In Name Only

In Name Only?

Traditional Catholics “believe that there should be a restoration of many or all of the liturgical forms, public and private devotions and presentation of Catholic teachings which prevailed in the Catholic Church before the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_Catholic) Some traditional groups are on favorable terms with the Vatican; some are not. Sedevacantists “regard the Pope and the bishops of the ‘official’ Church as having fallen into heresy and having therefore forfeited their authority.” (wikipedia.com, see above). Hence, they consider the Chair of Peter vacant. Conclavists are sedevacantists who have selected their own pope to fill the Chair vacated by the post-Vatican II Church. For the past several weeks I have immersed myself in the arguments leveled by Traditional Catholics against the post-Vatican II Church, and I must admit that they have caused me several sleepless nights. The manner in which the postVatican II Church has disowned Catholic tradition has left me questioning whether today’s Church is Roman Catholic in name only. I have read statements made by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI which contradict the teachings of previous popes and of ecumenical councils. Dare I say that some of these appear heretical and even border on apostasy? I understand revelation develops over time, so changes in Church teaching are common . . . but not to this extent. The changes I’ve come across undermine the foundation of the Faith. Many of the encyclicals and documents cited in this report were found on the website of the Traditional Catholic sedevacantist group Most Holy Family Monastery (www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com). The availability of these citations saved me many months of detective work. I am not a theologian, nor am I an expert in Church history. I am simply a postVatican II Roman Catholic who is disturbed and disheartened by what I’ve encountered in my research. I encourage all to comment, but especially those who wish to defend today’s Church. I would like nothing more than to be proven wrong. I have addressed three issues of the Church that most glaringly contradict Church tradition: ecumenism, the liturgy, and salvation.

Ecumenism Non-Catholic Christians •

“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matthew 16: 18-19)

•

“He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.” (John 21: 17)

Christ makes it clear in the above Gospel passages that Peter is to occupy the central role among the apostles. In the first example Peter alone is given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. In the second example our Lord instructs only Peter to “Feed my sheep”. In both instances despite the presence of other apostles, Christ singles out Peter, the future Bishop of Rome and the Church’s first Pope. Our Lord discloses that Peter, and thus the Church through which his succession will pass, is the “rock” upon which “I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18). And the Lord also makes it clear that it will be solely through the Chair of Peter that sins will be absolved and salvation found. The Roman Church has professed this view since its inception, as can be seen from the papal statements below. •

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one.”

•

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives . . .

•

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

It seems crystal clear based on the above statements that any church not in conformity with the Roman Church is in schism, resulting in a loss of its spiritual authority and a separation from the Holy Spirit’s guidance. But this isn’t the case

apparently according to the statements below extracted from Vatican II documents, and from the writings of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI: •

Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio #3: “For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church- whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church- do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”

•

Vatican II document, Unitatis redintegratio # 9: “We must get to know the outlook of our separated fellow Christians… Most valuable for this purpose are meetings of the two sides – especially for discussion of theological problems – where each side can treat with the other on an equal footing, provided that those who take part in them under the guidance of their authorities are truly competent.”

•

John Paul II, Homily, Dec. 5, 1996, speaking of prayer with non-Catholics: “When we pray together, we do so with the longing ‘that there may be one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and sent forth to the whole world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God’.

•

“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Dominus Iesus #17, approved by John Paul II, Aug. 6, 2000: "Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church."

This is illogical. If Christ proclaimed that he is building his Church on Peter, then the Chair of Peter holds supremacy. How then can other churches not in conformity with Peter be treated as anything other than heretics, responsible for drawing Christ’s flock away from his true Church? If there is a separation in Christ’s Church it can only be resolved by the schismatics returning to the Roman Church, not through finding any middle-ground between all parties involved. If this is not the case and non-Roman Catholic churches are equal to Rome, then what’s the point of being a Roman Catholic? Your street corner Evangelical or Presbyterian Church will serve the same function. This religious indifferentism toward Christian churches would have incensed previous popes. •

Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824: “It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal salvation on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”

•

Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862: “There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with

great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff.”

•

Pope Pius VI, Charitas (# 32), April 13, 1791: “Finally, in one word, stay close to Us. For no one can be in the Church of Christ without being in unity with its visible head and founded on the See of Peter.”

Predictably, as a result of this declaration that all Christian churches are in communion with Christ, the post-Vatican II Church has decided that there is no longer a need to proselytize to these groups. •

“There is no proselytism as a directive on the part of the Holy See, nor is there any intention to convert Russia to Roman Catholicism.” --Igor Kovalevsky, Secretary General of the Novus Ordo "Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops" of Russia (May 2004)

Think you’re confused now? Wait until you read about the post-Vatican II approach to non-Christian religions. Non-Christian Religions •

“I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.” (John 15: 5).

•

“Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.” (John 14: 6)

•

“Then Jesus said to them: ‘Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. ’” (John 6: 54-55)

Christ’s instructions are clear: if you want eternal life, you must go through him. Now consider Christ’s words as you read the quotes below. •

Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium # 16: “But the plan of salvation also embraces those who acknowledge the Creator, and among these the MOSLEMS are first; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham and along with us they worship the one merciful God who will judge humanity on the last day.”

•

Vatican II document, Nostra aetate # 3: “The Church also looks upon Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves wholeheartedly, just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God… Hence they have regard for the moral life and worship God in prayer, almsgiving and fasting.”

•

Vatican II document, Nostra aetate # 2: “In Buddhism, according to its various forms, the radical inadequacy of this changeable world is acknowledged and a way is taught whereby those with a devout and trustful spirit may be able to reach either a state of perfect freedom or, relying on their own efforts or on help from a higher source, the highest illumination.”

•

Paul VI, General Audience to Japanese Buddhists, Sept. 5, 1973: “It is a great pleasure for us to welcome the members of the Japanese Buddhists Europe Tour, honored followers of the Soto-shu sect of Buddhism… At the Second Vatican Council the Catholic Church exhorted her sons and daughters to study and evaluate the religious traditions of mankind and to ‘learn by sincere and patient dialogue what treasures a bountiful God has distributed among the nations of the earth’ (Ad Gentes, 11)… Buddhism is one of the riches of Asia…”

•

Vatican II document, Nostra aetate # 2: “Thus in Hinduism the divine mystery is explored and propounded with an inexhaustible wealth of myths and penetrating philosophical investigations, and liberation is sought from the distresses of our state either through various forms of ascetical life or deep meditation or taking refuge in God with loving confidence.”

•

John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 6), March 4, 1979: “Does it not sometimes happen that the firm belief of the followers of the non-Christian religions – a belief that is also an effect of the Spirit of truth operating outside the visible confines of the Mystical Body…”

•

John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (# 56), Dec. 7, 1990: “Other religions constitute a positive challenge for the Church: they stimulate her both to discover and acknowledge the signs of Christ’s presence and of the working of the Spirit.”

•

Mother Teresa: “I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic.” (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/32_Religiousorders.pdf - p 12)

•

Mother Teresa also stated: “Some call Him Ishwar, some call Him Allah, some simply God, but we have to acknowledge that it is He who made us for greater things: to love and be loved. What matters is that we love. We cannot love without prayer, and so whatever religion we are, we must pray together.” (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/32_Religiousorders.pdf - p 13)

Dumbfounded is the only word that can describe my reaction to the above statements. If there is a moral equivalence between all religions, then Christ, his crucifixion, and his resurrection are irrelevant. And my question, once again, to the post-Vatican II Church is simple: why be a Roman Catholic? If those who do not follow Christ are capable of receiving the same eternal rewards as his followers, then why suffer through Christ’s difficult demands. Our Lord insists that “if any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” (Matthew 16:24) Under these circumstances of religious indifferentism, surrendering yourself to Christ’s wishes would be irrational. It would be like riding a tricycle to a destination when you have access to a car.

There is also the issue of the 1st commandment. “I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.” (Exodus, 1-3) Doesn’t equating the deities of polytheistic and pantheistic religions with the monotheistic God of the bible violate the prohibition against having strange gods? •

Hinduism is a religion in which "there can be as many Hindu gods as there are devotees to suit the moods, feelings, emotions and social backgrounds of the devotees." (Sri Ramakrishna, Hindu saint)

•

Buddhism argues that “all have the opportunity to strive for Buddhahood” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism) In other words all can become God.

•

Animism “refers to the belief systems that attribute souls or spirits to animals, plants and other entities, in addition to humans.” Those other entities may include “natural phenomena, geographic features, everyday objects, and manufactured articles.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism)

•

Native Americans believe in over 200 gods according to www.godchecker.com

Yet, members from each of these 1st commandment-violating religions met with Pope John Paul II on at least one occasion. In some cases the pontiff allowed himself to be blessed by them; in other cases, he blessed them. In 1986 at the World Day of Prayer for Peace, the Pope invited over 100 religious leaders from around the world to Assisi, Italy for a prayer service. At one point he even allowed the Dalai Lama to place a statue of Buddha on the Assisi Church’s tabernacle. (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/16_JohnPaulII.pdf) Pope Benedict XVI embraced those of the Muslim faith. In 2006 he participated in a service at Istanbul’s Blue Mosque, going so far as to cross his arms in the “Muslim prayer gesture called ‘the gesture of tranquility’” while turning to face Mecca. (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/20_BenedictXVI.pdf ) What were these popes thinking? Placing an idol on the same tabernacle where Christ’s Body and Blood is kept? Simulating the prayer gestures of another religion while attending a gathering at its house of worship? Is this the “abomination of desolation” spoken of in the New Testament? My hair stood on end when I saw photos of these events. And what place do the Jews occupy in this new ecumenical movement? Christ said he came for “the lost sheep of Israel”, but apparently he wasted his time because post-Vatican II teachings assert that there are no wayward Jews. •

John Paul II, Meeting on the Roots of Anti-Semitism, 1997: “This people [the Jewish people] has been called and led by God, Creator of Heaven and Earth. Their existence then is not a mere natural or cultural happening… It is a supernatural one. This people continues in spite of everything to be the people of the covenant…”

•

Archbishop Joseph Dore of Strasbourg, France, Speech to B’nai B’rith August, 2003: “Whatever the depiction [of the Jews in traditional Catholic art]… the theological message is the same – God’s election has now passed to the Christian people; and the Church, the true Israel, may triumph, She who confesses the saving truth brought by Christ. “At Vatican II, the Catholic Church finally revised this teaching and understood to what extent it contradicts the Bible itself…

•

Joint Jewish-“Catholic” Meeting- “Delegations of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and of the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews met for the fourth time from 17-19 October [2004] in Grottaferrata, Italy. This Joint Committee was established in June 2002. The following is the Committee’s Report of the meeting… 3. The bilateral Committee [of Jews and “Catholics”] reiterated its commitment to the principal declarations of the previous meetings, which included a call for mutual respect of our different religious identities, and affirmed a common rejection of any attempts to persuade people to reject their own heritage… As believers in the One God whose name is Peace, prayer was offered up to him to bring an end to war...

From the comments below there is little doubt that former popes would be as shocked as I was to hear the Church defending the legitimacy of other faiths, including Judaism. •

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives.

•

Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus (# 15), Nov. 9, 1846: “Also perverse is that shocking theory that it makes no difference to which religion one belongs, a theory greatly at variance even with reason. By means of this theory, those crafty men remove all distinction between virtue and vice, truth and error, honorable and vile action. They pretend that men can gain eternal salvation by the practice of any religion, as if there could ever be any sharing between justice and iniquity, any collaboration between light and darkness, or any agreement between Christ and Belial.”

•

Pope Leo XIII, Ad Extremas (#1), June 24, 1893: “Our thoughts turn first of all to the blessed Apostle Thomas who is rightly called the founder of preaching the Gospel to the Hindus. Then, there is Francis Xavier… Through his extraordinary perseverance, he converted hundreds of thousands of Hindus from the myths and vile superstitions of the Brahmans to the true religion. In the footsteps of this holy man followed numerous priests… they are continuing these noble efforts; nevertheless, in the vast reaches of the Earth, many are still deprived of the truth, miserably imprisoned in the darkness of superstition.”

•

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 2), Jan. 6, 1928: “… that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy… Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it…”

One last comment: As far as the Vatican II assertion that Muslims worship the same God as Catholics, nothing could be further from the truth. Catholics worship the Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Muslims do not. •

Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome, Can. 15: “If anyone does not say that HE (Jesus Christ) …will come to judge the living and the dead he is a heretic.”

Liturgy Perhaps the best example of the false ecumenism discussed above is the state of today’s liturgy. Were someone transported from 1950 into a Novus Ordo Mass, he would swear that he was attending a Protestant service . . . which is exactly the way the “experts” behind the Vatican II liturgical changes wanted it. As part of his plan to “open the windows and examine the state of the Church”, Pope John XXIII invited Protestant clergy to serve as observers of the Council. Sadly, the pontiff was unaware of the Pandora’s Box he was opening as liberal, ecumenical factions in the Church used the Protestants in attendance as consultants. •

Bishop W.W. Baum in an interview with The Detroit News on June 27, 1967: They are not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participate fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical renewal. It wouldn’t mean much if they just listened, but they contributed.” (Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II, Michael Davies, Tan Books and Publishers, Inc, 2003, pg 76)

•

“Archdeacon Pawley, an Anglican Observer, reveals [in his book Rome and Canterbury through Four Centuries] that ‘In the course of the Council itself the fullest courtesies and opportunities for communication and exchange were allowed to the Observers at every stage, and traces of the process can be recognized in the documents themselves.’” (Davies, 77-78)

Liturgical reform had been discussed within the Church since the beginnings of the 20th century. By the middle of the century the movement had been taken over predominantly by young, liberal clergy who were influenced by Modernism and who were eager to promote ecumenism. Leading the charge for this group was Father (and eventually Archbishop) Annibale Bugnini. o In 1948, Father Bugnini was named by Pope Pius XII as Secretary of the Commission for Reform of the Liturgy. In this capacity the young prelate was responsible for drafting the “preparatory schema, the draft document which was to be placed before the Council Fathers for discussion.” (Davies, pg 7)

o In 1960, Pope John XXIII appointed Father Bugnini Secretary of the Pontifical Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy—the commission responsible for compiling Sacrosanctum Concilium, Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

o In 1964, as Secretary of the post-Vatican II Liturgy commission, he was given “the power to orchestrate the composition of the New Rite of Mass which he envisaged in the schema that he had prepared.” (Davies p 14)

To summarize, as secretary of these commissions Father Bugnini controlled what liturgical issues would be included in the draft submitted to the Council; he supervised the writing of the new liturgy’s constitution; and he formulated the structure of the New Mass. His unmatched influence over the Church’s liturgical reform made it easy for him to institute the ecumenical changes that would accomplish the goal he and his supporters wanted: to de-Catholicize the Mass and make it more acceptable to Protestants. Any doubts as to whether this was the plan are answered by revealing the similarities between the Protestant Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass: •

Both Masses are said with the priest facing the congregation. (In the Tridentine Mass the altar “was turned toward Jerusalem (east) reminding us of the sacrifice of Christ to God” (http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/m002rpMisunderstandingMass.htm), and because it is the east “from which direction Christ, Scripture tells us, will return.” http://catholicism.about.com/od/worship/tp/Comparing_the_Masses.htm)

•

Both Masses treat the liturgy as a celebratory meal, re-enacting Christ’s Last Supper. This is why the Masses take place over a table. Meal = Table (The Tridentine Mass is a sacrifice, a re-enactment of Calvary. This is why the Mass takes place over an altar) Sacrifice = Altar

•

Both Masses are said in the vernacular (The Tridentine Mass is said in Latin)

•

Both distribute the communion into the hands of standing parishioners (Tridentine Mass parishioners are required to kneel when receiving the Eucharist. They also must receive the Eucharist orally, not in their hands.

Below are two quotes: one from a Novus Ordo priest and one from Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]: •

Making Mass a Real Celebration: Tips on Planning by Thomas Richstatter, O.F.M. Some of the ways that you can help people become involved are: inviting them to participate in the various liturgical ministries (musicians, readers, Communion ministers). People become involved when they are invited to sing, to march in procession, to make the Sign of the Cross, to examine their conscience, to say prayers together out loud. (http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/YU/ay0601.asp)

•

"Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own

fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God". (http://www.catholic.com/library/Sacrifice_of_the_Mass.asp)

Now compare these two views of the Mass with the quote below from Martin Luther: •

“The mass is not a sacrifice but a thanksgiving to God and a communion with believers.” (http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/m002rpMisunderstandingMass.htm)

Is there any question which Catholic Mass is Protestant in nature? Sacrosanctum Concilium So how did the Church end up with a virtually unrecognizable Mass? A review of Sacrosanctum Concilium (Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) reveals a document riddled with vague, imprecise wording that allows for wide interpretations. Michael Davies describes it as follows: “Ambiguous passages inserted in the official documents by the liberal periti or experts—passages which would be interpreted in an untraditional, progressivist sense after the Council closed.” (Michael Davies, Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II, Tan Books and Publishers, inc, 2003, p 23) Or as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre refers to these passages in A Bishop Speaks: “time bombs”. Below are a few examples of these ambiguous passages from Sacrosanctum Conclilium: •

“This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ (Introduction)

How does one “adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times”? Is Christ’s Church to be a “reed shaken by the wind”? And what exactly is the time-frame of “our times”: Is it the past year, 10 years, or perhaps century? Does the Church need to prepare a Sacrosanctum Concilium every few years to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times? And why exactly is a document about the liturgy concerned with “promoting union among all who believe in Christ”? •

“In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else” (Chapter 1, Section II, subsection 14)

Why do we attend Mass? Is it for the purpose of giving honor to God or is it to be part of a communal experience? Is this a Roman Catholic Mass or an Evangelical Charismatic experience? The Council dismissed the ultimate

purpose of the Mass, which is aptly described by Father Didier Bonneterre in The Liturgical Movement: Gueranger to Beauduin to Bugnini - “The liturgy is essentially theocentric; it is for the worship of God rather than for the teaching of the faithful”. (Davies, 3) “The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.” (Chapter 2, subsection 50)

How does one define ”more clearly manifested”? “More clearly” is a subjective term. The same is true of “devout participation”. Are people incapable of participating devoutly in the Roman Rite? “With the passage of time, however, there have crept into the rites of the sacraments and sacramentals certain features which have rendered their nature and purpose far from clear to the people of today; hence some changes have become necessary to adapt them to the needs of our own times.” (Chapter 3, subsection 62)

Once again the term “adapt them to the needs of our own times” surfaces. We’ve already discussed how imprecise that term is. As far as “certain features which have rendered their [sacraments] nature and purpose far from clear to the people of today”, what demographic defines the “people of today”? Is it those who have a Catholic school education? Is it regular churchgoers? Or is those who aren’t even Roman Catholic? Also, what determination is to be used to define when a “feature” has obscured the nature and purpose of a sacrament? Any such decision would be subjective, placing the liturgy at the mercy of a local bishop’s whims.

“The Smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God” Suffice it to say that the drastic changes made to the Holy Mass have shocked both those who attended Vatican II and those who did not. •

In the July 9, 1971 issue of The Tidings, Archbishop R. J. Dwyer remarked that the Council Fathers allowed “the implementation of the Constitution to fall into the hands of men who were either unscrupulous or incompetent.” (Davies, 62)

•

Dietrich von Hilderbrand, The Devastated Vineyard (1973): “Truly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy, he could not have done it better.” (Davies, 16)

•

Professor James Hitchcock, The Recovery of the Sacred (1974): “The radical and deliberate alteration of ritual leads inevitably to the radical alteration of belief as well. . . . The desire to shed the burden of the past is incompatible with Catholicism, which accepts history as an organic development from ancient roots and expresses this acceptance in a deep respect for Tradition.” (Davies, 71)

•

Monsignor Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy (1993): “The liturgical reform, welcomed with so much idealism and hope by many priests and lay people alike, has turned out to be a liturgical destruction of startling proportions-a debacle worsening with each passing year.” (Davies, 58)

•

Pope Paul VI: "We have the impression that through some cracks in the wall the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God: it is doubt, uncertainty, questioning, dissatisfaction, confrontation.... We thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church. What dawned, instead, was a day of clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties."

On May 16, 2008, Catholic World News reported that “when Pope Paul VI spoke about the ‘smoke of Satan’ entering the Catholic Church, he was referring to liturgical abuses, according to the prelate [Cardinal Virgilio Noe] who served as his master of ceremonies.) (http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=58473) One final note: Considering everything Archbishop Bugnini accomplished and the support he received from liberal, ecumenical factions in the Church, one would have expected him to rocket through the ranks of the Vatican hierarchy— perhaps even as high as a candidate for the papacy. So what did happen to the Archbishop? He was banished to Iran by Pope Paul VI in 1975. In the Archbishop’s own words (Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975: pub. 1990) here is why he was sent away. (Note: The Archbishop often referred to himself in the third person when writing): •

“Toward the end of the summer a cardinal who was usually no enthusiast for the liturgical reform told me of the existence of a ‘dossier’ which he had seen on (or brought to?) the Pope’s desk and which proved that Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason.” (Davies, 18)

You read that correctly. A Freemason. A member of the Roman hierarchy and, arguably, the man most responsible for the destruction of the Tridentine Mass, accused of membership in a society banned by Pope Leo XII (Que Graviora). In On Freemasonry and Naturalism (Humanum Genus), Pope Leo XIII had this to say about the secret society: “We pray and beseech you, venerable brethren, to join your efforts with Ours, and earnestly to strive for the extirpation of this foul plague, which is creeping through the veins of the body politic. You have to defend the glory of God and the salvation of your neighbor.”

The accusations against Archbishop Bugnini were never proven, but the evidence must have been damning for Pope Paul VI to have responded as he did.

Salvation Recently the post-Vatican II Church decided that it will re-translate the liturgy to bring it into more conformity with the original Latin. One of the translations that has drawn the most complaints is, “This is the blood of the New and Everlasting Covenant, which will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.” To stay true to the Latin original, the word “many” should be substituted for “all”. Presumably, the word “all” was used to express the Church’s teaching that Christ’s sacrifice redeems everyone who embraces him as Lord. However, it seems many have taken “all” to mean that everyone is saved by Christ’s death and resurrection, regardless of whether they acknowledge his divinity or not. This is not surprising considering some of the comments made by Pope John Paul II. •

John Paul II, General Audience, Dec. 27, 1978: “Jesus is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity become a man; and therefore in Jesus, human nature and therefore the whole of humanity, is redeemed, saved, ennobled to the extent of participating in ‘divine life’ by means of Grace.”

•

John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 13), March 4, 1979: “We are dealing with each man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united Himself forever through this mystery.”

•

John Paul II, Homily, June 6, 1985: “The Eucharist is the sacrament of the covenant of the Body and Blood of Christ, of the covenant which is eternal. This is the covenant which embraces all. This Blood reaches all and saves all.”

•

John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (# 4), Dec. 7, 1990: “The Redemption event brings salvation to all, ‘for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery.’”

•

John Paul II, Centesimus Annus (# 53): “We are not dealing here with man in the ‘abstract,’ but with the real, ‘concrete,’ ‘historical’ man. We are dealing with each individual, since each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and through this mystery Christ has united himself with each one forever.”

At no point in any of the above quotes does Pope John Paul II specify that Christ’s gift is solely for the Faithful. “Each man, each one” would seem to signify everyone, which is completely at odds with Matthew 10:33: “But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.”

Pope Benedict’s comment below about Christ and salvation is even more heretical: •

Benedict XVI, God and the World, 2000, p. 209: “It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ. And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts… There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said.

The above statements of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI are a complete break from the doctrines and dogmas of previous popes, such as Pope Paul III. •

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, ex cathedra: “But although Christ died for all, yet not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His Passion is communicated.”

If Pope John Paul II’s words are accurate that all receive the benefit of Christ’s blood, then I ask again for a third time in this research paper, “Why be a Roman Catholic?”