Tuesday after Good Shepherd Sunday
Pope Francis called for a panel of Cardinals to advise him on the reformation of the institutions of the Catholic Church that were surrendered to Neo-Catholicism – the “pseudo-religion” (Ms. bella Dodd, former Secretary-General of the US Communist Party, in our post “The Year 1929“) of the revolutionaries infiltrated into seminaries who would later become the accursed mock-priests and mock-prelates. Among the reforms to be pursued deals with the Neo-Catholic priesthood. But how does one reform a priesthood that was falsified in its very concept?
In the 4th century, when almost all the Catholic pastors (bishops and priests) turned Arian heretics and the Pope, Liberius, succumbed to being a compromised Roman Pontiff, Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria (Greek Rite), was the pre-eminent “Voice of Orthodoxy” – but in exile. At the foot of the Cross, only one Apostle was left beside the Crucified – and it was not even the Prince of the Apostles. And when the appointed Apocalyptic time came to pass, when the Sun and the moon were to be eclipsed (cf., our posts “A Perilous ‘Catholic’ Voyage“: “The Year 1929”, “The Great Tribulation“), the appointed angel arose from the rising of the sun, having the sign of the living God (cf., our post “The Wine of the Wrath of God“) to serve as the beacon of light for God’s elect – the “Voice of Catholic Orthodoxy” in the end-times period: the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
“To give a clear idea of the nature and extent of the attack on the priesthood during the crisis through which the Church is passing today, it may not be inopportune to give a brief description of that crisis, enumerating some aspects of the tragic situation.
First and foremost, we are faced with continual attacks on the integrity of our Faith. To corrupt the truth which has always been faithfully handed down to us, two powerful means have been brought into play: a new catechism* and the so-called theological research allowed into university teaching. Thus the faithful, especially the young, will no longer know the Catholic truth, and there will soon arise a generation of clergy, priests, with a wholly falsified and erroneous knowledge of philosophy and theology [the “pseudo-Catholic priesthood; something that resembles the Catholic priesthood but was not the real thing,” cf., our post “The Year 1929”; cf., also our posts “Our ‘Great Reversal’” and “The Ultimate Delusion of Vatican II ‘Catholicism’“].
* See, for example, the novelty of what the Neo-Catholic catechism, “The Catechism of the Catholic Church”, teaches concerning homosexuality. Cf., our post “The Divine Spirit and the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II on Homosexuality“.
Both those statements of facts are undeniable. All the new catechisms have been inspired more or less by the Dutch Catechism. Now, the Commission of Cardinals appointed by the Pope condemned ten fundamental points in this catechism, yet the text has never been amended. And this unsound catechism has been translated, unaltered, into all languages. Sometimes the Commission’s text was printed with the table of contents, sometimes there was no mention of it at all. It is thus perfectly clear that this catechism, steeped in modernist ideas (cf., our posts “Upheaval: Russia’s Errors Spreading from the Vatican“, “Vatican II and Modernism“, and “Vatican II and Freemasonry on ‘Religious Liberty’“) should, at all costs, be rejected. To let these catechisms fall into the hands of children is nothing less than a crime and an attack on their faith.
The danger of theological research is equally obvious. These [‘theologists’ – pseudo-theologians – the lay people, even women! in their ranks] – or would-be-[‘theologists’] – feel free on this pretext to openly teach heresy. It is they who are corrupting the minds of aspirants to the priesthood and they who are drawing up the schemata put forward for the diocesan or national synods. Many of these schemata are in open conflict with what the Magisterium of the Church has always taught. Hosts of instances may be found in all ‘Catholic’ universities.
Subversion is rampant in the liturgy also. This subversion reaches all practicing adults through the intermediary of the liturgical center. In France, the C.N.P. (Centre National de Pastorale Liturgique) admits in its January issue a check on reform. It merely notes an obvious decline in religious practice and the boredom of the faithful confronted with the new liturgy. But it does not point out the most serious aspect, the loss of faith in many believers and priests. The essential dogmas of our Holy Religion are no longer expressed with the same vigor [for the liturgy is the vehicle of inculcating the truths of the Faith]. The Faith of believers [and priests] is no longer protected by the form of worship. Protestant errors are spreading rapidly among laity and priests alike. So venerable a tradition cannot with impunity be so radically touched without endangering the dogmas contained in it.
Finally, another target for the destroyers of the Church is at one and the same time the institution and the constitution of the Church. The necessity for the Catholic Church, the sole ark of salvation outside which no man may be saved, has been called in question, if not openly denied. Concern for an aberrant ecumenism has shaken the true nature of the Church [cf., our posts “Our ‘Great Reveersal'”, “Our Lady and the New Orientation in Rome“, and “The Great Tribulation“], and this error has disastrous consequences, especially for missionary vocations and the raison d’etre of missions themselves.
The divine constitution of the Church as conceived and willed by Our Lord in accordance with His desire, is also an object of subversion. While its whole structure rests on the personal authority of men consecrated by the sacrament of Order and by the mandate of the competent authority, the new ‘theology’ is bent on introducing the democratic and collegial system wholly contrary to our Lord’s will. The new synods are an example of the way in which Masonic ideas are penetrating the Church [cf., our post “A Perilous ‘Catholic’ Voyage” and “Vatican II and Freemasonry on ‘Religious Liberty'”]. Everything goes by vote and election. Personal authority has been replaced by Councils. Examples are so numerous that it is difficult to keep count of them.
From the mere consideration of some sensitive points of the crisis, let us recognize how deep it is and how cleverly organized and directed, so much so that one may truly see behind the undertaking the master hand, not of a man, but of Satan himself. Let us point out, in concluding this brief outline, that Satan’s masterstroke is to have succeeded in sowing disobedience to all Tradition through obedience. The most typical example of these established facts is that of aggiornamento of the religious orders. Through obedience monks and nuns are made to disobey the rules and constitutions laid down by their founders, laws which they swore at their profession to obey. Hence comes the profound disorder which reigns in the bosom of these societies and in the bosom of the Church.
Obedience in this case should be a categorical refusal [cf., our post “Catholic Resistance, Not Disobedience”]. Authority, even a legitimate authority, cannot command a bad and reprehensible act. No-one can force us to transmute our vows into simple promises. None can force us to become Protestants or Modernists.
The results of such blindness are tragically clear.
But let us come to the main subject of these few lines – the priesthood – the priest faced with this crisis. We can and should state that he is at the very heart of this crisis and it is he who is its chief victim, for all that touches the Church touches first the priest.
It is far from easy to trace the evolution of the idea of the priesthood and its consequence with accuracy. One should perhaps go back thirty years [this address was given by the Archbishop in 1972 – the subversion of the Catholic priesthood by the infiltrated revolutionary dummies of the Synagogue of Satan (Apoc. 2.9; 3.9) began in the 1930s, cf., our posts “The Year 1929” and “Upheaval”] and recall the way in which subversive ideas on the function of the priest and his relations with the world were infiltrating seminaries. We will, however, confine ourselves to the last ten years, those of the Council and the years following it.
In approaching all the changes which took place during that time stress was laid on world evolution to convince the priest that he too should change his way of life. It was easy to give him complexes of loneliness, frustration, and being a stranger in society. He was told that he should renew his ties with the world and open himself to it. His bad training was blamed and his old-fashioned dress and way of life. The slogan which helped the priest to side with the world was ready to hand: “The priest is a man as other men.” This being so, he should dress like others [Neo-Catholic priests in Anglican/Episcopalian garb at their Neo-Catholic liturgical services and in layman’s get-up outside the service and outside their neo-seminaries and temples]; like them, take up a profession, enjoy the liberty of his civil and political opinions, and be free to marry. Seminary students had only to adapt themselves to this new “type of priest.” Unfortunately, such language was not on the lips of the enemies of the Church alone, but in the mouth of [Neo-Catholic] priests and bishops.
The results were not long delayed: the giving up of every outward sign of the cleric [especially the black Roman cassock], the search for a profession, the transformation of worship to suit the taste of the world, and, a few years later, the loss of faith culminating in the breaking of their vows by thousands of priests [and in the precipitation even to the basest sexual perversions]. That is certainly the most grievous mark of this reform – the loss of faith on the part of priests, for the priest is essentially the man of faith. If he no longer knows what he is, he loses ‘faith’ in himself, in the meaning of his priesthood.
The definition of priesthood given by St. Paul and by the Council of Trent has been radically altered. The priest is no longer he who goes up to the altar* and offers a sacrifice of praise to God for the remission of sins.
* And therefore, the Catholic priesthood is the fulfillment and perfection of the Levitical priesthood of Old. The Levitical priest is the minister of the Lord for ever (1 Par. – 1 Chron. in non-Catholic versions – 15.2); he was chosen out of all the tribes of Israel to be My priest, to go up to My altar… (1 Ki. – 1 Sam. in non-Catholic versions – 2.28). A true Catholic priest bears in him the Levitical unction which Our Lord desired to prosper to an everlasting priesthood (Ex. 40.13). The Neo-Catholic priesthood conferred by the New Rite of Orders which was concocted by the Freemason Bugnini is the repudiation of this very concept of the Catholic priesthood as the fulfillment and perfection of the Levitical priesthood of Old – an ancient priesthood in the modern times?
The first end of the priesthood is the offering of the Sacrifice [they offer holocausts to the Lord, every day, morning and evening (2 Par. 13.11)]. There is a secondary end – evangelization. Evangelization is now taking precedence over the sacrifice and sacraments. It is an end in itself. This grave error [the diabolical turning of things upside-down] has tragic consequences. Indeed, lacking in true end, evangelization will be utterly disorientated and seek causes pleasing to the word such as false social justice [of the 1789 ‘equality’] and false freedom, which take new names: development, progress, and world-building. We are right in the language which leads to all revolutions. The [Neo-Catholic] priest finds a leading part to play in the world Revolution against structures, all structures – political, social, ecclesiastical, family, and parish. Nothing must remain. Communism* has never found agents as effective as these priests. Priests have lost their faith – a grievous acknowledgment, if such it be, in him who is the man of faith.
* “… [Our mock-prelates and mock-priests] were working to bring about change in order to weaken the Church’s effectiveness against Communism” (Ms Bella Dodd, former Secretary-General of the US Communist Party, in our post “The Year 1929”).
Everything in this new perspective of the priest follows logically: the giving up of the cassock, the desire for practicing a profession, the possibility of marriage. Once the sacrifice of the altar ceases to be the chief reason for the priesthood all the sacraments are at risk. The priest will call in the laity* since he himself will be busy with union or political tasks. Baptism will be administered by laymen or married deacons. It is they, too, who distribute the Eucharist and carry it to the sick. Since confession is altogether time-consuming, there is a search for every possible means of discrediting it and replacing it by communal penitential ceremonies. In this respect modernist ‘theologians’ have made Herculean efforts to obtain from episcopal conferences documents casting doubt on auricular confession and granting approval to more and more experiments till the day will come when the faithful give up the practice – and the Faith – completely. Since the [traditional] Sacrament of Penance is a judgment [cf., our post “Absolvo te… (II)“], it is impossible to judge without hearing the facts of the case. General absolution may excite contrition – they are not Sacramental. In every country the attempt to force the hand of the authorities is growing.
* … You have brought in strangers… to be in My sanctuary… You have set keepers of My charge in My sanctuary for yourselves (Ezech. 44.7,8).
Thus, following the destruction of the Mass [its formulary of prayers revised – a lie placed at the very heart, the Consecration, cf., Pope Benedict XVI in our post “The New Liturgy: ‘Outbalanced Liturgy… More a Celebration Than Worship‘” – to reflect the Neo-Catholic ‘theology’, cf., our post “The Ultimate Delusion of Vatican II ‘Catholicism'”], there is a gradual progress towards the destruction of the Sacraments. It is perfectly fair. The devil is busily scoring points and leading millions of souls to perdition.
This false definition of the priesthood is comparable to the false definition of marriage. The procedure [the diabolical turning of things upside-down] is the same. Cardinal Suenens had already proposed at the Council that conjugal love and procreation should be put on the same footing. Though, following a vehement intervention by Cardinal Browne, he was obliged next day to retract his thesis, he had succeeded on the evening before in setting ajar a door for many theologians and bishops. We saw this in connection with Humanae Vitae. The danger of faulty definition is obvious. The chief end of marriage is indeed procreation, conjugal love is the secondary end, auxiliary to the first. To change these relationships is to allow those practices [as contraception – the Scriptural ‘Onanism’, cf., Gen. 38.9)] contrary to the holiness and stability of the family.
The same is true of the definition of the Mass. To change the definition of the Mass in accordance with Article VII of the Introduction to the Novus Ordo (the New Order) is to arrive at the Protestant supper [cf., our post, “Pope Benedict XVI on the New Mass…“]. Though the definition has been [subsequently] changed, or at least modified [after protests], the text of the Ordo issued with that definition has remained the same. It is a fresh proof of the importance of precise definition in accordance with the doctrine and faith of the Church.
The [Neo-Catholic] priest having a false conception of his priesthood and seeing himself as “a man like other men” loses his sense of priestly dignity. He should not be surprised that the world no longer respects him. The outcome of this [diabolical] disorientation can only be scorn, both on the part of the enemies of the Church [and their media propagandists] and on the part of those who still hold an exact idea of the priesthood [especially on the part of Our Lord: MANY will say to Me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied – by preaching, according to the Ven. Louis of Granada, O.P., a spiritual master and writer who was a favorite of our holy Mother St. Teresa of Jesus, in his work “The Sinner’s Guide” – in Thy Name, and cast out devils – during Confessions – in Thy Name, and done many miracles – through the Consecration – in Thy Name? And then I will profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, you that work iniquity (Mt. 7.22-23).].
The seminaries that have fallen into line in training their students on this false concept of the priest have literally scuttled themselves. Real students for the priesthood rightly refuse this training, with its dangers to faith and morals. Those who have applauded and demanded these reforms are not slow to realize that they would be far freer militants to strive for the social, political, and religious revolution outside the institutions of the Church. That is why seminaries are emptying more or less rapidly, depending on the country.
But the possibility of restoring true seminaries still exists, for there are still many true [Catholic] vocations. That should be the main concern of the bishops and priests aware of the Church’s present danger. The Holy Spirit lives in His Church and is forever seeking to spread through souls, especially the souls of priests. May we succeed in rebuilding true houses for priestly vocations such as the Church has always desired….” (from a lecture delivered in Barcelona, Spain, 31st March 1972, in A Bishop Speaks, published by the Angelus Press, pp. 101-106)
Related link: “From the Voice of Catholic Resistance” – one of the four angels (Apoc. 7.1-2) now remaining steadfast to the charge of this angel (the Archbishop) who ascend[ed] from the rising of the sun, having the sign of the living God. See “Our ‘Great Reversal’“