The Age of Aquarius and the Psilocybin mushroom are dead and what is left of that sad crop are dying leaves on a withering tree, fretted by songs still strummed by the arthritic hands of the elderly on guitars three times the age of the audience. They are pathetic figures clinging to a youth that betrayed them to an old age that wasn’t supposed to happen in the euphoric Flower Days.

In truth it was a miserable age that opiated America; an age that filled the valleys and made the mountains low — for the coming of the Flower Child who littered it with filth. It was Woodstock after the rain and the music stopped: a wasteland of plastic trash, condoms and roach clips.
 

The Segue into Vatican II

Same time, same culture, same euphoria, same mantra against inhibition, same contempt for authority, same disdain for absolutes. It was the time to experiment with society, with minds, and — most sadly — with souls. While students occupied the chancellor’s office at the university, “liberated” Catholic theologians, together with Avant-guard bishops and their ecumenically requisite Protestant advisors occupied the Vatican.

“The Establishment” was shut out — in academic, ecclesiastic and civil society. “Old school” was out. “New school” was in: a new and radical school of theology and spirituality; new interpretation, “exegesis”, “hermeneutics”, and now “discernment”.  “Dogma” became “anathema” and “anathema” was finally scrubbed from the Catholic lexicon altogether: both became something  pejorative: nothing was incontrovertibly true (itself a reflexive contradiction).

Latin as an Ecclesiastical Marker or Identifier was out. Banality was in. Priests spoke the vernacular and finally realized that they had nothing to say. Homily became comedy. Comedy became skit. The Guitar is King! — no longer Christ Jesus. And the only Choir we know is not of Angels: they ceased their accompaniment with us when “Liturgists” discarded Gregorian Chant in favor of the insipid ditties of Marty Haugen who is Lutheran or the “Saint Louis Jesuits (not all of whom remain Jesuits, or priests, or even Christians.”1)

 

No going back: DNR and the Church as a Hospice

New vestments, new language(s), new Mass, new spirituality that emphasized man through a unilateral (Catholics gave up virtually everything. Protestants relinquished nothing) effort at a newly-reformulated notion of “ecumenism” instead of salvation. Nun’s and Sister’s Habits were shortened, then abbreviated, then thrown out. The new “cool” was the collarless priest, the unidentifiable Sister. The various “Conferences of Catholic Bishops” (which have no binding authority) became social, then political. The Church effectively became the “field hospital” envisioned by Francis — but it was also the only patient — mortally wounded, and strapped to it was the purple rescript DNR (“Do Not Resuscitate or Revive”) upon the inauguration of Francis as pope with a ready hand on the plug. Vatican II, it turns out, was really an act of Assisted Suicide as Francis has more than amply demonstrated and the Church has become less a “field hospital” than a hospice. “Better that the one true Church die than acknowledge our mistakes and return to the business of saving souls as we had done for the 2000 years preceding Vatican II.” But even the model of a hospice is inadequate, for after the last Catholic dies, the hospice itself altogether ceases to be. This is nihilism — not Catholicism — and it has been for some time.
 

The Birth of Theo-Politics

Theo-politics
was born. Peace, Poverty, Immigration, Inclusiveness, Equality, Linguistic Neuterization in the Liturgy, Feminism, and “Ministries” without meaning or number became the New Evangel. The salvation of souls?  Not a chance. That outdated mandate belonged to the 2000 years prior to the Second Vatican Council — and is something of an embarrassment to contemporary Catholic priests, theologians, scholars, and … yes … laymen. Ask yourself: when was the last time you so much as even heard that phrase at Church? Modernism — that synthesis of all heresies — replaced every vestige of the theological concept of Tradition that is inseparable from the identity of the Church especially as it is articulated through infallible Church Teaching and Dogma.

The Kingdom of God became the Polity of Man. Language was purged of “salvation”, “soul”,  “Hell”, “Penance”, “repentance”, “Mary”, woman, virgin, man, he, she, her, hers, his, gender, evil, the devil, conversion,  sin, suffering, chastity, mortification — anything that stifled the desires of men and the ambitions of women. Heaven now has Open Borders — and they are coterminous with earth.
 

A Replica or a Counterfeit?

We built a simulacrum, a meretricious and largely plastic replica of the Kingdom of Heaven and placed in on earth — complete with electric votive candles.  And yet, for all its semblance we secretly fear it is counterfeit.  It is little wonder that we fear dying and leaving our Kingdom … for, perhaps, another and fabled Kingdom of which we heard long ago where Someone else ruled and in which the totality of man did not abide, given his sin, selfishness, cruelty, malice and indifference to God — a place of ceaseless Light and no fire divided from a chasm of ceaseless fire with no Light.

 But we know that Vatican II — or at least it’s true “spirit” abolished all that 50 years ago. “Everyone and everything goes to “Heaven” — despite the explicit teaching of Christ to the contrary (Saint Matthew 7.13-14).

 Does this appalling vision offend you? Have I injured your “sensibilities”?

Reality is like that — much like the “Reality TV Shows” that you probably watch. Not every episode has a good ending. Many do not even have a good beginning — much like Vatican II — and even more apropos of the spectacle that is Francis as its culmination.

__________________________________________

1 Associated Press http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2013/10/pope_francis_urges_reform_want.html

2 https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otr.cfm?id=3844

3 Niccolo Machiavelli — The Prince

 

Geoffrey K. Mondello
for the Boston Catholic Journal
April 19, 2018

   Printable PDF Version

Comments? Write us:  editor@boston-catholic-journal.com

 



Martyrology for today:

 

ROMAN MARTYROLOGY

Sunday August 19th in the Year of Grace 2018

Time after Pentecost


This Day, the Nineteenth Day of August

At Rome, St. Julius, senator and martyr, who was delivered up to the judge Vitellius, and by him thrown into prison. By order of the emperor Commodus, he was beaten with  rods until he expired. His body was buried in the cemetery of Calepodius on the Aurelian road.

In Cilicia, the birthday of St. Andrew, tribune, and his military companions, who were converted to Christianity through a miraculous victory they had gained over the Persians. Being accused on this account, they were massacred in the defiles of Mount Taurus by the army of the governor Seleueus, under the emperor Maximian.

In Palestine, St. Timothy, a martyr, in the persecution of Diocletian, under the governor Urbanus. After overcoming many torments, he was consumed with a slow fire.

In the same country suffered also Thecla and Agapius. The former being exposed to the beasts, was torn to pieces by their teeth, and went to her spouse; but Agapius, after enduring many torments, was reserved for greater combats.

At Anagni, St. Magnus, bishop and martyr, who was put to death in the persecution of Decius.

At the castle of Brignoles, in Provence, the demise of St. Louis, bishop of Toulouse, of the Order of Friars Minor, renowned for holiness of life and miracles. His body was taken thence to Marseilles, and buried with due honors in the church of the Friars Minor.

In the neighborhood of Sisteron, in France, blessed Donatus, priest and confessor. Being from his very infancy endowed with the grace of God in an extraordinary manner, he lived the life of an anchoret for many years, and after having been renowned for glorious miracles, went to Christ.

In the territory of Bourges, St. Marian, confessor.

At Mantua, St. Rufinus, confessor.

At Rome, blessed Urban II, Pope, who followed in the footsteps of St. Gregory VII, in his zeal for learning and religion, and fired the crusaders with enthusiasm for the recovery of the holy places in Palestine from the power of the infidels. The veneration paid to him from time immemorial Pope Leo XIII approved and confirmed.

And elsewhere in divers places, many other holy martyrs, confessors, and holy virgins.


Omnes sancti Mártyres, oráte pro nobis. ("All ye Holy Martyrs, pray for us", from the Litaniae Sanctorum, the Litany of the Saints)

Response: Thanks be to God.

 


 


Roman Martyrology by Month
 

 


 

Why the Martyrs Matter



Each day we bring you a calendar, a list really, of the holy Martyrs who had suffered and died for Christ, for His Bride the Church, and for our holy Catholic Faith; men and women for whom — and well they knew — their Profession of Faith would cost them their lives.

They could have repudiated all three (Christ, Church, and Catholic Faith) and kept their lives for a short time longer (even the lapsi only postponed their death — and at so great a cost!).1

What would motivate men, women, even children and entire families to willingly undergo the most evil and painfully devised tortures; to suffer death rather than denial?

Why did they not renounce their Catholic Faith when the first flame licked at their feet, after the first eye was plucked out, or after they were “baptized” in mockery by boiling water or molten lead poured over their heads? Why did they not flee to offer incense to the pagan gods since such a ritual concession would be merely perfunctory, having been done, after all, under duress, exacted by the compulsion of the state? What is a little burned incense and a few words uttered without conviction, compared to your own life and the lives of those you love? Surely God knows that you are merely placating the state with empty gestures …

Did they love their wives, husbands, children — their mothers, fathers and friends less than we do? Did they value their own lives less? Were they less sensitive to pain than we are? In a word, what did they possess that we do not?

Nothing. They possessed what we ourselves are given in the Sacrament of Confirmation — but cleaved to it in far greater measure than we do: Faith and faithfulness; fortitude and valor, uncompromising belief in the invincible reality of God, of life eternal in Him for the faithful, of damnation everlasting apart from Him for the unfaithful; of the ephemerality of this passing world and all within it, and lives lived in total accord with that adamant belief.

We are the Martyrs to come. What made them so will make us so. What they suffered we will suffer. What they died for, we will die for. If only we will! For most us, life will be a bloodless martyrdom, a suffering for Christ, for the sake of Christ, for the sake of the Church in a thousand ways outside the arena. The road to Heaven is lined on both sides with Crosses, and upon the Crosses people, people who suffered unknown to the world, but known to God. Catholics living in partibus infidelium, under the scourge of Islam. Loveless marriages. Injustices on all sides. Poverty. Illness. Old age. Dependency. They are the cruciform! Those whose lives became Crosses because they would not flee God, the Church, the call to, the demand for, holiness in the most ordinary things of life made extraordinary through the grace of God. The Martyrology we celebrate each day is just a vignette, a small, immeasurably small, sampling of the martyrdom that has been the lives of countless men and women whom Christ and the Angels know, but whom the world does not know.

“Exemplum enim dedi vobis”, Christ said to His Apostles: “I have given you an example.” And His Martyrs give one to us — and that is why the Martyrs matter.


Geoffrey K. Mondello
Contributing Editor
B
oston Catholic Journal


Note: We suggest that you explore our newly edited and revised “De SS. Martyrum Cruciatibus — The Torments and Tortures of the Christian Martyrs” for an in-depth historical account of the sufferings of the Martyrs.

 

 

INTRODUCTION TO THE ROMAN MARTYROLOGY

By J. Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop Baltimore


THE ROMAN MARTYROLOGY is an official and accredited record, on the pages of which are set forth in simple and brief, but impressive words, the glorious deeds of the Soldiers of Christ in all ages of the Church; of the illustrious Heroes and Heroines of the Cross, whom her solemn verdict has beatified or canonized. In making up this long roll of honor, the Church has been actuated by that instinctive wisdom with which the Spirit of God, who abides in her and teaches her all truth, has endowed her, and which permeates through and guides all her actions. She is the Spouse of Christ, without spot or wrinkle or blemish, wholly glorious and undefiled, whom He loved, for whom He died, and to whom He promised the Spirit of Truth, to comfort her in her dreary pilgrimage through this valley of tears, and to abide with her forever. She is one with Him in Spirit and in love, she is subject to Him in all things; she loves what He loves, she teaches and practices what He commands.

If the world has its Legions of Honor, why should not also the Church of the Living God, the pillar and the ground of the truth? If men who have been stained with blood, and women who have been tainted with vice, have had their memory consecrated in prose and in verse, and monuments erected to their memory, because they exhibited extraordinary talents, achieved great success, or were, to a greater or less extent, benefactors of their race in the temporal order, which passeth away, why should not the true Heroes and Heroines of Jesus, who, imitating His example, have overcome themselves, risen superior to and trampled upon the world, have aspired, in all their thoughts, words, and actions, to a heavenly crown, and have moreover labored with disinterested zeal and self-forgetting love for the good of their fellow-men, have their memories likewise consecrated and embalmed in the minds and hearts of the people of God? If time have its heroes, why should not eternity; if man, why should not God? Thy friends, O Lord, are exceedingly honored; their principality is exceedingly exalted.Whom His Father so dearly loved, the world crucified; whom the world neglects, despises, and crucifies, God, through His Church, exceedingly honors and exalts. Their praises are sung forth, with jubilation of heart, in the Church of God for ages on ages.

The wisdom of the Church of God in honoring her Saints is equaled only by the great utility of the practice thus consecrated. The Saints are not merely heroes; they are models. Christ lived in them, and Christ yet speaks through them. They were the living temples of the Holy Ghost, in whose mortal bodies dwelt all the riches of His wisdom and grace. They were in life consecrated human exemplars of divine excellence and perfection. Their example still appeals to our minds and to our hearts, more eloquently even than did their words to the men of their own generation, while they were in the tabernacle of the flesh. Though dead, they still speak. Their relics are instinct with sanctity, and through them they continue to breathe forth the sweet odor of Christ. The immortality into which they have entered still lingers in their bones, and seems to breathe in their mortal remains. As many an ardent, spirit has been induced to rush to the cannon's mouth by reading the exploits of earthly heroes, so many a generous Christian soul has been fired with heavenly ardor, and been impelled to rush to the crown of martyrdom, by reading the lives and heroic achievements of the Saints and Martyrs of Christ. Example, in its silent appeal, is more potent in its influence on the human heart and conduct than are words in their most eloquent utterances.

The Church knows and feels all this, in the Spirit of God with whom she is replenished ; and hence she sets forth, with holy joy and exultant hope, her bright and ever-increasing Calendar of Sanctity of just men and women made perfect and rendered glorious, under her unearthly and sublime teachings. In reading this roll of consecrated holiness, our instinctive conclusion is, precisely that which the great soul of St. Augustine reached at the very crisis of his life, the moment of his conversion If other men like me have attained to such sanctity, why not I? Shall the poor, the afflicted, the despised of the World, bear away the palm of victory, the crown of immortality, while I lie buried in my sloth and dead in my sins, and thus lose the brilliant and glorious mansion already prepared for me in heaven? Shall all the gifts, which God has lavished upon me, be ingloriously spent and foolishly wasted, in the petty contest for this world's evanescent honors and riches, while the poor and contemned lay up treasures in heaven, and secure the prize of immortal glory? Shall others be the friends of God, whom He delights to honor, while I alone remain His enemy, and an alien from His blessed Kingdom?

It is a consoling evidence of progress in the spiritual life in this country to find the Martyrology here published, for the first time, in English, and thereby made accessible, in its rich treasures of Sanctity, to all classes of our population. It will prove highly edifying and useful, not only to the members of our numerous religious Communities of both sexes, but also to the laity generally. Every day has here its record of Sanctity; and there is scarcely a Christian, no matter how lowly or how much occupied, who may not be able to daily peruse, with faith and with great profit, the brief page of each day's models of Holiness. These belong to all classes and callings of life; from the throne to the hovel, from the Pontiff to the lowest cleric, from the philosopher to the peasant, from the busy walks of life to the dreary wastes of the desert.

Let all, then, procure and read daily the appropriate portions of this Martyrology. Its daily and pious perusal will console us in affliction, will animate us in despondency, will make our souls glow with the love of God in coldness, and will lift up our minds and hearts from this dull and ever-changing earth to the bright and everlasting mansions prepared for us in Heaven!

Imprimatur,  J. Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop Baltimore, Maryland 1916

   Printable PDF Version

 



 

 


THE APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
 

QUO PRIMUM

 

(and what Forever really means)

 

Pope Pius V Catechism of Trent

 

From the very first, upon Our elevation to the chief Apostleship, We gladly turned our mind and energies and directed all out thoughts to those matters which concerned the preservation of a pure liturgy, and We strove with God's help, by every means in our power, to accomplish this purpose. For, besides other decrees of the sacred Council of Trent, there were stipulations for Us to revise and re-edit the sacred books: the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary. With the Catechism published for the instruction of the faithful, by God's help, and the Breviary thoroughly revised for the worthy praise of God, in order that the Missal and Breviary may be in perfect harmony, as fitting and proper —  for it is most becoming that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass — We deemed it necessary to give our immediate attention to what still remained to be done, viz, the re-editing of the Missal as soon as possible.

Hence, We decided to entrust this work to learned men of our selection. They very carefully collated all their work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved or emended codices from elsewhere. Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers. When this work has been gone over numerous times and further emended, after serious study and reflection, We commanded that the finished product be printed and published as soon as possible, so that all might enjoy the fruits of this labor; and thus, priests would know which prayers to use and which rites and ceremonies they were required to observe from now on in the celebration of Masses.

Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us.
This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women — even of military orders — and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever.

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding.

All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by
this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.

We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.

Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that
this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remains always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription — except, however, if more than two hundred years' standing.

It is Our will, therefore, and by the same authority, We decree that, after We publish this constitution and the edition of the Missal, the priests of the Roman Curia are, after thirty days, obliged to chant or read the Mass according to it; all others south of the Alps, after three months; and those beyond the Alps either within six months or whenever the Missal is available for sale. Wherefore, in order that the Missal be preserved incorrupt throughout the whole world and kept free of flaws and errors, the penalty for nonobservance for printers, whether mediately or immediately subject to Our dominion, and that of the Holy Roman Church, will be the forfeiting of their books and a fine of one hundred gold ducats, payable ipso facto to the Apostolic Treasury. Further, as for those located in other parts of the world, the penalty is excommunication latae sententiae, and such other penalties as may in Our judgment be imposed; and We decree by this law that they must not dare or presume either to print or to publish or to sell, or in any way to accept books of this nature without Our approval and consent, or without the express consent of the Apostolic Commissaries of those places, who will be appointed by Us. Said printer must receive a standard Missal and agree faithfully with it and in no wise vary from the Roman Missal of the large type (secundum magnum impressionem).

Accordingly, since it would be difficult for this present pronouncement to be sent to all parts of the Christian world and simultaneously come to light everywhere, We direct that it be, as usual, posted and published at the doors of the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, also at the Apostolic Chancery, and on the street at Campo Flora; furthermore, We direct that printed copies of this same edict signed by a notary public and made official by an ecclesiastical dignitary possess the same indubitable validity everywhere and in every nation, as if Our manuscript were shown there.
Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should anyone dare to contravene it, know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

    
Given at St. Peter
s in the year of the Lord's Incarnation, 1570, on the 14th of July of the Fifth year of Our Pontificate.

 

   Printable PDF Version

 

 

 

 


Search the Boston Catholic Journal


FREE CATHOLIC
AUDIO
LIBRARY


Free Catholic Audio Library
Download Catholic Prayers
and more


The Metaphysics of
Christian Mysticism

The Metaphysics of Mysticism — St. John of the Cross: Reason, Revelation, and the inexorable Logic of the Ascent of the Soul to God by Geoffrey K. Mondello

St. John of the Cross:
Reason, Revelation, and the inexorable Logic of the Ascent of the Soul to God


by:
Geoffrey K. Mondello

available at Amazon


The End

Archbishop Fulton Sheen - The Fourth Great Crisis in the Church - The End of Christendom

of Christendom

“The Fourth Great Crisis
of the Church”

 Why the  Church
— and the West
are withering

An audio presentation


The Little Office

The Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary

of the
Blessed Virgin Mary


Saint Michael the Archangel

Prayer to Saint Michael against satan


Novena to St Jude

 Novena to St Jude Printable 4-fold with one piece of paper
Printable Booklet
on 1 sheet
of paper, 4-fold, free


With Mary in the Rose Garden
Mary Immaculate, Mother of God
Reflections on the Rosary
with a Poor Clare Nun and Padre Pio


The Baltimore Catechism

Discover what the Church really teaches
Download the PDF

Thoughts in Passing about our Holy Catholic Faith

Thoughts in Passing
on our Life in Faith


The Practice of the Presence of God
by
 Brother Lawrence

Complete Audio Files


Father Michael Schmitz

Father Mike Schmitz — Homilies

A Passion for Preaching


Pope Saint Pius X
Pray for us

Pope St. Pius X Pray for us

“I shall spare myself neither care nor labor nor vigils for the salvation of souls”

 

  

Boston Catholic Journal
 

Totally Faithful to the Sacred Deposit of Faith entrusted to the Holy See in Rome

 Scio opera tua ... quia modicum habes virtutem, et servasti verbum Meum, nec non negasti Nomen Meum 
I know your works ... that you have but little power, and yet you have kept My word, and have not denied My Name. (Apocalypse 3.8)


 

Copyright © 2004 - 2018 Boston Catholic Journal. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise stated, permission is granted by the Boston Catholic Journal for the copying and distribution of the articles and audio files under the following conditions:
No additions, deletions, or changes are to be made to the text or audio files in any way, and the copies may not be sold for a profit. In the reproduction, in any format of any image, graphic, text, or audio file, attribution must be given to the Boston Catholic Journal.