Bishop of Stupidville cancels Latin Mass which was in conformity with Tradbashing Custodian

 

Is Francis a liar? Is the Pope Catholic? Oh, wait... Yes and No!

The attack by Bergoglio and his Vatican apparatchiks is the gravest scandal since the installation of the whore Earth goddess on the High Altar of St. Peter's Basilica and the bowing down to it in the gardens. No doubt, those events have led to this attack on the Holy Mass and the lab-developed virus and the subsequent diabolical delusion on Church and State alike. 

Diane Montagna has reported on information that what we all expected was true, the report from bishops was nowhere near as bad as it was presented.

Jorge Bergoglio as our politicians, medical tyrants and corporate elites have bitten off more than they can chew. They have overreached and will come crashing down.

Our job is to remain faithful within our Mother and to speak with truth and clarity.

The Remnant Newspaper - TRADITIONIS CUSTODES: Separating Fact from Fiction

Zita Ballinger Fletcher has become a writer of toxic arrogance, lies and manipulation - What is her agenda?

No doubt, you've come across, if not read, a screed of hate, intolerance, distortion and satanic bile upon the Mass in its traditional form and language by a writer at the National "Catholic" Reporter. I've copied the articled below, the NCR can come and sue me for copyright violation. As I read it, I find actual physical reaction from doing so at the ignorance, the hypocrisy and the utter evil from the pen of this alleged "journalist and author." I had to stop and do nothing more than give it a scan. I had intended to do a parse of the whole thing. I simply cannot. The diatribe is filled with the same old shibboleths.

Rather than take the time, which I do not have, to give her screed and adequate response, I have instead decided to give you the response by the most qualified and erudite, Dr. Joseph Shaw.

http://www.lmschairman.org/2019/11/a-response-to-zita-ballinger-fletcher.html

As an adjunct to the above, there is always Eccles.

https://ecclesandbosco.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-toxic-tradition-of-latin-mass.html

However, let me state this. Fletcher, Ivereigh, Faggioli and the rest of this ilk are living in fear. They know that not only faithful Latin Mass attending Catholics, but those Catholics in the "Novus Ordo" world have woken up to the horror that is Bergoglio. Fletcher and her ilk know that the mainstream church is in collapse. There goal of a church to their own ends is collapsing. They and their rotten Bergoglio have overreached. It is delightful to watch. They fear what is coming. At the Latin Mass community where I chant and lead the choir each Sunday, we have doubled in size in three years. What parish has seen that happen? Last Sunday was rather difficult to chant, it was like a nursery school. (Parents, bring your little ones, but please, show respect to everyone else and attend the vestibule when they are disturbed.) But, this is one of those things that we put up with. Zita Ballinger Fletcher is a liar, an manipulator and a pompous trollop. She has an agenda. She has already lost.

* * *

Zita Ballinger Fletcher portends to be a journalist and the author of more than 10 fiction and nonfiction books including a fictional account of the Holy Mass in Latin and according to the Roman Missal of 1962. She writes on military history, genealogy and international affairs and has written articles for many publications including World War II History magazine, America's 1st Freedom magazine and the Gloucestershire Family History Society Journal (U.K.). She is fluent in German and has reported extensively on Germany's Catholic Church for Catholic News Service. Heretofore unknown, this ginger pagan and probable homosexualist and Wiccan sympathizer and Marxist has written for the National “Catholic” Reporter, a hit piece on the growing traditional Catholic Latin Mass movement.

In a previous era, the Latin Mass was merely a uniform and standard way of celebrating the liturgy in the United States. In the wake of much needed reforms instituted by the Second Vatican Council, the Latin Mass has become a rallying point for change-resistant sects within the church. The ultra-conservatism practiced by these Latin Mass groups is radical and narrow-minded. They utilize the Latin Mass structure to wield control over believers — particularly women, who are reduced to a state of discriminatory subjugation in Latin rites. The stubbornly resistant, anti-modern practices of these Latin Mass adherents border on cultism.

The Latin Mass fosters clericalist structures in the church. The liturgy — spoken in an ancient language no longer in modern vernacular usage — places all power in the hands of the priest. The priest keeps his back turned to the people for most of the ceremony. Aside from making occasional responses, the congregation plays no active part in worship. All people inside the church are expected to kneel on cue at various points. The priest is at the center of the spectacle. He is separated from the people he is supposed to serve by an altar rail — a barrier that gives him privileges. To receive the Eucharist, people must kneel at his feet.  

Meanwhile, the Latin tradition oppresses women. Women are expected — indeed, in some cases commanded — to wear skirts instead of trousers, cover themselves with long clothing and wear veils over their heads. No such rules exist for the men. It is discrimination, and therefore the Latin Mass actively endorses sexism. Instead of a unifying form of worship, the Latin Mass has become an instrument of oppression and a gathering point for Catholic fundamentalists.

In most cases, it is useless to politely disagree with people in the Latin Mass sect. Their attitude creates blindness — not only to true faith, but to their own behavior. They treat others with pride and animosity, but their conscience fails to kick in because they are convinced their way is holy and other ways are not.

Anyone who may accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about — a favorite indictment of the Latin Mass ideologues — would be wrong. My opinion is based on facts and personal experiences.

I grew up in a household of challenged but growing faith, which grew stronger over time. My parents were divorced. My mother was a fallen-away Catholic who hadn't been to church in over 30 years. In the branches of my family tree were relatives who might best be described as atheists, and others of a more traditional Christian type. My mother decided to return to the Catholic Church when I was young. From an early age, I believed in Christ and considered myself a Catholic — other relatives tried in vain to convert me to atheism while I was still in elementary school.

Maybe this sounds like the beginning of a happy story of faith and discovery. It was not. My family's journey into the Catholic Church was a long, tumultuous and unpleasant road punctuated by a series of awful mistreatments by Catholic clergy, religious, schools and parishioners. (It's a miracle that I'm still Catholic and became a Catholic journalist.)

The Latin Mass rears its veiled head in this unholy history at several points. The last Masses my mother remembered attending took place before the Second Vatican Council, so naturally she started going to Latin Masses when she returned to the church because they were familiar. The church was going to welcome us, she thought. The treatment we got was slightly shy of the Spanish Inquisition.

Needless to say, anything in the church looking remotely female was completely veiled. The people had the humor of a gallows crowd and the pastor, arrayed in lavish vestments, was more like a Renaissance baron. After over an hour spent every Sunday drowning in incense smoke and getting sneered at, we did not feel any closer to God.

Rules, also, were a strange issue. For example, the color red was forbidden to be worn in the church. A confessor there hit one of my family members with a "permanent daily penance"— a rosary every day, forever, to atone for an alleged life of iniquity. After some while of this torture, my mother spoke with a different priest about the unbearable situation. He advised her that genuine Catholic faith did not forbid wearing certain colors or allow priests to inflict a "lifetime penance" for sins. Immediately we stopped going to Mass at that parish.

But it wasn't the last time I would run into Latin Masses — or the Latin Mass sectarians, present today in many Catholic organizations.

After almost leaving the church as a teenager, I chose to stay Catholic by practicing my faith as a free agent — belonging to no parish, attending different churches for Sunday Mass. On one instance, a priest noticed I was showing up semi-regularly and approached me with a persuasive speech to convert me to the Latin Mass faction — disguising discrimination as encouragement. "You should come to the Latin Mass instead and wear a veil. Women look the most beautiful in church when they are veiled," he tried to persuade. "The long veils are the best kind — the really long ones, past the shoulders. I recommend that for you — you have such pretty red hair, but it would even look nicer if you wore a veil over it. I think the long kind would be best for you."

Most disturbing about this conversation was his effort to make repression sound positive. Of course it made no sense that my hair would somehow look better if people couldn't see it. Indignant, I asked him to explain why he thought I should consider covering my head.

"Because it's respectful," he replied solemnly.

When asked why it was disrespectful to show the hair that God gave me — and why men in church did not have to cover their hair — he was not able to answer. He reacted badly because I challenged his authority. Anyway, I had no intention of listening. I knew I was free to take my belief in God elsewhere. I never returned to that church afterwards. 

The priest's attitude towards veiling women is typical of Latin Mass cultists. They seem to believe that women look better in church when people can't see them. They try to sell the veil to girls as a symbol of feminine piety. They hold that covering up and hiding yourself is beautiful although such a practice is the very opposite of natural beauty.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter how pretty, lacy or colorful the veils may seem to potential wearers — the veils are meant to conceal female beauty and prevent people from noticing women. By promoting the veil, Latin Mass fundamentalists rob women of freedom, while trying to make it seem like a liberating choice. Their attitude is not much different from religious extremists in the Middle East and Asia.

Given such practices, it should come as no surprise that a contingent of men active within the sectarian Latin Mass environment have sexist worldviews. These types believe they are superior to women simply because they are male.

I cite two examples to support my view. One occasion that remains burned into my memory was when I attended Mass at a Catholic university. It was a busy Sunday and my schedule demanded I attend Mass at a particular time. I did not know it was a Latin Mass until I stumbled over the doorstep. The atmosphere was typically medieval. I was surprised to recognize some people there. One of them was a professor who was known to be a chauvinistic person. When I saw his wife, I was shocked — and suddenly realized the ugly extent of his prejudices. His wife was a mere ghost of a woman. She was covered from head to foot. Her dress was so long that it dragged on the floor. Even her entire neck and her hands were covered. She kept her head bowed and always walked behind her husband. She carried a rosary and looked physically weak — almost ill.

The professor, by contrast, looked swaggering and hearty. He strutted around and chatted with others in church as she followed him like a pale shadow. Seeing this, I believed I had witnessed a very dark side to the professor's spirituality. His religion was a mechanism of abusive control.

My second example concerns a younger Catholic age group — many of whom are apparently falling victim to the ultra-traditional Latin Mass ideology promoted in Catholic activity groups and on college campuses. A female acquaintance of mine, about my age, decided to brave the Catholic dating scene — a recipe for disaster, in my personal opinion. Among the stories I heard from her were of traditional Catholic males shopping for wives, asking her and other girls, "Are you willing to be veiled?" before agreeing to date them. These men did not want to associate with women whom they couldn't religiously dominate.

Men she met in this traditional Catholic peer group would interview girls about theology before deciding to spend time with them — they were arrogant and believed they were somehow morally superior to the women. Instead of standing up for her own dignity, she decided to cave into the pressure — go to traditional services and start wearing veils. I still don't understand why she wanted to associate with that group, or why she decided to give in to oppression.

It is very unfortunate that younger generations of Catholics seeking to deepen their faith are getting sucked into this vortex of toxic, traditional radicalism. I saw many young families at a Latin Mass recently when I was invited to attend a speaking engagement at a traditional church. I happened to arrive before Mass was quite over — having nowhere else to go before the event, and wishing to receive Communion, I decided to sit in on the Mass. Unsurprisingly I found myself surrounded by veiled women who entertained themselves in between kneeling bouts by casting disapproving glances at my leggings and earrings.

Looking around, I was astonished to see many college-aged men and women among the crowd. The priests seemed to be in their 30s. Clearly these people were too young to remember times before Vatican II. Yet something had drawn them here. Parental influence? Doubtful. It seemed to be a shared spirit of ultra-conservatism. I found it frightening to reflect on how the closed, Latin Mass mindset had managed to replicate itself over time and spread like a virus.

Unsurprisingly, while there I had another memorably bad experience. I asked to receive Communion in the hands. Most traditional-type priests I'd encountered in my lifetime would give me the Eucharist in the hands. Not this pastor. He literally made a scene at the altar and jerked the Eucharist away from me when I reached out to receive it — as if my hands would contaminate the very Jesus who, according to the Catholic faith, seeks Communion with my soul. I seriously considered walking out of the church at that point, but decided to receive the Eucharist instead since I wanted to pray. After Mass I gave the priests a piece of my mind.

Clericalism defined the response I received. When I informed an assisting priest that the pastor had been very rude to me at the altar and asked that my views be relayed, he replied: "I won't throw our pastor under the bus. He's the pastor. I refuse to tell him to correct his behavior," the priest said.

I reminded him that, as a priest, he was supposed to be of service and value my feedback as a believer. The priest took a step back and looked at me in astonishment, as if the notion of service had never occurred to him. "Very well. I'll tell the pastor what you said," he said condescendingly. "But I don't think he did anything wrong."

His attitude was a trademark example of the culture within the Catholic Church that encourages abuse. His first reaction was to default to absolute loyalty to his pastor, then dismiss my views. When pressed further, he flat-out denied all wrongdoing. To clericalists, complainers are always the problem — not those who belong to the herd, and certainly not clergy.

With feudalistic rigidity, the priest argued in defense of his pastor against the traditions of the "novus ordo"—a derogatory term used by Latin Mass cultists to denote regular English-language Masses. He said the Masses I regularly attended were invented "only 40 years ago" — as if that devalued them somehow —and insisted they were only "allowed to exist, but not standardly recommended." He claimed the church only allowed Communion in the hands "in extreme cases." Of course, I know this is not true. He capped his radical fundamentalist arguments by saying the Latin Mass is a solemn rite equal to Byzantine and Coptic rites and that rules cannot be changed for anyone. He accused me of being "rude" by expecting them "to change their rites."

I feel it necessary to point out — lest readers be confused by his illogicality — that the Byzantine and Coptic rites originate in the traditions of distinct Catholic churches in foreign countries. The Latin Mass, by contrast, is merely an extinct model of tradition practiced in the United States and other countries, and was never a separate church nor imported from a foreign country. Therefore the Latin Mass can be compared to Coptic and Byzantine churches as much as apples can be compared to oranges. No ancient Romans or native Latin speakers will be disenfranchised by changes made to the Latin Mass — just hardliners unable to let go of their particular ideology.

What I gained from this experience was a deeper recognition of how the Latin Mass foments the clericalist culture within the Catholic Church that Pope Francis is actively working to change.

In his homily earlier last month, Pope Francis warned Catholics against hypocrisy. He described hypocrisy as "appearing one way, but acting in another," and said that a hypocritical attitude "always kills."

Jesus did not tolerate hypocrisy, according to Pope Francis, but enjoyed unmasking it. "A Christian who does not know how to accuse himself is not a good Christian," the pope said.

The intolerant atmosphere of the Latin Mass stands in stark contrast to Pope Francis's description of what the Catholic Church is supposed to be. "The church is not a fortress, but a tent capable of expanding and offering access to everyone," said Pope Francis. "The church is 'going out' or it is not church, either it is walking, always widening its room so that all may enter or else it is not church."

Compassion defines true Catholicism. Radical traditionalists who cling to the pomp, ceremony and narrow-minded rituals of outdated Latin practices would do well to follow the advice of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 9: "Go and learn the meaning of the words, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'"

Italian bishops do Bergoglio's bidding and bolwderdize the Novus Ordo and demand an end to Summorum Pontificum!

The Italian bishops, eight years after the English speaking world finally adopted the 2002 Roman Missal and the correct translation, have issued their incorrect translation.

Bowing to Bergoglio's dictates, the Italian bishops have changed the words of the The Lord's Prayer to "do not abandon us to temptation." It is completely wrong. As Gregory DiPippo at New Liturgical Movement writes;

The Greek verb in question “eisenenkēis” does not mean “abandon.” It is a form of a highly irregular verb [1] “eispherō – to bring in, lead-in, carry in, introduce.” No dictionary lists “abandon” or any synonym thereof as a translation. It is as if Christians have not been praying “lead us not into temptation” in countless languages for over 19 centuries, as if no one has ever bothered to consider what these words mean, and comment on them. It is impossible to believe that pastors with the cure of souls in Italy (or anywhere else) are suddenly besieged by anguished parishioners, tormented at the thought that the Eternal Father might be leading them into temptation. But even if that were the case, is it really an improvement to suggest that God cannot lead us into temptation, but can abandon us in it?

Further, they have not translated "bonae voluntatis" correctly in the Gloria.  The current Italian, “pace in terra agli uomini di buona volontà – peace on earth to men of good will” is to be replaced by “pace in terra agli uomini, amati dal Signore – peace on earth to men, loved by the Lord.”

They have refused to translate the actual Latin "pro multis" as "for many" and will continue to use "per tutti," or, for all, in direct defiance of Pope Benedict XVI.

If that is not enough, they have stated that Benedict XVI had no right to issue Summorum Pontificum, that it was illegal and that the Missal of John XXIII, an alleged Saint, was actually abrogated by another alleged Saint, Giovanni Montini.

Make no mistake that this is on the order of the dictator, Peronist on the Seat of Peter. It is a shot over the bow to the traditional orders, the ICRSS, FSSP, etcetera, and the many, many diocesan priests and communities. 

If Bergoglio and his filthy minions want war, they've got it.

This is not 1965 or 1968 and I am not my mother and father.

Other reading.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2018/11/ask-father-could-latin-be-suppressed-wherein-fr-z-rants/

https://whatisupwiththesynod.com/index.php/2018/11/16/hatred-of-the-ancient-liturgy-always-means-hatred-of-the-ancient-faith-and-love-of-homoheresy/

https://whatisupwiththesynod.com/index.php/2018/11/16/the-purge-goes-all-in-italian-bishops-meeting-the-ancient-mass-should-be-repealed-pope-ratzinger-made-a-mistake/

What is going on in Oklahoma that faithful Catholics should be so abused?

Vox Cantoris has been banned from posting on Twitter until August 9, 
please Tweet my posts.

A guest post from Mr. Laramie Hirsch on the continuing saga of insult and attack on Catholics faithful to the tradition of the Church and Her liturgy.

After reading Mr. Hirsch's column, I am asking myself, "Does this priest suffer from "gay-rage?"

Catty Priest Insults Minorities In Homily...
By Laramie Hirsch

...And, by minorities, I don't mean brown-skinned people, immigrants, or homosexuals.  Instead, the minorities I mention are the most hated minorities in the Catholic Church: Traditionalists.

If you attended Mass at a certain parish in Tulsa early this July, you'd be pleased to see a good sized group of people at a diocesan Traditional Latin Mass.  While the priest there hardly spoke English at all, being a man from Ecuador, he nevertheless did his utmost to worship the Almighty.  Latin is the universal high language of the Church.  It was such a beautiful service, as it always has been ever since the TLM was brought to the parish about a decade ago.  The people there have been taught the beauty of the Church's tradition like never before.  This is all thanks to now-retired Bishop Emeritus Slattery and the former parish priest who has now left the state.

On that, the seventh Sunday after Pentecost, the parish's Extraordinary Form would feature a reading from Matthew 7:15-21 .  Only it wasn't read by the Hispanic priest.  He dutifully stepped aside, and the passage was instead read by the parish priest himself:

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.  By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire.  Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.  Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."

If only the Hispanic priest gave the homily.  By all accounts, he appears to love the Latin Mass.  Or, dare we dream, wouldn't it have been nice if the homily came from the former parish priest who introduced the Latin Mass in the first place?  (It seems that he was actually in town that day)  Or even the retired bishop who always protected the Catholic Tradition in this part of Oklahoma?  No.  The homily was given by the current parish priest.  Yet, surely after a full year of shepherding over the Traditionalist laity, this priest would have grown some kind of fondness for the flock beneath him.  Right?

The congregation waited for the kind-hearted instructions from their shepherd.
 

What Took Place

After reading from Matthew, the sermon took a strange turn.  At first, the priest didn't seem to make sense.  It was as though his words melted into typical post-Vatican II gobbelty gook language.  While he initially seemed to be deconstructing St. Paul's writing style, it all seemed one big incoherent ramble.  After that, the priest then talked about people's athletic ability.  He commented about how the people of Christ's day didn't need to go to the gym because they walked everywhere.

Suddenly, just when it seemed his sermon (?) should be wrapping up, he capped off his ramble by bringing up zip codes.  He talked about the parish' s own poor neighborhood, and that local income was not very high.  This was a common, perennial problem, he explained, as it's been a low-income neighborhood since the 1950s.  But then, he unmistakably complained about laity who drive in from widely divergent locations.  He appeared to scoff at those who would drive one to two hours every Sunday from other towns and counties.  And, of course, the only people doing this were the parishioners attending that diocesan Latin Mass.

Then, just as he did last year, he stated that the Latin Mass group in particular was not giving their proper share of money during collection time.  He told the congregation that he preferred having only a Spanish and English Mass.  They were reminded that the FSSP is across the river on the West side of town.  And then, to qualify himself, he said that he had done his job and kept all of his promises to them for the past year, ever since he took over the parish.

In other words: "I've done everything I was supposed to do for you people.  But really, you're not welcome"

He ended his "homily" abruptly and walked off.  He did not assist the Hispanic priest with distribution of the Eucharist after that.  I have to wonder, was the Hispanic priest aware of the American priest's statements?

Parishioners later noticed that the side chapel had its statues removed, and it looked blander and more Protestant.
 

What Was The Sunday Message?

So, did this priest think he appropriately tied his "homily" to the gospel reading from Matthew?  Was he comparing a good tree that produces good fruit to an evil tree that produces bad fruit?  More to the point: does this priest think the Latin Mass produces bad fruit?  After all, according to him, the Traditional Catholic community wasn't generating enough income for the parish.  So, shall we also conclude that, in this priest's mind, good fruit = money?  Bad fruit = less money?  Is money the objective?  Is it cash that should concern us?  Do diocesan Traditionalists produce bad fruit in the form of inadequate collection amounts?  If so, how much more do they need to fork over until they are good and worthy in this priest's eyes?

I always thought that, in post-Vatican II Catholic Church, good fruit = happiness, togetherness, community, fraternal charity, good feelings, and all that emotional hippy dippy stuff.  If so, this tradition-hating priest certainly doesn't value these aspects when it comes to interacting with the Latin Mass parishioners.  Certainly, dare I say, it does not appear as though this priest considers "good fruit" to be wholesome, clean, confessed souls in a state of grace.  (That's just a dusty, triumphalist, pre-Vatican II novelty).  Not in this "homily."  Allegedly, he does not even consistently hear confessions from the Latin Mass group on a monthly basis--as he said he would in the beginning of his tenure.  But even assuming these reports to be wrong: is confession once a month enough?

And what of those poor English and Spanish Mass parishioners, living in that low-income zip code?  Are their contributions inadequate and deserving of a scolding?  Do those communities produce bad fruit as well?  Or are they somehow exempt?  Are those poor folks mystically holy because of their poorness?  Do their low incomes make them virtuous, while the assumed higher incomes of the Traditionalists make them less virtuous?  Is it even accurate to assume the traditionalists have higher incomes, or is that a blanket assumption by the priest?

Did the priest even mean any of this?  Or was he simply ignoring the Sunday gospel reading, preferring to instead deliver a reckless, harsh message to a group of people who've done nothing to him?
 

What This Does To A Community

Modernist post-Vatican II priests have 20th Century liberal values.  They want to sweep the "old dusty Catholic Church" under the rug.  They want to shove all those un-hip, stubborn losers who "can't get with it" into a ghetto.  They are in the middle of transforming the Catholic Church into "a new thing," and laity holding onto how it's always been are in the way.  The New Order uses a sort of federal-government-eminent-domain tactic that runs over communities such as this.

There once was a strong community at this parish.  In fact, it was rather famous, regionally speaking.  People had always praised the good things Bishop Edward Slattery had done, and a lot of it took place in this very parish under a good priest.  But after the retirement and replacement of the good bishop, and after the installation of Pope Francis' new bishop, it has been demonstrated that there has always been a cabal of priests in this town who, under the surface, always vehemently opposed what Bp. Slattery did.  There have always been priests in Tulsa's diocese who have hated Tradition.  At best, these priests view Tulsa's traditionalist laity as an inconvenience.  Judging from the abuse this particular parish has received in the past year, we can conclude that some priests view this group of laity with contempt.  They have therefore tried to destroy this community--and not without results.

If we are going to refer to the fruits of good or bad intentions, then let's see this situation for what it is.  The fruit of this priest and the new bishop is the scattering of Tulsa's Traditionalist community in many directions.  The fruit of their work is angst, both in this community and beyond.  The fruit of these New Order clergymen has been to instill a deep sense of abandonment in laity in Northeast Oklahoma.  Those who hold on to their faith amidst these sorts of trials feel as though the Sword of Damocles hangs over their head.  These people have not been uplifted; they have been tolerated.  They have not been embraced and welcomed; they have been alienated.  They have no intrinsic worth to the local Catholic community.  No one dares ask them what they think.  They are an elephant in the room.  If a priest in the diocese dares to offer to learn the Latin Mass, he becomes a marked man.  Traditionalists are avoided.  They are shunned.  It wouldn't surprise me if they were given their own drinking fountains.  

If this is the fruit of the new bishop, the new priest, and those who agree with their agenda, then let us ask: is this good fruit or bad fruit?
 

Conclusions: Money, Money, Money...?

Let's recap what the three congregations were contributing last October, the last time this very same priest complained about money.  According to that church bulletin, the figures were as follows:

Anglos (28% of the parish) contribute 40%

Hispanics (60% of the parish) contribute 46%

Latin (12% of the parish) contribute 24%

(The term "Anglos" is the priest's terminology, not mine.)

As you can see, the Latin Mass congregation was contributing twice the amount that they represented for the pleasure of having this priest spit in their face.  Today, thanks to a steady diet of nasty, passive-aggressive discouragement, the Latin Mass community has been reduced to 60% of what they once were.  Yet, these people continue to provide more money than they actually represent.

Even more interesting is the fact that some of the Hispanic laity have also witnessed this priest's actions.  After all, it was a combination of the English, Spanish, and Latin Mass congregations who helped to build and complete the St. Toribio Shrine.  Yet, this new priest is undoing many of the Catholic reforms the former priest brought to the parish.  This hasn't gone unnoticed by the Hispanic community.  No es bueno.  They don't like it.    Some have even left for another Tulsa Spanish-speaking parish.  Some tried attending the TLM at one point--perhaps longing for traces of their former shepherd.  I can't help but wonder what changes took place in that congregation since last year.

If money truly was the end goal of this priest, he would stop being ugly to the Latin Mass laity.  Why?  Because they've been carrying a large portion of the parishes' finances on their shoulders.  If and when they go, the parish will be all the poorer for it.  In effect, this new priest will have driven out a large source of income.  But ultimately, does he really care about the money?  Or does this priest value the removal of those Trads over everything else?

In this situation, at best, we can assume that this priest is materialist.  But what is more likely is that this priest is acting in malice towards these people.  He wants them gone.  Period.

The SSPX: "But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it."

This writer does not attend the Society of St. Pius X chapel in Toronto. On Sundays, Vox and Fox drive two hours and two dioceses away to assist in developing the community there in a properly offered traditional Latin liturgy, with Gregorian chant and organ. Our choir is growing, mostly young women, our organist, at 13, can perform on the organ, and the community can sing, Mass I, II, III, IV, VI, VIII, IX, XI, XII, XV, XVII and Credo I-VI plus the Marian antiphons and sprinkling rites. That is the labour that this writer attends to on  Sundays, it is tiring and it is greatly rewarding to see how the community is growing. It is a humble group of faith. No rancour. No polemics. Only the gift by God to allow me to see where the future will be as we pass on to others what we have been given.

In full disclosure, in the past, between other cantor appointments and at other times on special request when their regular director was not available, I have assisted at the Toronto Chapel of The Transfiguration. I have great respect for what they have accomplished across southern Ontario from the St. Michael's Priory. I was a great honour to have been part of the Schola that sang the requiems for Father Nicholas Gruner and Father Stephen Somerville. I have great respect for the Society of St. Pius X and its priests and bishops. Without them, there would be on traditional Mass. The slander that they continue to put up with by people within the novus ordo culture is regrettable. When it comes by those lay pretenders to tradition, it is even more deplorable.

One day when the Church emerges from this darkness, She will acknowledge before God and man the error that overwhelmed Her. She will condemn these and declare them anathema. Then, She will acknowledge the legacy of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and "restore all things in Christ." 

When one views the pictures below and at the link, I defy anyone to state that this is not the work of God. This would not be happening if the Holy Spirit were not directing it. To fail to see this is to be blind. This is not to say that the SSPX is the "Church," but that the SSPX is within the "Church." 

Those who deride them are wrong and do not know scripture.

We only need to look at the Book of Acts and the very words of Holy Gamaliel himself:

ACTS 5: 38. And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; 39. But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God. And they consented to him.

http://fsspx.news/fr/news-events/news/argentine-ordinations-au-seminaire-de-la-reja-32656

Massimo Faggioli and James Martin - two men who reveal they are Catholic no more and full of evil

Massimo Faggioli, an alleged "theologian" reveals today what most of us have known for a long time, that the Catholic Church, while it still exists, has been overtaken by men who have put a new and false church into being. A church of Satan, a church that is against Christ and His Truth.

At the same time, James Martin issues the following. Rather than correct the poor child from what is clearly confusion and probably some kind of mental illness, he leaves him in his state and deceives the parents. He dares to write that it is a "scandal."  

The scandal is James Martin.

Where are the Church leaders who have the power to silence both of these men for their heterodoxy?

They are nowhere to be found because they agree with them.

As with Mundabor, I look forward to being excommunicated.

David Malloy, Bishop of Rockford declares himself Supreme Pontiff!

David Malloy, the Bishop of Rockford has barred his priests from offering the Novus Ordo Missae in the ad orientem posture. The rubrics of the Roman Missal Third Edition are quite clear in the instruction, that the priest, when he says the Orate or the Pax, is "facing the people." It specifically states that in red because it presumes that he is not, facing the people.

Secondly, Mr. Malloy, has banned priests from offering the traditional Roman liturgy without his permission in direct contravention of Summorum Pontificum.

The bishop is a malefactor. He has no authority to do either. He is a disgrace.

While he is at it, maybe he should ban Confession or public recitation of the Rosary?

How much shall we bet that his next move will be to demand his priests give the Blessed Sacrament to adulterers or sodomites who have not repented and have no intention of amendment of life?

Father Z has the details.

Dr. Joseph Shaw of the Latin Mass Society in the U.K. reports at Rorate.

The Bishop is wrong. Only a man with a distorted ecclesiology and a corrupt Catholic heart and mind would diminish the liturgy of the Holy Mass and mock his priests and people in such a manner.

The man is a clericalist and a disgrace. A boil on the Body of Christ.

Let him be anathema. 

He looks rather queer* too, no?

*Queer: strange or odd from a conventional viewpoint; unusually different; singular:

a queer notion of justice.

Dave Armstrong proves himself in response on FB - Vox is a "radical catholic reactionary"

Dave Armstrong has responded on Facebook to my post about his name-calling of Catholics. He could have left the comment in the box here. He did not. This is typical of his attacks on Catholics. He complains I did not link to him. That is because, I won't put a penny in his pocket on Patheos. Even his Facebook links directly to Patheos. It's all about money with these guys and the more the likes of Shea, and now Armstrong, can keep you going back, the more funds flow into their pockets. 

No sooner did I challenge him for the name-calling of Catholics he does it again.

Sorry Dave, you have proved exactly what you are and it is time you were called out. This has been coming for a while. Too bad you can't take it. Your minions like Ross and others are welcome to come here and tell me where I am wrong about what you spew against your fellow-Catholics.

You say that Father John Hardon, "loved your work?" Well, if he were alive today, I doubt very much he would "love" your name-calling and online abuse of your fellow Catholics. It is time you stopped riding on his words that nobody can verify how they came about. You shame his memory.

It is time that you were held accountable, publicly.

The name-calling of Catholics who hold fast to the truth and tradition is appalling. It is satanic. It is typical of these people who think the church only began at Vatican II. Armstrong puts himself forward as an apologist. Instead, he issues screeds at his fellow Catholics that is not going to go unchecked here. He has attacked me personally in the past and I have generally ignored his pretentious writing, but the latest bile on pathetic.com is enough. His slanderous name-calling must be called out. Odd how he denies he does it anymore and then proceeds to call me a "radical catholic reactionary" whatever that might be.

Show some courage and comment here Dave. As for my "bombastic" comments, they are reserved for those who undermine the faith, not the simple "Novus Ordo Catholic" which you will never find on this blog. You are quite petulant and puerile to say the least and I know of one person who has suffered from your writing by following your pathetic example.

Ask yourself if your name-calling is something that is from the Holy Spirit?

Shame on you.

Vox

Below follows his response, the italicised show my original remarks.

Nota Bene: every click you give Armstrong, Shea and others on pathetic.com puts money in their pockets. If you go to his blog, it links directly to pathetic.com as does his FB, It is a racket, don't feed them.

Reply to Latest Attacks from a Radical Catholic Reactionary
This guy refused to link to my piece that sent him into the stratosphere (heaven forbid someone actually read my side of this nonsense), so I won't name him or give a link to his post (from 12-30-15), either. But I will respond (in brackets) to some of the sillier stuff.
"There is an American self-appointed lay "apologist" now writing beyond his own blog, at Patheos. His name is Dave Armstrong. It seems Patheos picks up all of these sorts." ["self-appointed" huh? This is one of the favorite lines of "usual suspect" slanderers. Let's see, for starters, I have twenty officially published books with six different publishers, including most of the largest Catholic ones (including four bestsellers in the field). My first book has a Foreword by Servant of God, Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ, who was Blessed Mother Teresa's catechist and a close adviser to Blessed Pope Paul VI. My second book has a Foreword by Dr. Scott Hahn. I've been endorsed by virtually all of the leading apologists, have been interviewed on Catholic radio over 20 times, including twice on "Catholic Answers Live". I have Imprimaturs, including from my own bishop, a column every other week for "The Michigan Catholic," worked for The Coming Home Network for three years, but I am merely self-appointed and not even entitled to use the title "apologist" to describe myself. What the heck am I, then? I've made my living by writing apologetics these past 14 years. Oh, I forgot: I'm just one "of these sorts." That's what I'll put on my tax form, for occupation]
[Note: this guy favorably cites Fr. Hardon in articles dated 9-20-14, 1-17-14 (in the title), 1-4-13, Fr. Hardon loved my work and called it "very Catholic." I studied with him for many months in 1990-1992. He received me into the Church and baptized my first two sons]
"His [sic] claims to be an "apologist," yet he takes relish in bashing other Catholics."
[I am an apologist; see the above. I take no relish in critiquing Catholics who have gone astray. I criticize the ones who want to bash the pope almost daily, and the Novus Ordo Mass, and Catholics who prefer it, who are slanderously characterized as modernists and neo-Catholics.]
"He can go on about how he has no "objection" to the traditional Mass," [yes I can, since I have attended a traditional Latin Mass since 1991, attended the Tridentine Mass at midnight on Christmas (obviously because I hate it so much) and was in favor of widespread access to it 16 years before Pope Benedict XVI decreed it. I've also written many articles favoring liturgical positions taken by mainstream traditionalists: one of whom -- a person with a major traditionalist website: Unam Sanctam Catholicam -- I invited to my house a few weeks ago to give a talk on the TLM. This guy prominently links to that website on his own sidebar. Sounds very hostile, doesn't it?]
"He is typical of this neo-catholicism that is as destructive to the faith as modernism and the heresies that stem from it." [that's me! Worse than a modernist. All my readers know that: how much I love theological liberalism, folks like Hans Kung, and heresies like Jehovah's Witnesses, that I was refuting over thirty years ago before I was even a Catholic.]
"He is pathetic dot coms latest poster-boy for neo-catholicism. Mad-trads. Trads behaving badly. Rad Trads." [as is well-known, I stopped using the term, "radtrad" a couple of years ago, because it was falsely being perceived as implicating mainstream traditionalists (which it never did). I even went to the trouble of changing the language in dozens of old papers and in a few of my books, which required revisions. I make a stark contrast between mainstream, legitimate traditionalists (with whom I usually agree), and radical Catholic reactionaries, which is what this guy clearly is. But one would never know that about me, reading his babbling ravings.]
"His bombastic, arrogant, uncharitable attacks on Catholics has gone on for years . . ."
[Right; in great contrast, of course, to the measured, charitable, nuanced, soft-spoken, humble, unassuming pontifications of folks like him . . . ]

Dave Armstrong, - stop your hypocritical name-calling! Your lack of charity has exposed you!

There is an American self-appointed lay "apologist" now writing beyond his own blog, at Patheos. His name is Dave Armstrong. It seems Patheos picks up all of these sorts. I will not link to him or give him a hit. I will not direct you to his page, lest it feed the beast. If you wish to find him, you will have no trouble. 

His claims to be an "apologist," yet he takes relish in bashing other Catholics. He can go on about how he has no "objection" to the traditional Mass, but what he objects to, as do many others, is the faith that goes along with it. He is typical of this neo-catholicism that is as destructive to the faith as modernism and the heresies that stem from it. For these people such as Armstrong, it goes far beyond the Mass. How generous it is of Armstrong to let me and others worship according to our fathers. How kind of this hypocritical neo-cath and his ilk to show such tolerance.

Dave Armstrong

Mr. Armstrong has gone on a Shea induced rage of name-calling of Catholics who hold fast to the tradition of the Church. He is pathetic dot coms latest poster-boy for neo-catholicism. Mad-trads. Trads behaving badly. Rad Trads. 

Whatever!

I was one of Mr. Armstrong's targets under Vox and my own name on Facebook and on his blog until I demanded he remove his slanderous attacks on me from his blog whose posts display a pseudo-intellectualism. His bombastic, arrogant, uncharitable attacks on Catholics has gone on for years along with one of his promoters who uses the moniker, "Minion."

Armstrong has proved himself to be a hypocrite with his latest screed and name-calling rant. 

He needs to be called out for his hypocrisy and his lack of charity.

Tommy Rosica says that you "traditional, faithful, orthodox Catholics throw out words and have no idea what those words mean"

Our good friend Barona did his Friday penance by watching the entire video so you won't have to. If you visit over at Toronto Catholic Witness you can watch the snippet of it with this most wonderful quote by one of the interviewees, Tommy Rosica.

"Those claiming to be...traditional, faithful, orthodox Catholics throw out words and they have no idea what those words mean."

Logically then, of course, it would follow that if one does know what those words mean, then one is not a "traditional, faithful orthodox Catholic."

I fully agree.

1,000,000 Catholics don't matter

Nope. 

They just don't matter.

Not to John Allen.

One might wonder why any of this matters to the Vatican. The Society of St. Pius X claims a global following of around 1 million, which, if true, would represent .01 percent of the full Catholic population of 1.2 billion. Investing resources in trying to lure such a relative footnote back might seem disproportionate.

Not to others whom we hoped would be more pastoral towards them.

From: Thomas Rosica [mailto:rosica@saltandlighttv.org]
Sent: March 24, 2011 2:53 PM
To: david.domet@xxxxx.com
Subject: For your VOX!
Source URL: http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/april-may-be-cruel-month-relations-traditionalists
More news for you and your VOX. May the Lord grant you the peace you are seeking this Lent. No
guarantees you will find it this side of the Resurrection but keep seeking.
Fr. Rosica

April may be cruel month for relations with traditionalists
By John L Allen Jr
Created Mar 24, 2011
For anyone hoping that longstanding ruptures between Rome and the traditionalist wing of the
Catholic church are on the brink of swift resolution, it may turn out that April is indeed the cruelest
month.
Sometime in early April, ...

http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/april-may-be-cruel-month-relations-traditionalists

Indeed. Quite the email. Quite the report from John L. Allen, Jr.

Do these 1,000,000 plus Catholics matter?. As many have stated, they are a greater portion of the Church than Allen lets on. There may be 1.5 billion Catholics in the world but when you look at Europe and the Americas how many actually practice their faith.

If they are schismatics, which I content that they are not, then do they not matter? There is sure a lot of ecumenical outreach for heretics and interfaith outreach with those who deny Christ but precious little for these, our own brothers and sisters.

I am sorry for Bishop Williamson. I have great respect and sympathy for the bishops, priests and religious of the Society of St. Pius X and I understand the desires of those who worship at their chapels. I believe that one day Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre will be declared at least a Servant of God by the Church if not made Venerable. Who are we to say that the Holy Spirit was not acting through him to preserve the traditional Mass?

Father Zuhlsdorf and Father Hunwicke have some thoughts worth pondering.

As for Allen and company, they know and we know something. They have no progeny. There time is short, very short. They are working feverishly because they know it but they will not succeed.

They will fail.

This won't last much longer.

All we have to do is hold fast to the faith.

Father Tom Rosica - The Essenes and faithful Catholics "a sealed fortress"

Thomas Rosica, CSB, is the English-language spokesman for the Holy See's communication office and Executive Producer of Salt + Light. He spoke recently to KTO, the Catholic television operation in France and in the presence of the Apostolic Nuncio.

Never missing an opportunity to slam Catholics faithful to tradition and Tradition, Rosica did it again using the ancient Essenes as a comparison.

Here are some excerpts from his speech delivered in French and translated here with the help of Google Translate:

"Let me share some of my first Bible scholar training at the Biblicum of Rome and the Bible School in Jerusalem. On the northwest shore of the Dead Sea in the south of Israel, is the site of the Essene establishment where, in 1947, a young Bedouin discovered the famous Dead Sea Scrolls. Manuscripts that retired to a cave that day and the following days would become the greatest treasure ever found. The Essenes, an ascetic Jewish sect of the Second Temple period, were a rather fanatical group who lived from 200 BC to 75 AD. They had consciously chosen to settle in a readily accessible location. Their group of priests and laymen lived a communal life of strict dedication to God. They called their leader the "Teacher of Righteousness" and regarded him as the only real elected in Israel, the only true to the Covenant. The Essenes were convinced that religious leaders and the people of Jerusalem had gone astray and became unfaithful to God. That is why these pious Jews fled to Qumran to refocus and prepare for the coming of the Messiah. The writings of the Essenes reveal the climate of messianic fanaticism among the Jews of the time and make us discover the nature of the Essene community, lifestyle and beliefs as well as many details of the Second Temple, rituals and worship. These documents clearly describe an aspect of the religious world in which Jesus came to live."

I confess that I am not biblical scholar. According to my letters from Tom Rosica, I have no right to comment on anything Catholic or liturgical because I am neither “a trained liturgist nor a bishop." So, with that disclaimer, let me say this from my limited knowledge. 

The Essenes were the essence of Judaism. They were awaiting the Messiah and they indeed believed as Rosica said "that the religious leaders and the people of Jerusalem had gone astray and become unfaithful to God." They were "pious Jews" meaning they were seeking holiness and the desire to be closer to God. There was "messianic fanaticism" because they believed that the time of Messiah's coming was literally, at hand as it indeed was. On the above, he is correct.

What Rosica does not tell his audience is that many in the Church throughout history believed that St. John the Baptist was one of them.  The Jewish Encyclopedia itself states: 

“John the Baptist seems to have belonged to the Essenes, but in appealing to sinners to be regenerated by baptism, he inaugurated a new movement, which led to the rise of Christianity. The silence of the New Testament about the Essenes is perhaps the best proof that they furnished the new sect with its main elements. The similarity in many respects between Christianity and Essenism is striking.”

The Jewish Encyclopedia refers to the silence about them for one reason and it is what I have always thought about the Essenes from reading of them, they were the first Catholics!

The interchange between John the Baptist and the powers of Jerusalem which we will hear about at Mass this Gaudete Sunday shows the disdain that they had for him. We know from his preaching what St. John thought of the religious and political leadership. The Essenes, as John were actively waiting the Messiah and John proclaimed him to the “Lamb of God” and that he must “decrease” so Christ could “increase.” Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich in her Dolorous Passions (private revelation) often referred to the amount of time that Jesus spent with the Essenes and that he found a refuge there.  Can there be any doubt as to why?

Rosica continues:

“Qumran offers the Church a paradigm on its way to deal with the world, information, media and communications. There are people in the Church today who have felt a little what the leaders of the Essene community felt: they see themselves as the only true elect in the Church, as the last faithful. In their view, the only way to deal with the world is to flee, to build a community in places as inaccessible as the edges of the Dead Sea ... to erect a sealed fortress that pushes the outside world; it is to preach to the small group of elected officials and people who pose no problems. Experience has taught me that the method of Qumran is not the way to deal with today's world! Instead of avoiding the confusion and ambiguity of our age, to seek refuge in nostalgia for a past that is now buried in the heart of God, we need some of us to remain in the city, in this in the fray to offer the world a strong message of the Gospel, the Church's teaching, a ray of hope and a dose of badly needed joy. And we must do it simultaneously on different media platforms!”

Perhaps we should get rid of monasteries then or home-schooling? Given the state of the world today or in the first century who could blame the Essenes or anyone today for wanting to build a wall of protection around their families or themselves? Not everyone is capable of going out to the "peripheries." For some, the periphery is in their family.

I've heard this "nostalgia" canard before. When the fledgling "Oratory" at Ottawa where I learned the chant for the first time was slandered by the late Archbishop Plourde in the Ottawa Citizen stating, "Those that long for Gregorian chant suffer from nostalgia neurosis." More lies from those who never acquainted themselves with either Sacrosanctam Concilium or Summorum Pontificum.

Yes, there are many Catholics who feel as the Essenes did. I would not be so bold as to say that “I” am truly of the elect and nobody else is. In fact, other than to say that we seem a little “remnant” holding to the faith of our fathers which is biblical, I know of no faithful Catholic prideful enough to say that they are the “only true elect.” Did Our Blessed Lord not call the Jewish leadership "whitewashed sepulchres" and did not John the Baptist call them a "brood of vipers." Perhaps the Essenes knew something that Father forgets. There is a reason that they cut themselves off. Is there a parallel today? Indeed there is.

Who then, is Rosica speaking about? 

Given that he is in France, he probably has the Society of St. Pius X in mind along with other Ecclesia Dei orders and congregations.  The reality in France is that the Church in her eldest daughter is imploding. The only growth is in the referred to Orders and in the Diocese of Frejus-Toulon where the faith is taught without fear and the liturgy is taught properly in both Forms in the seminary. In less than twenty years in France, there will be more priests celebrating the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite than the Ordinary Form. How is that for a stark reality? The future of the Church in France more than anywhere else is traditional Catholicism!

It is nothing new for Rosica to attack those faithful Catholics in particular who associate themselves with these orders or the traditional liturgy.

Rosica continues that:

“Jesus has not established his base of operations on the shores of the Dead Sea, but in the cosmopolitan center that was Capernaum on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. In this small fishing village strategically located in the extension of the Via Maris, he could deal with all kinds of people, including tax collectors and a Roman centurion. He was really at home in Capernaum, not in Jerusalem or the Dead Sea. Even though Jesus was clearly not a politician, he had a keen sense of politics and rarely refused an invitation to dinner. Jesus attended the unclean, the sick and the dying sinners and those who lived in the margins of society. It binds to the sinners and the poor of his time - without approving of their behavior, but to offer them an alternative lifestyle. It teaches us that "being with people", it also happens to heal, restore, renew and reconcile broken humanity.”

Yes, Our Lord ate with sinners and tax collectors and he called them to repentance. Let us be clear, "without approving of their behaviour" as Rosica says, but let us be clear, those who manipulated the Synodal process and now try to say that it did not happen are now speaking with clarity. All of the tools to call back sinners are already here. There does not need to be a Synod to tell priests and bishops to go out to the peripheries. 

“Jesus asked his disciples to go to the periphery, to the ends of the earth, and not only where they felt comfortable. Jesus always spoke a language that people understand, and he used the media that people had access. He was the communicator par excellence. His incarnation was great communication between God and humanity. The challenge he noted is ours today. To be effective, use traditional media and new media, either as users or as communicators. The best way to use the media is to testify in the truth of the message we want to convey. The strength of our message and our work lies in the authenticity and transparency with which they are presented. Catholic television today must resist the temptation to run to an extreme in times of crisis. You risk becoming fundamentalist, clinging to a doctrine and a life form so severe that a person is locked up, like a secret garden or behind the walls of a fortress, so that it does are only those who are inside that can hear speech. There is also the temptation to run to the other extreme and adapt so well to the ways of the world and the values that the teaching and the truth of the Gospel entrusted to us are thereby diluted and distorted.”

The Essenes not only went out to the "periphery" they were the periphery!  

We must always "testify to the truth" but to state that "clinging to doctrine and a life form so severe that a person is locked up” is nonsensical. Truth is Jesus Christ. You cannot have truth without doctrine! Who else speaks in this manner? We can ask the question, is Rosica parroting Pope Francis or is Pope Francis parroting Rosica? Perhaps this speech is helping us get a little closer to the nub of the issue, eh?  With the ground being established for the next Synod in October, we can see where we are going and it is not good and we shall address this matter in the future post. The stage is now being set.

These men are out to marginalise faithful Catholics. They have as their strategist none other than Saul Alinsky himself and Rosica’s statements prove it by the identifying and discrediting those whom he sees as the opponents to his ideology. These men are Modernists and they are hell-bent on changing doctrine through stealth – by the change of practice under the guise that which is considered pastoral. Modernism is the "synthesis of all heresies" as St. Pius X wrote in Pascendi.  

For proof that the change of doctrine occurs through practice one need look no further than the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. They moved the tabernacle to a side wall or another room and off the apex of the apse or reredos because the faithful would be confused between the dynamic and static presence. They made us stand and forced us to receive Him in our hands. They gave lay people in whatever state they are in the right to distribute Holy Communion. Ask yourself, did they change the doctrine? Not officially, but what is the state of this belief now? Do not forget the Latin phase, Lex orandi, lex credendi -- the law of prayer is the law of belief.

They refuse to rule out that they will not change the teaching on Holy Communion for people who are adulterists and homosexualists and living in unchaste relationships. Why? Why are they so afraid to say there will be no change on the reception of Holy Communion?

 What this is about is a further desecration of the Holy Eucharist and a fundamental heretical protestantisation of the Catholic Church and they are caught up in false humility, false evangelisation and false faith. They act is if they have lost the faith, if they ever truly understood it.

Tom Rosica condemns the Essenes for wanting to escape the world and for calling evil, evil. He compares faithful Catholic to them for the same thing.

In a recent interview, Bishop Athanasius Schneider said, "Only one sin is nowadays severely punished: the attentive observance of the traditions of our fathers. For that reason the good ones are thrown out of their places and brought to the desert." (Ep.2:43.)

So what are we to think about those who call good evil and evil good?