Procinctu Press | THE BLOG

Modernism’s Foe, Our Friend | Pope Saint Pius X

Original Post on Christ or Chaos

Modernism’s Eternal Foe, Our Eternal Friend

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The Modernists who came into their own during the false reign of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII (see Two For The Price Of One, part one and Francis: The Latest In A Long Line Of Ecclesiastical Tyrant) knew that they had to find some way to contradict and then to heap scorn on the work and the memory of the only pope in the previous four hundred years to have been canonized, the farm boy from Riese, Italy, who walked barefoot four miles to school each day, Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto, Pope Saint Pius X. The “Second” Vatican Council had to become the mechanism by which the following condemnation of their Modernist theories and innovations, contained in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, could be buried once and for all:

It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminariesThey wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?  (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, No. 38)

The list of “reforms” that Pope Saint Pius X knew that the Modernists wanted to implement stands out as a prophetic warning as to the agenda that was formed by Modernist theologians in the years before the “Second” Vatican Council and became the fundamental basis for the whole ethos of conciliarism. Consider the prophetic nature of Pope Saint Pius X’s list of “reforms” that the Modernists wanted to implement:

1) The passion for innovation. Innovation, which the Church has always eschewed, has become the very foundation of conciliarism. Indeed, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has praised novelty and innovation repeatedly, doing so during his now infamous December 22, 2005, Christmas address to his conciliar curia. Since when has this been the case in the history of the Catholic Church? It is standard practice in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

2) “They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live.” This is a cogent summary of the belief of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself, which he outlined in Principles of Catholic Theology and in his own autobiography, Milestones.

3) “Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to harmonized with science and history.” Thus it is, of course, that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI told us, both before and during his false “pontificate,” that such things as Pope Pius IX’s The Syllabus of Errors and even Pope Saint Pius X’s Pascendi Dominci Gregis, among other encyclical letters and papal pronouncements (see Witness Against Benedict XVI: The Oath Against Modernism) itself served a useful purpose at one point in history but lose their binding force over time. In other words, we must harmonize Catholicism with the events of history (the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King, the institutionalization of Protestant “churches,” the rise of the secular state) and not be “tied down” by a “time-centered” view of the Faith. As repetition is the mother of learning, perhaps it is good to repeat once again that this Modernist view of dogma was specifically condemned by the [First] Vatican Council. No Catholic is free to ignore these binding words and remain a Catholic in good standing:

  •  
    For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward

    • not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
    • but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
  • Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.

The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .

3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.

But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1.)

4) “Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head.” This describes the liturgical thrust of conciliarism quite accurately. Indeed, the last sentence in this sentence has particular application to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who was somewhat disposed to be “indulgent” to the symbolism of the liturgy but was nevertheless committed to “reforming” the conciliar “reform” Obviously, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis comes from a more “liberated” background than his predecessor. The modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition can have its place, according to the falsehoods he published in Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, for those who are “attached” to it. Bergoglio/Francis has made sure, of course, that there is no turning back on the “reform” itself, including the reduction of the saints commemorated on conciliarism’s universal calendar. Indeed, then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the following in Principles of Catholic Theology in 1982:

Among the more obvious phenomena of the last years must be counted the increasing number of integralist groups in which the desire for piety, for the sense of mystery, is finding satisfaction. We must be on our guard against minimizing these movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too firmly. (pp. 389-390)

 

5) “They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified.” The conciliarists have summarized Pope Saint Pius X’s description of their Modernist view of Church governance very succinctly: Collegiality. It is no accident that Giovanni Montini/Paul VI gave away the Papal Tiara, which is on display in the crypt of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., and that Albino Luciani/John Paul I and Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI each refused to be crowned. This was quite symbolic, perhaps in ways that they did not even intend to signify as I have come to realize in the last three and one-half years. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has gone so far as to remove the tiara from his coat-of-arms, which is reflective of episcopal collegiality with his own bishops and a gesture in the direction of those steeped in the heresies of Photius, the Orthodox.

6) “The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit.” This is of the essence of Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965. And it is of the essence of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s belief that the the “Second” Vatican Council represented an “official reconciliation” with the principles of 1789. Just as a little reminder so that readers with short memories do not think that I am misrepresenting the thought of the man who does not believe it to be the mission of the Catholic Church to seek with urgency the conversion of Protestants and Jews and the Orthodox and all others who are outside her maternal bosom:

Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789. Only from this perspective can we understand, on the one hand, the ghetto-mentality, of which we have spoken above; only from this perspective can we understand, on the other hand, the meaning of the remarkable meeting of the Church and the world. Basically, the word “world” means the spirit of the modern era, in contrast to which the Church’s group-consciousness saw itself as a separate subject that now, after a war that had been in turn both hot and cold, was intent on dialogue and cooperation. From this perspective, too, we can understand the different emphases with which the individual parts of the Church entered into the discussion of the text. While German theologians were satisfied that their exegetical and ecumenical concepts had been incorporated, representatives of Latin American countries, in particular, felt that their concerns, too, had been addressed, topics proposed by Anglo-Saxon theologians likewise found strong expression, and representatives of Third World countries saw, in the emphasis on social questions, a consideration of their particular problems. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 381-382)

Pope Saint Pius X wrote the following in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906 about those who would dare to contend that the Church had to “reconcile” herself to the separation of Church and State, which the Catholic Church condemned repeatedly and vigorously throughout her history prior to the “Second” Vatican Council:

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man’s supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. “Between them,” he says, “there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul.-“Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur.” He proceeds: “Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them…. As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error. — “Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilque profuturam abjicere…. Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error.” (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

Pope Saint Pius X condemned as “absolutely false” the thesis that the State must be separated from the Church. Absolutely false. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI accepts as true and good that which a canonized pope, repeating the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church, which no one has any authority to contradict, condemned as absolutely false. Are you beginning to see, possibly, that there is a problem with the conciliarism in its entirety? Are you beginning to see, possibly, that there is no reconciling the unprecedented novelties of conciliarism and conciliarists, including one of the chief conciliarists, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, with the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church?

In addition to the above-noted paragraph in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Pope Saint Pius X went on to note the arrogance of the Modernists in their desire for novelty and in their contempt for scholastic theology and their efforts to view the Fathers in light of their own Modernist predilections:

Would that they had but displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it! But such is their activity and such their unwearying labor on behalf of their cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them waste such energy in endeavoring to ruin the Church when they might have been of such service to her had their efforts been better directed. Their artifices to delude men’s minds are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to devise and apply actively and patiently every resource that can serve their purpose. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: “The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science.” They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those “who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind…or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church”; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: “We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.” Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: “I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.”  (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, No. 42)

This paragraph is a ringing condemnation of the work of conciliarism and of its progenitors, the so-called “new theologians” (Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Karl Rahner, Joseph Ratzinger, et al.). Look at how Pope Saint Pius X zeroed in on the three things that Joseph Ratzinger spent nearly 400 pages trying to deconstruct and explain away in Principles of Catholic Theology: (1) The Scholastic Method of Philosophy; (2) The Authority and Tradition of the Fathers; and (3) the Magisterium of the Church  The then “Cardinal” Ratzinger had to rely upon his Hegelian view of the world to explain away dogmatic pronouncements and articles contained in the Deposit of Faith that constituted part of the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium. The Syllabus of Errors? Well, right for its time perhaps, Ratzinger and other conciliarists say, but we can see now that it was a “hasty” and “superficial” overreaction to events of the day.

As Pope Saint Pius X noted; “They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all of its weight and authority.” This is so very important. Benedict’s use of the word “tradition” does not mean what the Church has always taught it to mean. He desires to “weaken the force” and to “falsify the character of tradition” precisely so as to “rob it of all its weight and authority,” considering the word “tradition” to be an empty vessel into which he can pour whatever meaning he believes is appropriate for “modern man.”

Joseph Ratzinger was born thirteen years after the following letter was written by Gaetano Cardinal De Lai in 1914 to Father Angelo Roncalli–and Jorge Mario Bergoglio was born just twenty-two years thereafter:

According to information that has come my way, I knew that you had been a reader of Duchesne [whose book, History of the Early Church, had been placed on the Index of Forbidden Books and used in Roncalli’s seminary lectures] and other unbridled authors, and that on certain occasions you had shown yourself inclined to that school of thought which tends to empty out the value of Tradition and the authority of the past, a dangerous current which leads to fatal consequences. (quoted in Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki, Tumultuous Times, p. 297)

Do you see a pattern here?

Is it any wonder that the conciliarists, to show their utter contempt for Pope Saint Pius X, erected a mural of Angelo Roncalli to the right of the altar under which rests the sarcophagus of Pope Saint Pius X? It was their way of saying to the eternal foe of Modernism, “We win! We spit on you!”

As we know, their “victory” is only temporary. Our Lady will come to throw them out and to have them declared for what they have been and continue to be: enemies of the Catholic Faith who have been, whether wittingly or unwittingly, in league with the eternal enemy of God and thus of the welfare of the souls created in His image and likeness, the devil. There is no middle ground here at all.

To take the views of Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio is to reject the Catholic Faith. Pope Leo XIII made it abundantly clear in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, that a person who deviates from one part of the Faith falls from the Faith in its entirety.

In other words, ladies and gentlemen, Pope Saint Pius X provided us with a road map as to how Modernists think and how they must “tear down the bastions” of the Church, including Scholastic Theology and the Authority and Tradition of the Fathers and the Magisterium of the Church, to attempt to convince Catholics that their innovations are perfectly in accord with the patrimony of the Catholic Church. Modernists must seek to make complex that which is simple in order to make it appear as though they, the “experts,” have the key to unlocking the “truth” as they seek it out in “common” with Protestants and Jews, denying the Divine Constitution of the Catholic Church (that she has exclusive custody of and the ability to pronounce upon the Deposit of Faith) in the process.

Pope Saint Pius X went on to state in Pascendi Dominci Gregis that the Modernists must heap scorn upon those who defend the Faith as it has been handed down to us through the centuries under the infallible guidance of the Holy Ghost, the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity:

The Modernists pass judgment on the holy Fathers of the Church even as they do upon tradition. With consummate temerity they assure the public that the Fathers, while personally most worthy of all veneration, were entirely ignorant of history and criticism, for which they are only excusable on account of the time in which they lived. Finally, the Modernists try in every way to diminish and weaken the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium itself by sacrilegiously falsifying its origin, character, and rights, and by freely repeating the calumnies of its adversaries. To the entire band of Modernists may be applied those words which Our predecessor sorrowfully wrote: “To bring contempt and odium on the mystic Spouse of Christ, who is the true light, the children of darkness have been wont to cast in her face before the world a stupid calumny, and perverting the meaning and force of things and words, to depict her as the friend of darkness and ignorance, and the enemy of light, science, and progress.” This being so, Venerable Brethren, there is little reason to wonder that the Modernists vent all their bitterness and hatred on Catholics who zealously fight the battles of the Church. There is no species of insult which they do not heap upon them, but their usual course is to charge them with ignorance or obstinacy. When an adversary rises up against them with an erudition and force that renders them redoubtable, they seek to make a conspiracy of silence around him to nullify the effects of his attack. This policy towards Catholics is the more invidious in that they belaud with admiration which knows no bounds the writers who range themselves on their side, hailing their works, exuding novelty in every page, with a chorus of applause. For them the scholarship of a writer is in direct proportion to the recklessness of his attacks on antiquity, and of his efforts to undermine tradition and the ecclesiastical magisterium. When one of their number falls under the condemnations of the Church the rest of them, to the disgust of good Catholics, gather round him, loudly and publicly applaud him, and hold him up in veneration as almost a martyr for truth. The young, excited and confused by all this clamor of praise and abuse, some of them afraid of being branded as ignorant, others ambitious to rank among the learned, and both classes goaded internally by curiosity and pride, not infrequently surrender and give themselves up to Modernism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

It might be instructive at this point to review the now retired Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s own view of those who resist the novelties of the “Second” Vatican Council (repetition, yes, repetition, did you get that, repetition, is the mother of learning):

Among the more obvious phenomena of the last years must be counted the increasing number of integralist groups in which the desire for piety, for the sense of mystery, is finding satisfaction. We must be on our guard against minimizing these movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too firmly. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 389-390)

 

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI viewed Catholicity in a sense much different than the word Catholicism. “Catholicity,” Ratzinger/Benedict wrote, is that sense of “openness” to the “movement” of the “spirit” in the midst of the larger “church,” which includes Protestant “churches” and the Orthodox. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his successor as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, believe that those who want to whack them over the head with the “time-bound” writings of Pope Saint Pius X, for example, do not have a broad understanding of the word “Catholicity” and are thus a threat to the “growth” of the “Church” in response to the promptings of the “spirit” as various “theses” and “propositions” clash with each other.

The “two-headed ‘pope’ monster” and their fellow revolutionaries must resort to the very tactics described by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis to denounce those who adhere to the dogmatic pronouncements of the Church and the reiteration of the Church’s consistent teaching by the popes of the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries.

Pope Saint Pius X was no ecumenist. He was unafraid to recall those outside of the Church to her maternal bosom, as he reminded the founder of Zionism, Theodore Herzl, on January 25, 1904:

HERZL: Yesterday I was with the Pope [Pius X]. . . . I arrived ten minutes ahead of time, and without having to wait I was conducted through a number of small reception rooms to the Pope. He received me standing and held out his hand, which I did not kiss. Lippay had told me I had to do it, but I didn’t. I believe this spoiled my chances with him, for everyone who visits him kneels and at least kisses his hand. This hand kiss had worried me a great deal and I was glad when it was out of the way.

He seated himself in an armchair, a throne for minor affairs, and invited me to sit by his side. He smiled in kindly anticipation. I began:

HERZL: I thank Your Holiness for the favor of granting me this audience. [I begged him to excuse my miserable Italian, but he said:

POPE: No, Signor Commander, you speak very well.

HERZL: [He is an honest, rough-hewn village priest, to whom Christianity has remained a living thing even in the Vatican. I briefly laid my request before him. But annoyed perhaps by my refusal to kiss his hand, he answered in a stern categorical manner.

POPE: We are unable to favor this movement [of Zionism]. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.

HERZL: [The conflict between Rome and Jerusalem, represented by the one and the other of us, was once again under way. At the outset I tried to be conciliatory. I said my little piece. . . . It didn’t greatly impress him. Jerusalem was not to be placed in Jewish hands.] And its present status, Holy Father?

POPE: I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the Jewish wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do.

HERZL: [I said that we based our movement solely on the sufferings of the Jews, and wished to put aside all religious issues].

POPE: Yes, but we, but I as the head of the Catholic Church, cannot do this. One of two things will likely happen. Either the Jews will retain their ancient faith and continue to await the Messiah whom we believe has already appeared—in which case they are denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot assist them. Or else they will go there with no religion whatever, and then we can have nothing at all to do with them. The Jewish faith was the foundation of our own, but it has been superceded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot admit that it still enjoys any validity. The Jews who should have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ have not done so to this day.

HERZL: [It was on the tip of my tongue to remark, “It happens in every family: no one believes in his own relative.” But, instead, I said:] Terror and persecution were not precisely the best means for converting the Jews. [His reply had an element of grandeur in its simplicity:]

POPE: Our Lord came without power. He came in peace. He persecuted no one. He was abandoned even by his apostles. It was only later that he attained stature. It took three centuries for the Church to evolve. The Jews therefore had plenty of time in which to accept his divinity without duress or pressure. But they chose not to do so, and they have not done it yet.

HERZL: But, Holy Father, the Jews are in a terrible plight. I do not know if Your Holiness is aware of the full extent of their tragedy. We need a land for these harried people.

POPE: Must it be Jerusalem?

HERZL: We are not asking for Jerusalem, but for Palestine—for only the secular land.

POPE: We cannot be in favor of it.

[Editor Lowenthal interjects here] Here unrelenting replacement theology is plainly upheld as the norm of the Roman Catholic Church. Further, this confession, along with the whole tone of the Pope in his meeting with Herzl, indicates the perpetuation of a doctrinal emphasis that has resulted in centuries of degrading behavior toward the Jews. However, this response has the “grandeur” of total avoidance of that which Herzl had intimated, namely that the abusive reputation of Roman Catholicism toward the Jews was unlikely to foster conversion. Further, if, “It took three centuries for the Church to evolve,” it was that very same period of time that it took for the Church to consolidate and launch its thrust of anti-Semitism through the following centuries.

HERZL: Does Your Holiness know the situation of the Jews?

POPE: Yes, from my days in Mantua, where there are Jews. I have always been in friendly relations with Jews. Only the other evening two Jews were here to see me. There are other bonds than those of religion: social intercourse, for example, and philanthropy. Such bonds we do not refuse to maintain with the Jews. Indeed we also pray for them, that their spirit see the light. This very day the Church is celebrating the feast of an unbeliever who became converted in a miraculous manner—on the road to Damascus. And so if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you.

HERZL: [At this point Conte Lippay had himself announced. The Pope bade him be admitted. The Conte kneeled, kissed his hand, and joined in the conversation by telling of our “miraculous” meeting in the Bauer beerhall at Venice. The miracle was that he had originally intended to stay overnight in Padua, and instead, it turned out that he was given to hear me express the wish to kiss the Holy Father’s foot. At this the Pope made no movement, for I hadn’t even kissed his hand. Lippay proceeded to tell how I had expiated on the noble qualities of Jesus Christ. The Pope listened, and now and then took a pinch of snuff and sneezed into a big red cotton handkerchief. It is these peasant touches which I like about him best and which most of all compel my respect. Lippay, it would appear, wanted to account for his introducing me, and perhaps ward off a word of reproach. But the Pope said:

POPE: On the contrary, I am glad you brought me the Signor Commendatore.

HERZL: [As to the real business, he repeated what he had told me, until he dismissed us:]

POPE: Not possible!

HERZL: [Lippay stayed on his knees for an unconscionable time and never seemed to tire of kissing his hand. It was apparent that this was what the Pope liked. But on taking leave, I contented myself with shaking his hand warmly and bowing deeply. The audience lasted about twenty-five minutes. While spending the last hour in the Raphael gallery, I saw a picture of an Emperor kneeling before a seated Pope and receiving the crown from his hands. That’s how Rome wants it.]   (Marvin Lowenthal, Diaries of Theodore Herzl, pp. 427- 430.)

Not exactly how the conciliar “popes” have spoken to the adherents of the Talmud as two of them–so far!– have been treated as inferiors in Talmudic synagogues and as Talmudic choirs have sung about how the Talmudic Jews of today are “waiting for the Messiah,” now is it?

Oh, no. Pope Saint Pius X sought the conversion of souls, making no accommodations to the nonexistent legitimacy of false religions. JorgeMario Bergoglio/Francis was a regular visit of Talmudic synagogues in Argentina, and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI visited three of them, including one in Rome itself (see Saint Peter and Anti-Peter).

Writing in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, Pope Saint Pius X gave us yet another prophetic warning, which has been oft-quoted on this site, of where the new religion he was fighting with all of the might that Our Lady could give him: the One-World Ecumenical Church:

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

The humble farm boy from Riese, Italy, who served in the cattle trading center of Tombolo, Italy, and used his gentle demeanor to extract from the men in that rough and tumble community a promise to refrain from cursing and using God’s name in vain in exchange for his running a night school to teach them how to read and write, noted in his first encyclical letter, E Supremi, October 4, 1903, that he wanted to use gentleness in dealing with the problems of the day.

Faced with the obstinate boldness of the Modernists, however, Pope Saint Pius X, the pope of early First Communion and frequent Communions thereafter, the pope who loved children and wanted to see them instructed by means of the Catechism whose production he supervised, yes, this gentle pastor of souls, had to resort to the full force of the papacy to assess and to denounce the errors of Modernists and Modernism.

Pope Saint Pius X noted this precise point in Pascendi Dominici Gregis:

Once indeed We had hopes of recalling them to a better mind, and to this end We first of all treated them with kindness as Our children, then with severity; and at last We have had recourse, though with great reluctance, to public reproof. It is known to you, Venerable Brethren, how unavailing have been Our efforts. For a moment they have bowed their head, only to lift it more arrogantly than before. If it were a matter which concerned them alone, We might perhaps have overlooked it; but the security of the Catholic name is at stake. Wherefore We must interrupt a silence which it would be criminal to prolong, that We may point out to the whole Church, as they really are, men who are badly disguised. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Quite rightly did the sainted pontiff refer to Modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies:”

It may, perhaps, seem to some, Venerable Brethren, that We have dealt at too great length on this exposition of the doctrines of the Modernists. But it was necessary that We should do so, both in order to meet their customary charge that We do not understand their ideas, and to show that their system does not consist in scattered and unconnected theories, but, as it were, in a closely connected whole, so that it is not possible to admit one without admitting all. For this reason, too, We have had to give to this exposition a somewhat didactic form, and not to shrink from employing certain unwonted terms which the Modernists have brought into use. And now with Our eyes fixed upon the whole system, no one will be surprised that We should define it to be the synthesis of all heresies. Undoubtedly, were anyone to attempt the task of collecting together all the errors that have been broached against the faith and to concentrate into one the sap and substance of them all, he could not succeed in doing so better than the Modernists have done. Nay, they have gone farther than this, for, as We have already intimated, their system means the destruction not of the Catholic religion alone, but of all religion. Hence the rationalists are not wanting in their applause, and the most frank and sincere among them congratulate themselves on having found in the Modernists the most valuable of all allies. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

No, ladies and gentlemen, conciliarists such as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI know full well what it is they are doing. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has read Pascendi and he rejects it. The fact that a man has a “Modernist” mind does not mean he is not responsible for the consequences of his Modernism. Such a line of reasoning is as novel as the novelties of the day, indicative of a complete and total and manifest unwillingness to deal with the simple fact that conciliarism is heretical and that a counterfeit religion has been created that has been a detriment to the sanctification and salvation of souls. A Modernist who knows what the Church pronounced at the twenty councils preceding the dawning of the age of conciliarism cannot be excused on the grounds that he is confused. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI knows what the Church has taught better than almost anyone else and he believes that his life mission has been precisely to use the methods described by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis (to reject Scholastic Philosophy, to attack the meaning of dogmatic truth and of Tradition and the teaching of the Magisterium) to create a “new synthesis of faith.” He knows full well what he is doing, and what he is doing was condemned in no uncertain terms by Pope Saint Pius X.

The Modernists did not cease and desist with the issuance of Pascendi Dominici Gregis. This forced Pope Saint Pius X to amplify the points made therein, issuing Praestantia Scripturae, just sixty-two days after Pascendi, on November 18, 1907

Moreover, in order to check the daily increasing audacity of many modernists who are endeavoring by all kinds of sophistry and devices to detract from the force and efficacy not only of the decree “Lamentabili sane exitu” (the so-called Syllabus), issued by our order by the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition on July 3 of the present year, but also of our encyclical letters “Pascendi dominici gregis” given on September 8 of this same year, we do by our apostolic authority repeat and confirm both that decree of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and those encyclical letters of ours, adding the penalty of excommunication against their contradictors, and this we declare and decree that should anybody, which may God forbid, be so rash as to defend any one of the propositions, opinions or teachings condemned in these documents he falls, ipso facto, under the censure contained under the chapter “Docentes” of the constitution “Apostolicae Sedis,” which is the first among the excommunications latae sententiae, simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff. This excommunication is to be understood as salvis poenis, which may be incurred by those who have violated in any way the said documents, as propagators and defenders of heresies, when their propositions, opinions and teachings are heretical, as has happened more than once in the case of the adversaries of both these documents, especially when they advocate the errors of the modernists that is, the synthesis of all heresies. (Pope Saint Pius X, Praestantia Scripturae, November 18, 1907.)

Faithful Catholics loved Saint Pius X during his eleven year pontificate. They knew him to be a good and generous pastor of souls, a pope who had a great and an earnest zeal for souls, and a deep, tender love for the young, taking the case of Little Nellie of Holy God to heart as the sign that he needed to give permission for the reception of First Holy Communion to children at a young age.

Here is an account of how our sainted pontiff came to learn of Little Nellie Organ of God, that wonderful daughter of Saint Patrick’s Ireland:

Nellie had a great love for Holy God and she also had a great love for her neighbour.  She used to pray for all, and for the intentions of the Pope, whom she called, “My own Holy Pader.”

When the nurse told Nellie the story of the Passion and Sufferings of Our Lord, the little girl burst into tears, “Poor Holy God! Poor Holy God!” and later she would hold the Crucifix in her hands, and say, “Poor Holy God!”

Nellie’s life was quickly coming to and end.  In 1907, she celebrated Christmas by receiving Holy Communion.  She had a special name for Christmas and called it, “Holy God’s Birthday.”

She knew she was nearing the end. On January 30th, 1908 she said to the nurse, “Tell me, Mother, how do you feel today?” “Very well, Nellie,” she replied. “But tell me,” asked Nellie, “do you feel you are nearing Holy God? I do.”

Little Nellie died on Candlemas, February 2nd, 1908.  As she lay dying, she saw something at the foot of her bed.  Her eyes followed it, and she moved her lips as if she was speaking to someone. Then she smiled and passed away.

Nellie was buried in the public cemetery, but a year afterwards her little body was removed to the Cemetery of the Good Shepherd Convent. The body was then found whole, except for the bone in the jaw which had been destroyed by disease. In regard to that decayed bone, it was declared that before she received her First Communion it gave off a terrible odor, but after that time the odor disappeared.  Many pilgrims go to visit her grave every year.

After Nellie’s death, the children of St. Finbar’s School made a special Novena that Little Nellie would obtain for them and all little children around the world, the great favour of receiving Holy Communion as near as possible to the age at which she received it.

When Pope St. Pius X was told about Little Nellie, and how she longed for Jesus in Holy Communion, and how lovingly she received Him, he said, “There! That is the sign for which I have been waiting.”  He also asked Little Nellie’s Bishop for a relic of her.

In 1910, the Pope Pius X made a Church Law stating that all children could receive Holy Communion at an early age.  The children of St. Finbar’s School then wrote a beautiful letter to Pope St. Pius X.   I will quote some parts:

“Dear Holy Father,

We, the little children of St. Finbar’s Industrial School, write, thanking Holy God for inspiring you to issue the First Holy Communion Decree.  We will never stop praying for you, and we will ask Holy God to take you into His Sacred Heart.  The wonderful favour, granted to the little children, of receiving Holy Communion at such an early age, is such a source of great joy to us…

We often wonder if your holiness has heard of our holy baby,  ‘Nellie,’ who received Holy Communion at the age of four years and three months….  She received Holy Communion on December 6, 1907…. Holy God and Holy God’s Mother came for her February 2, 1908.

We pray to her for everything we want, and she is almost sure to hear our prayers.  Twelve months ago we began a novena at night prayers that she would work six miracles, which would obtain for her little companions and all little children over the whole world, the great favour of receiving Holy Communion as near to the age that she received it as possible.  Would it be wrong for us to think that the Decree has been granted through her intercession and that it is to our darling little Nellie that we and all little children owe this great privilege?”

Pope St. Pius X received the letter of the children a few months after he had issued the Decree about the Communion of Children.  He wrote the following letter to the children of St. Finbar’s School:

To the beloved children of the School of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd in Cork, with sincere congratulations on the sentiments expressed in their pious address of true love for Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, with the warmest thanks for their prayers for the Holy Catholic Church and for Us, and with the wish that they may always keep as good as their companion Nellie, who was called to Heaven while still a child, where she is praying for them, for the comfort of their families, for the sisters, their dear Mistresses, for their Superiors, and especially for their very Venerable Bishop, to all of whom we earnestly impart the Apostolic Blessing.   (Little Nellie of Holy God.)

Is this doesn’t bring a tear to your eye and a smile to your Catholic face, good readers, nothing will do so.

Pope Saint Pius X, who taught catechism when he was the Bishop of Mantua, Italy, and when he was the Cardinal Archbishop of Venice, Italy, and as the Supreme Pontiff, supervised, as noted above, a catechism that is still teaching Catholics to this very day.

Faithful Catholics still love Saint Pius X. they know him to be the eternal foe of Modernism just as he is our eternal friend, especially in this days when a counterfeit religion that is the embodiment of Modernism has taken such hold over the minds and the hearts of so many Catholics. Faithful Catholics know that his devoted son of Our Lady and of her chaste spouse, Saint Joseph, whose very name he bore so admirably, is here to help us with his prayers and to teach us with his eternal words of wisdom that never–under any circumstances–lose their binding force.

May these words, which were inscribed on a metal plaque near the first resting place, in the crypt of the Basilica of Saint Peter, of Pope Saint Pius X’s mortal remains, inspire us to invoke his intercession to help “restore all things in Christ,” both in the Church and in the world, as we await the Triumph of Our Lady’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart:

Pope Pius X,

Poor and Yet Rich

Gentle and Humble of Heart

Unconquerable Champion of the Catholic Faith

Whose Constant Endeavor it was to Renew

All Things in Christ

Departed in Piety

On the Twentieth of August, 1914

 

 

Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Pope Saint Pius X, pray for us.

The Evil of Venial Sin

While it is mortal sin which damns a soul to Hell, venial sin still greatly offends God… and venial sins act as a gateway to mortal sins. We should strive for perfection, and keep heaven as our goal, instead of just getting by and being content with making it to purgatory.

Here is Father McGuire and the Evil of Venial Sin.

The Scapular | w/ Bishop Dolan

True Restoration discusses the Scapular with Bishop Dolan.

Explanation of November Indulgences for Catholics

Below is an Explanation of November Indulgences for Catholics which can be gained for the souls in purgatory.

If you would like a refresher on Temporal Punishment and Indulgences, see the lesson in the video.

Indulgences for the Month of November

  1. The faithful who recite prayers or perform other devout exercises in supplication for the faithful departed during the month of November, may gain: An indulgence of 3 years once on each day of the month; A plenary indulgence on the usual conditions, if they perform these devotions daily for the entire month. (Raccolta, 589)
  2. Those who, during the aforesaid month, take part in public services held in a church or public oratory in intercession for the faithful departed may gain: An indulgence of 7 years on each day of the month; A plenary indulgence, if they attend these exercises on at least fifteen days and, in addition, go to confession, receive Holy Communion and pray for the intentions of the Church. (Raccolta, 589)
  3. From noon on All Saints Day to midnight of All Souls Day: The faithful, as often as they visit a church or public oratory in order to pray for the dead, may gain a plenary indulgence applicable only to the souls in purgatory, on condition of confession and Communion, and the recitation six times during each visit of Our Father, Hail Mary and Glory be for the intentions of the Church. (This indulgence may also be gained on the following Sunday, but only by those who did not gain it on Nov. 1st or 2nd.) (Raccolta, 590) [This is the greatest indulgence for the Poor Souls in November, and can be gained as many times as the requirements are done, which is why it is referred to as the “Toties Quoties” indulgence from the Latin phrase for “as often as”]
  4. The faithful who during the period of eight days from All Souls Day (counting All Souls Day itself) visit a cemetery in a spirit of piety and devotion, and pray, even mentally, for the dead may gain a plenary indulgence on the usual conditions, on each day of the Octave, applicable only to the dead. (Raccolta, 592)

 

Whenever a plenary indulgence says it is granted under the “usual conditions” that means the following must be done in order to gain the indulgence

“The usual conditions for gaining a plenary indulgence are: confession; Communion; visit to a church or public oratory (or semi-public oratory for those who have the right to use it, if no church or public oratory is attached, provided nothing special is prescribed); prayer for the Pope’s intentions. It is to be noted that the usual conditions are not always prescribed, e.g., none of them are really prescribed for gaining the indulgence of the Way of the Cross.” (Winfrid Herbst, S.D.S. The Church Suffering. Emphasis added.)

The confession can be made on the day in question or anytime during the week before or after. Holy Communion can be made on the day in question or within the following week or one day before the day in question.

The faithful who are in the habit of confessing at least twice a month unless legitimately impeded, or who receive Holy Communion daily in the state of grace and with a good and holy intention, though they may abstain from receiving once or twice a week, can gain all indulgences without actual confession for which otherwise confession would be a necessary condition. (Canon 931)

What are prayers for the intentions of the Pope?

When prayers “for the intentions of the Pope” are required, one Our Father, Hail Mary and Glory Be are sufficient unless otherwise stated in the grant of the indulgence. These must be said externally by moving the lips but need not be said audibly.

The Toties Quoties indulgence on All Souls’ Day specifically requires six Our Father’s, Hail Mary’s and Glory Be’s during each visit in church. These six are to be said for the intentions of the Pope. They are not said for the Poor Souls but with the intention of gaining the plenary indulgence for them. The visit is made to pray for the Poor Souls and gain the plenary indulgence for them.

How does one pray “for the intentions of the Pope” during a vacancy? (as there is now)

During a vacancy of the Holy See, one can still gain a plenary indulgence by praying for the general intentions that every pope has. We sometimes refer to these as the “intentions of the Church” to avoid confusion during this time of vacancy. As explained by a notable canon lawyer before Vatican II:

“The intentions of the Supreme Pontiff for which one is to pray are: the exaltation of the Church, propagation of the faith, ending of heresy and schism, conversion of sinners, peace and harmony among Christian rulers and nations, and other blessings for the welfare of Christianity. It suffices to have the general intention to pray for the intentions of the Pope or the Church.” (Stanislaus Woywod, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, p. 538. 1957)

 

Remember to do your part as the Church Militant and use this ‘Explanation of November Indulgences for Catholics’ to pray for the Church Suffering this November.

JMJ – IOGD

The Holy Rosary | w/ Bishop Dolan

True Restoration discusses the Holy Rosary with Bishop Dolan.

50 years since “Black Sunday” vs the Catholic Church

Original Post on Novus Ordo Watch

First Invalid Masses in United States

Unhappy Anniversary: 50 Years since “Black Sunday”

The year of our Lord 2017 has proven to be a year of significant anniversaries, both positive and negative. Another such is today: Sunday, October 22, 1967, was the first time that the Vatican II Sect in the United States mandated the use of a New Canon (“Eucharistic Prayer”) at Mass — a “canon” which included modified words of consecration and was recited entirely in the vernacular.

On Mar. 12, 1968, Fr. Lawrence S. Brey (1927-2006), a priest in the archdiocese of Milwaukee, summed up the problem with Black Sunday as follows:

Was October 22, 1967 the most ominous and frightening day in the two-thousand-year history of the Catholic Church, and certainly in the history of the Church in the United States of America?  Did that day see a legalized contradiction of hitherto inviolate decrees and norms guarding the Canon of the Mass?  Did it possibly even bring a new era of darkness into the world, the extinguishing of the true sacrificial and sacramental Eucharistic Christ from the majority of our churches?

During the early days of agitation for the introduction of the Vernacular into the Mass, and even during the climax of the movement, when the matter was debated at the First Session of Vatican Council II (1962), Catholics were always assured that even if the vernacular should be introduced, the Canon would remain untouched, in its centuries-old, inviolate Latin form.  And rightly so, for the Canon is the heart and center and essence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.  But since the 1963 Liturgy Constitution’s granting of permission to employ the vernacular in someparts of the Mass, a literal cascade of subsequent changes and increased vernacularization has now culminated in the introduction of the new, “English Canon,” yielding what is, in effect, an all-vernacular Mass, (notwithstanding Article 36 of that same Constitution and the decrees of the Council of Trent).  Thus, that which was heretofore and for thirteen centuries considered inviolate has now been touched and disturbingly altered.  Something ominously different from the Canon we have always known now occupies the heart and center of our Catholic Worship.

Not since the introduction of the vernacular in parts of the Mass in 1964, has so much protest, with so many intense misgivings, been engendered, as has been by the introduction of this new, English Canon.  How, infinitely more thundering this protest would be were it not for the fact that the clergy and the faithful have been gradually “conditioned” by change after change in recent years, – perhaps to the point of expecting change as the order of the day and the “mind of the Church”!

There are three main classes of objections to the new, English Canon: (1) That it contains many omissions, mistranslations and distortions, which offend against Catholic reverence, piety, and the integrity of the Faith.  (2) That it is illicit, i.e., in violation of enduring and unrescinded decrees and teachings of previous Councils and Popes.  (3) That it is invalid, i.e., that because of some radical mutilation it no longer confects or produces the true Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist.  Such an alleged invalidity is by far the gravest and most crucial of all the objections, though this view is not shared by many or most of the Canon’s critics.  It is to the question of the validity of the “new Canon” – in the light of a mutilation of the Form of Consecration – that Patrick Henry Omlor devotes this treatise, “Questioning the Validity.”

(Source; italics given.)

Fr. Brey wrote these words in his foreword to a study written by the erudite layman Patrick Henry Omlor (1931-2013), which argued very convincingly that the new, all-English words of consecration rendered such “Masses” invalid. The study can be read here:

This work was the first but by no means the last of Omlor’s contributions to an ever more turbulent theological landscape. A number of his monographs specifically dealing with the Mass controversy can still be found online here, including rejoinders to Mgr. John F. McCarthy, who was challenging Omlor’s case on the invalidity of the form of consecration contained in the New Canon.

Keep in mind that Black Sunday took place approximately one-and-a-half years before the Novus Ordo Missae was promulgated by Antipope Paul VI (Apr. 3, 1969). The rite in use at the time was the interim missal of 1965, sometimes called the “Hybrid Mass” because it was truly a hybrid between the traditional Latin Mass and what would eventually be known as the “New Mass”.

The 1965 missal at first had retained the traditional Roman Canon in Latin, but on Apr. 13, 1967, Paul VI authorized the national bishops’ conferences to decide on the use of the vernacular:

The competent territorial authority observing those matters contained in the Constitution on the Liturgy art. 36, § 3 and § 4 may authorize use of the vernacular in liturgies celebrated with a congregation for:

a. The canon of the Mass;

b. all the rites of holy orders;

c. the reading of the divine office, even in choral recitation.

In the audience granted 13 April 1967 to the undersigned Cardinal Arcadio Maria Larrona, Prefect of the Congregation of Rites, Pope Paul VI approved and confirmed by his authority the present instruction as a whole and in all its parts, ordering its publication and its faithful observance by all concerned, beginning 29 June 1967.

(Sacred Congregation of Rites, Instruction Tres Abhinc Annos, n. 28)

In 1997, Omlor published a collection of all of his theological writings in one volume, entitled The Robber Church (available for purchase here or read online here). Fr. Brey once again wrote the foreword:

THIRTY YEARS have passed since Black Sunday, and soon it will be thirty years since the “Emerald Sunday” of March 17, 1968, when QTV [=Omlor’s Questioning the Validity of the Masses using the New, All-English Canon] was first released. In precision, logic, brevity and freedom from encumbering frills Patrick Henry Omlor’s writings stand out among most others on the subject. These are qualities that characterized the writings and method of St. Thomas Aquinas, the role model for theologians and thinkers, and the nemesis of the obfuscators.

The theological documentation and reasoning in QTV led to a strong probability of invalidity, and that is all that the author contended at the time. But in retrospect, by re-studying and continually researching the matter, applying new insights and considering the FRUITS of this mutilated mass, one realizes that the conclusion becomes not just probable but all the more certain.

(Source; italics given.)

It has now been as many as 50 years, and the fruits of the “New Mass” have become ever more obvious.

It was truly a black Sunday, the darkness of which continues to this day. However, we have the infallible certitude that this darkness will once again be dispelled, at the precise moment God has decreed from all eternity: “And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it” (Jn 1:5).