BY PAULY FONGEMIE, WEB MASTER
"My people have been silent, because they had no knowledge: because
thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou shalt not
do the office of priesthood to me: and thou hast forgotten the law of
thy God, I also will forget thy children.
According to the multitude of them so have they sinned against me: I
will change their glory into shame.
They shall eat the sins of my people, and shall lift up their
souls to their iniquity.
And there shall be like people like priest: and I will visit their ways
upon them, and I will repay them their devices.
And they shall eat and shall not be filled: they have committed
fornication, and have not ceased: because they have forsaken the Lord
in not observing His law." -----Hosea 4: 6-10.
Web Master Note
St. Cecilia was chosen as our headline Saint because she is the
Patroness of Musicians and Singers and was a Virgin-Martyr:
St. Cecilia belonged to an illustrious Roman family who became a
Christian and dedicated her virginity to our Lord Jesus Christ. Her
parents, however, insisted on espousing her to a young Roman noble
gentleman called Valerian. On the day of their marriage, Cecilia spoke
frankly to her husband and told him that she had pledged her virginity
to God and was defended by an Angel who would certainly punish him if
he did not respect her pledge. Valerian, who was a pagan, asked to see
the Angel, and Cecilia replied that he could do so if he became a
Christian. To this he consented and sought out Pope Urban, who was
hidden in the catacombs, owing to the fierce persecution then raging
against the Church.
The Holy Father received him kindly, instructed him and Baptized him.
On returning home, he at once saw the Angel, resplendent with beauty,
who placed a crown on his head and another on that of Cecilia, saying:
"Be worthy to keep these precious crowns; I bring them to you from
Valerian was filled with joy and told all that had happened to his
brother Tiburcio, also a pagan. He too, desirous of seeing the Angel,
received instruction and after Baptism had the same happiness and was
enraptured by the sweetness and majesty of the blessed Spirit. All
three, later on, laid down their lives for the love of Christ, assisted
by their holy Angels.
According to tradition St. Cecilia's body is incorrupt.
The title of this analysis is the Great
, a reference to disharmony in music that strikes the
ear so displeasingly, that if shrill or harsh enough, it actually
disturbs the soul.
Another name for discordance in society, which is meant by God to
be harmonious, united under His holy will, is disorientation. While I
am employing a musical metaphor, I am really addressing the great
disorientation in late twentieth century western civilization that
began within the Church and filtered down into society at large.
The disorientation or discordance, in effect a break with the centuries
of harmony otherwise known as Tradition, is a cacophony of six
distinct, but not separate, screaming strains or dissonant chords that
make up a type of "concert", proclaiming, "We will not obey Thee, O
God, and Thy ordinances we will no longer observe!":
1. Birth Control as taught by the advocates of "natural family
planning" within the official Church, in contravention of Church
teaching from the very beginning: that the purpose of marriage is the
rearing of children for the glory of God, that is, to make as many
Saints for Heaven as possible, provided that God has ordained it so.
2. The revolution of the Holy Mass from a Sacrifice of propitiation to
a dialogue meal whereby the role of priest and people are essentially
3. Women speaking in church [the role of lector and even preacher in
some cases] and the cessation of the covering of their heads while in
4. The reception of Holy Communion in the hand and distributed by the
5. The loss of Fatherhood and fatherhood, that is the diminution of the
glory of the first Person of the Holy Trinity and the subsequent
marginalization of men as fathers, and as fathers, the head of the
6. The rise and dominance of the homosexual ethos so pervasive that it
has destroyed the soul of western culture, a veritable invasion of all
our social and political institutions, the arts and humanities,
schools, the mass media, our very language in how we converse, thus to
a large extent how we think and believe, and most especially the
deCatholicization of our churches and parishes, the final plague
permitted by God as a chastisement for our disobedience.
While appearing to be so distinct as to bear no organic relation to one
another, these ruptures or disorientations are indeed, so intertwined
that they are unavoidably one while appearing to be but a few among
many; the first brought a loss of grace that yielded the second, and
onward in sequence resulting in the tumultuous times in which we live,
whereby we make war on our very nature as persons created in the
likeness of God, for God alone. All six are intrinsically, and thus,
The Myth of Natural "Family Planning"
Long before abortion as the sine qua non ideology [and law] of the
land, there was stirring within the Church and in some Protestant sects
the notion that although the mechanical means of contraception was not
a good thing, that man was free to decide if he wanted children or not
and how many and when. But so strong was the natural law written in the
hearts of men that it was not until the 1930s that a deliberate course
of revolt was finally undertaken. The socialist state or the idea of
the state as the dominant force, and not the family, had at at last
captured the minds and hearts of those who wielded influence in all
walks of life. A series of smaller wars and a devastating World War had
taken its toll on the allegiance of men: the "enlightenment" writ
large. So in not so merry Old England the Anglicans held a conference
whereby it was asserted that man has a natural right to limit his
children according to his own will, provided the means were medically
sound. This insolence goes by the name of The Lambeth Conference of
While decrying Lambeth officially, the Catholic Church was in the midst
of its own revolution along the same lines but executed much more
audaciously [and dangerously] because of its spectacular low-key,
stealth approach. Our revolt took the form of the "family action" or
"family movement" groups that sprang up, perhaps the most notorious of
them being the one headed by the Crowley team of husband and wife from
the heartland, and who were able to manipulate the Catholic in the pew
and his bishop, successfully, scarcely a generation following Lambeth.
Among the Catholic elites and those emulating them there was now the
talk of "artificial contraception" versus "family planning" which was
presented as natural, thus licit before God. To be sure, the
proposition was not yet put precisely in these terms, but the game was
up-----exposed by what was not said and what was stressed: Instead of
contraception, period, there was now "bad" or "artificial
contraception", and then never the term "good contraception" as such,
but the immediate fall back to the "spacing of children". In other
words, "good contraception" was any kind that could be used to thwart
the will of God and exert man's will as the prevailing standard, using
methods that could be devised to technically [according to the letter
and not the spirit] avoid having to be mentioned in Confession or so
the thinking went. And the bishops, mostly hail fellows, well-met, in
the democratic spirit of Americanism and optimism, could be counted on
to pick up the refrain without much reflection. I noted hardly a bishop
who did not use the term "artificial contraception" instead of
contraception. In fact I recall a famous Archbishop using the term more
than once, although I know not his motive, but cannot think other than
it was simply ill-advised or not reasoned through to consequences. The
bishops began to speak of the two purposes of marriage, the "mutuality"
of the spouses and the rearing of children. And consequences there have
As more Catholic families went about using "natural means"-----I use
quotation marks because there is no such thing as a natural method to
thwart the designs of God simply because any method is by definition
unnatural-----of spacing and limiting children, what was called the
"calendar method" or the measuring of fertility using medical science,
with the bishops not mounting a defense of the actual teaching of the
Church on the matter, leaving their flocks in ignorance [Paraphrasing
for short: 'My people perish for a lack of knowledge.'], 2
God seemed to withdraw some of His grace from the Catholic Church.
There is an old truism that where the Catholic Church is holy, society
at large is blessed and that when She is not so holy, society
experiences dislocation and worse. Soon the once large Catholic family
now became the family of three children and less [natural infertility
being but 10% on the whole] and just as soon, and not coincidentally
[?], there arose the liturgical movement, first among insiders, just as
contraception with the Crowleys and their gang, then it spread slowly,
almost unnoticed, among the general laity who attended Sunday Mass
regularly. At first it was in the small things, but always "for a most
important reason"-----as if in prior generations there had never been
"good reasons"-----such as the changing of the required fast days and
the dissolution of Ember Days, etc. Small things but not small by any
other measure. Man no longer wanted to do penance for sin, for man had
"made progress". Man now wanted to dialogue and the indult or
permission had been given for the "dialogue Mass", ostensibly to foster
devotion, and I am sure that in most quarters this was genuine;
however, whenever one willingly disregards Tradition, one does so at
one's own peril, and when one has charge of the souls of others,
theirs, too. Vatican II was in the offing, about to take advantage of a
weakened, sin loving populace, given to accepting contradictions as the
price for "social progress".
And almost as soon, only a decade or so behind, seminaries were
changing their precepts for evaluation and modernism in all its
disarray was again being taught to less than suitable candidates more
often than a healthy and vibrant Church can withstand.
The sin of Onan was to spill "his seed" rather than bring forth a child
and God slew him for it. The sin of modern man in western society is
the sin of Onan but in a more "sophisticated" manner, the manipulation
of the "marriage privilege" by the calendar and God is slaying him
also, with spiritual death, with a hierarchy corrupted by cowardice,
unbelief, materialism, and in a noteworthy number of cases, sensualism
and even perversion. "They shall eat the sins of my people, and shall
lift up their souls to their iniquity."
Sterile marriage relations are the moral equivalent to the other
perversions, such as the sin that ought never be named, but because of
the times, must be mentioned for the sake of clarity. Deliberate
sterility, whatever method employed, is still sterility, a death wish,
and God grants man his wish it seems in ways man does not bargain for.
Contraception is another form of sodomy, the marriage chamber defiled.
Before one could recognize the sin for what it was and is, abortion was
now "enshrined" in our national Constitution, under the name of
"choice" and rights and freedom, as a back-up to failed contraception:
once the natural law is breached for one reason it becomes arbitrary in
the minds of men to stop there. And the dissolution in the Church
advanced headlong in its contrary trajectory, for Her prelates
tolerated "Catholic" politicians who supported abortion rights, in
practice if not formally. Enter the next sequence:
Go, the Holy Mass has Ended . . .
Sister Lucy of Fatima warned us about "the diabolical
disorienation" that was to occur if Russia was not consecrated to the
Immaculate Heart of Mary. Nothing is coincidental with God and it is
especially noteworthy that the seer was also told that the Third Secret
was to be revealed by 1960 if not sooner, when "things would be
clearer." Thus, I am morally certain that the diabolical disorientation
refers to the disorientation that has brought so much sorrow and woe to
the Church [and to society which receives actual grace from God by
means of the Church] through the Novus Ordo Mass, a complete, abrupt,
and sinful departure from all our patrimony and Tradition, a break that
began even before Vatican II was off the ground. Before the opening of
the first ecumenical council in the history of the Church not to be
called for a dogmatic purpose, the periti or experts were plotting
against Tradition, betraying Christ and their offices. As Michael
Davies so brilliantly presents in his work, Liturgical Time Bombs in
Vatican II: The Destruction of Catholic Faith Through Changes in
Catholic Worship, these periti were experts without peer in crafting
ambiguous phrases requiring their interpretation long after the council
had closed, thereby being assured that their new religion would be
implanted within the sanctuary, and into the hearts of the Catholic
people over the course of just a few years, one generation in essence.
As one of the periti wrote: "I do not know whether, as we are told, the
Council has freed us from the tyranny of the Roman Curia, but what is
sure is that, willy-nilly, it has handed us over (after having first
surrendered itself) to the dictatorship of the journalists and
particularly the most incompetent and irresponsible among them." 3
Actually it was through our first sin, that of wanting only a few
children, and our complying bishops [by neglect], that we handed
ourselves over. A Catholic people inspired by sacrifice and Martyrdom,
if necessary, would not have been such easy prey; but a generation of
Catholics no longer generating Catholics as before, was just soft
enough to be spiritually blind and thus the raw material for the
experiment that succeeded beyond the dreams of the revolutionaries, the
veritable destruction of the Roman rite 4
devastation of the vineyard that sapped true vocations-----"And there
shall be like people like priest: and I will visit their ways upon
them, and I will repay them their devices." Because we did not want to
have all the children God had planned for us, He has punished us by not
permitting all the priests we need. How often I have heard, "We have
only two children and I do not want my son to be a priest." No more
need be said here.
One disorientation generating the other and we have been delivered up
to our inquities indeed, because the New Mass is so defective, that
while meeting the bare requirements for validity, it has little if any
salutary, sanctifying effects. For how could it! When the ancient
Israelites took it upon themselves to do away with the prescribed
worship given by God for man's sanctification and worshipped instead
the golden calf, they met with death and ruin for God will not be
mocked. His ordinances are not to be disregarded through pride and
self-indulgence and sheer audacity! Before the Mass of Paul VI became
normative [Cardinal Ratzinger subsequently admitted that Paul VI had
never abolished the Roman Mass, see Footnote 5], there were converts by
the score, so numerous no one could name them all, let alone count
them; afterwards, the very Mass that was put together with the
assistance of Protestant clergymen 5
in order to
attract Protestants [ostensibly], cannot even attract lifelong
Catholics, let alone Protestants. Mass attendance, in the United
States, while higher than in Canada, Europe and Australia, is not
nearly what it once was, blessedly? A cursory look at any parish taken
at random is evidence enough. Now the converts are few, so few, that
those who do convert are so remarkable that we can all name them; in
fact they are known precisely in the media because they are converts,
and this for the most part, because of the discovery of Tradition, not
the New Mass! Sadly, if one who is not attached to a traditional
Catholic chapel or parish because it is not possible, lands a potential
convert in his net, where can he take him for valid instruction to
prepare for the Sacraments?
The Mass of Tradition, the Immemorial Roman Rite of ancient
devised by a committee of heretics and those amenable to them-----gave
us many a Martyr and many more Saints. Who among us would be willing to
give up our lives for a table and Communion in the hand? Not even the
Novus Ordo enthusiasts, I suspect. The Mass is what shapes our identity
as Catholics and forms our sanctity and subsequent Martyrdom when
necessary. The thousands of English Martyrs who died for the Holy Roman
Mass rather than attend the Protestantized Mass of the apostate bishop,
Cranmer, which was actually more dignified than the present Novus Ordo,
although essentially using the same words and gestures as the New Mass,
reveal our shame in not doing more to oppose the Novus Ordo. Not only
did we not do enough to oppose it, we either surrendered like cowards
or were blind-sided by the improper application of the virtue of
obedience. But if the English Martyrs were not so easily led astray by
the enemies of Christ, why so us? Was it because they had no Lambeth
and its far-reaching aftermath?
The "New Mass" is the fruit of unbelief, period, and thus it teaches a
religion that is not Catholic. Ask any diehard Novus Ordian what he
believes and if he can muster enough coherence in the first place, he
will regale you with the man-made religion of universal salvation and
the other touchy-feely nostrums of modern sentimentalism. This is
because the Mass is also a catechism by its very design. The "New
Mass", no less than the Traditional Roman Mass: the adherents of the
Mass of Paul VI have learned their lessons well. While attending a
diocesan event held at a local Novus Ordo parish I encountered
parishioner after parishioner who no longer believed in the efficacy
and or necessity of most of the Sacraments, and some of those no longer
cared, if they ever did. How did this happen? How could it have
happened, when our grandparents, most with large families, set the
superb example by forsaking necessities to pay for the finest in altar
furnishings for the Mass and those of the other Sacraments given to the
Church by Christ through His Apostles and first bishops, and until
recently, safeguarded by them for the salvific treasures they are?
We must resist the impulse to over simplify, but there are always
factors that are so fundamental to any observed phenomena of social
pattern, that there is also a risk in over complicating matters. I pray
that I am avoiding both propensities. Hear the clamor of discord number
Gender Politics Versus Tradition
In the first book of Corinthians, Chapter 3, verses 16 and 17, St. Paul
Know you not, that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of
God dwelleth in you?
But if any man violate the temple of God, him shall God destroy. For
the temple of God is holy, which you are.
And in Chapter 11 he goes on:
 Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.
 Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of
me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.
 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ;
and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
 Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth
 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered,
disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.
 For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a
shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head.
 The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image
and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man.
 For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.
 For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the
 Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because
of the angels.
 But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman
without the man, in the Lord.
 For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman:
but all things of God.
 You yourselves judge: doth it become a woman, to pray unto God
 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he
nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him?
 But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her
hair is given to her for a covering.
In her excellent work, On the Contrary, Chapter 9, "The Glorious Rib",
Solange Hertz explains the full implication of the above New Testament
citations, that is, the order of creation and woman's purpose; that
when women succumbed to the heresy of feminism she altered God's
ordained order in nature, thereby bringing ruin not only to her true
glory but destroying society which is now in spiritual, moral and
social crisis, complete chaos. One of the manifestations of this
disorder is the almost abandoned custom of women covering their heads
You know, it is very interesting to contemplate how this occurred, at
least in the Catholic Church, here in America. If you are old enough to
recall that when the "New Mass" was imposed on the laity who never
asked for these changes, imposed through deception and with
uncharitable means, there was no corresponding document forbidding the
wearing of head veils or hats for women, who had always worn them.
There was something in the New Mass itself that lent itself to such
unveiling, that unleashed a diminished capacity for modesty and a sense
of place, as if the disordering of the Liturgy spread throughout
society. When the ordained order of the altar's orientation [and the
priest's], was reversed so contrarily, nowhere ordered by Vatican II, a
nihilism or violence pervaded every aspect of our Catholic lives,
almost imperceptibly at first, thereby ever the more insidious. As
women in America became more and more immodest in clothing, so did
Catholic women or perhaps vice-versa I should say. The confluence of
these two events did the rest.
Without any lawful Vatican order, or command from the priest, women
just suddenly stopped covering their heads at Mass and in church, as if
they had given themselves permission to imitate the old Eve, rather
than the new Eve, Mary. "They say we don't have to anymore." But nobody
knew for sure who the "They" were. And the rest is history as the
saying goes. Even more interesting to note is the fact that men did not
start covering their heads, but retained the customary practice of
removing their hats when entering the church. In other words, once
again the disorder began as it did in the Garden with the serpent and
the woman: she, wanting her will, come Hell or high-water, and Hell
came once more. Only this time Adam did not bite the apple at first.
And even more curiously women still insisted on covering their heads
when attending church weddings, as if to honor the bride but not the
Bride. When women were willing to degrade their honor in such
unfashion, to coin a word, they became the objects of every form of
degradation: one has only to have read the news accounts for the last
forty years to know what is meant by that phrase. Removing our head
coverings did not cause one direct act of this debasement certainly,
but the removal signaled that we no longer were interested in modesty
as the genteel sex; that we no longer considered ourselves "the glory
of the glory of the man": that the order established by God was
secondary to our will. We brought the spirit of this disobedience into
our daily lives and into society, without realizing it.
Solange Hertz's chapter includes an excellent synopsis of the two
strengths and weaknesses of the complimentary sexes and the underlying
dynamic that operates in human relations. She also discusses the
importance of hair, using various Scriptural accounts that involve the
importance of matter, specifically hair, including the shorter
hairstyles worn by so many women.
In the same book of Corinthians, Chapter 14, verses 34-35, St. Paul
further promulgates the command of God:
"Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them
to speak, but be subject as also the law saith.
But if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home.
For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church."
A shame, indeed, most shameful, that women have so lost the natural
sense of shame that now they brazenly prance about the sanctuary giving
instructions, making announcements, reading the Epistle and Lessons,
and on occasion delivering even the sermon as a guest homilist. And I
won't but allude to their unladylike attire. To accommodate this
scandal the passages from St. Paul have virtually "disappeared" in the
three-year cycle that boasts of being more complete than that of the
Traditional Roman Missal. And God's people keep "perishing for a lack
This disorder whereby women take the lawful place of men in church has
not only degraded their husbands and sons because it has caused them to
acquiesce in the name of peace and or actually applaud the practice,
but most importantly the fundamental order of worship as given by God
and all of the precepts therein prescribed in Tradition, have been
overturned. The feminization of the liturgy is so sacrilegious that
words almost fail. An article is not designed to be a treatise so it is
not possible to adequately address the nature and severity of the sin.
Briefly, however, one of the essential elements of the theology of the
Mass is that the Holy Sacrifice must have male ministers, expressly the
ordained along with the acolytes and the rest of the lower orders,
because the Church is the Bride of Christ and as His representative
only a man can truly re-witness for Christ Who came Incarnate as Man.
Any other arrangement is a symbolic homosexuality or perversion. Women
simply cannot image Christ as Bridegroom. This should be so axiomatic
and obvious that a Catholic people who are Catholic first, and citizens
second, need not have the issue raised and open for discussion by
definition! And just as at the Last Supper Christ was surrounded by
men, not women, not even the most noble and holiest creature, His
Mother, so it must be in the holy of Holies.
To the contrary, to borrow Solange Hertz's apt phrase, the dominance of
women in the sanctuary and the subsequent emasculation of men-----which
has its parallel in Title IX in federal law in relation to the
government schools where boys are now openly discriminated against to
favor girls-----has brought us one unmitigated disaster after another,
the nightmarish scream of dissonance four.
The Great Sacrilege
Essentially, we were bought and paid for. The American ego, never a
small thing, was given its due. While the Vatican still yet did not
permit the reception of Communion in the hand, we were encouraged to do
so to keep "with the spirit of Vatican II." When we questioned the
propriety of the practice we were castigated for being
that they, too, not only ourselves, were not worthy of touching the
Sacred Species; in the end they treated us like Jansenist dolts to be
avoided at all costs. The perennial teaching of the Church, its Sacred
Tradition, the writings of the Saints and Doctors of the Church, none
of these were of avail to persuade, for the people were heady from
their new-found "empowerment". And eventually as we all know, a
weakened Vatican relented. Disobedience is now rewarded while obedience
is dismissed and its adherents marginalized.
Every Catholic now had a special "ministry." Of course, human nature
since the Fall in the Garden, being what it is, when everyone and his
uncle is a "minister" no one really is anymore, including the priest.
As what was left of the once Holy of holies, the Catholic sanctuary,
became filled with lay men and women [and often mostly the latter]
opening the Tabernacle, distributing Holy Communion, putting away the
Ciborium, etc., the priest was viewed as necessary only for the
Consecration, a brief interlude in the Mass that had been extended: for
environmental prayers and such, hand clapping and congratulations here
and there during Mass on frequent occasions, the Kiss of Peace
handshakes that took sometimes 15 minutes as the priest and his
entourage made their way down the aisle and back up again the other
side. Instant camaraderie and intimacy! The new laying on of hands as
it were. But the priest could no longer distribute Holy Communion
alone, "because this takes too much time."
More and more pastors reported that they found the Host left in the
pew, on the floor and even in the holy water font. Some of them seemed
very concerned but powerless to change things. The frustration gave way
to acceptance all too many times, or so it appeared to me. All I know
is that they ceased complaining and had gone on to other matters,
although the situation was as critical as before. But the priest had
also been bought and paid for-----if he was to maintain his position
and the goodwill of the people, a tacit arrangement to be sure-----he
knew his boundaries. As one put it to me, "If I preach the truth, I
will lose my parishioners." But he had already lost them as believing
Catholics, and did not perceive the irony to say the least.
Then a very sad, but not unexpected thing happened. One of the
Extraordinary Eucharistic ministers, but oh so ordinary as in
ubiquitous among other characteristics, said to me, "What do we believe
as Catholics about the Eucharist? Are we not all the same as
Protestants now?" She no longer knew the doctrine and or thought that
it had changed, as if it ever could. I had to resist the impulse to ask
her why she was not worshipping at the local Baptist church where she
could make up her own rules using the Bible. I knew the probable answer
anyway. I tried to explain what the Mass truly is, but she did not seem
to comprehend and she no longer had any keen interest in learning I
surmised as she quickly walked away-----better not to know and to have
to make some hard choices perhaps. And she was not the only one. She
ended up, the last I saw of her, becoming one of the conversationalists
at Mass, that hideous jabberwocky that is the conducting of a non-stop
discussion in muted but increasingly audible tones, throughout the
Mass, except for the Consecration. It started as the norm in many
parishes before Mass, then expanded, the proverbial inch into a mile.
The dialogue Mass is now morphing into the conversation Mass. You know,
where the priest sometimes make interjections to parishioners by name,
and whole pews engage in discussions about movies, shopping and family
matters loud enough for others to hear even when not trying to, said
conversations punctured by the snapping of gum, and nobody seems to
mind, including the priest who ought to do something, if he could or
only if he would, that is.
While busy as experts in ministry, running here and there, doing what
the priest who alone is consecrated for, these benighted people [though
well-intended] had no time to notice what was happening to their faith.
"Experts" and specialists are expected to attend workshops for
"updating". These sessions were loaded with the aforementioned
time-bombs, set off with a slow fuse by way of indoctrination in the
new religion. While being bought off with fancy titles when they
decided they needed to be important in ways never before attempted in
the Church and for good reason, that it is not part of God's intention
and is ruinous to souls, they handed over their precious "sense of the
faith" to be tampered with by those in power with an agenda to destroy
the Church. A few woke up, some in time, but others were too
demoralized to know what to do. Most simply did not and have not. And
to some extent the same thing has happened to those who may not be lay
ministers of this and that but who actively approve of the others doing
Please note carefully that the initial explosion of Eucharist ministers
took place prior to the manufactured "shortage of priests".
All because of Communion in the hand you claim? I answer,
succinctly, yes, simply because it is a great sacrilege bringing God's
displeasure upon us. The editor of Catholic Family News, John Vennari
has just published a magnificent-----and masterfully brief-----article
on the sacrilege of Communion in the hand. I cite at some length:
"It is a bedrock Catholic truth, taught by the Church since the time of
the Apostles, that Our Lord Jesus Christ is truly present in the Most
Holy Eucharist: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
"The Council of Trent defined dogmatically that Our Lord Jesus Christ
is present in every part of the Blessed Sacrament. The Council taught
'If anyone denieth that, in the venerable Sacrament of the Eucharist,
the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part
of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.'
"This means that Our Lord is present even in the smallest particle of
the Host, and in the smallest particle that may fall to the ground.
Thus the reverence that we owe to the Blessed Sacrament demands that we
take every precaution that no particle of the Host-----not even the
smallest-----is left open for desecration . . . First of all, Saint
Thomas Aquinas taught that 'out of reverence for this Sacrament,
nothing touches it but what is consecrated.' Thus, he said the sacred
vessels of the altar are consecrated for this holy purpose, but also,
the priest's hands are consecrated for touching this Sacrament. And St.
Thomas said that it is therefore not lawful for anyone else to touch
it, except to save it from desecration. (Summa, III, Q. 82: Art. 3)
"This reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, and even for the smallest
particles, was incorporated into the traditional Mass-----the Old Latin
Mass-----which contained strict rubrics on this point
. . ." 6
So sacrilegious is the innovation of the laity distributing Holy
Communion, not just in a truly extraordinary circumstance but regularly
scheduled as such for all Sunday Masses, that I am convinced that just
as He did with the Israelites, God has withdrawn His grace and is
permitting the punishment of the people who have wantonly and
carelessly abandoned His holy precepts of worship. The accompaniment to
this chastisement is that cacophony of dissident voices that comprise
the new Arianism that is so disharmonious with Tradition and the dogma
of the faith about salvation, and the express will of God, a most
unCatholic occurrence that has caused the wholesale loss of the faith
in its entirety, with precious few Athanasiuses to turn to.
Again I cite Mr. Vennari:
"It is no mystery why so many Catholics have lost faith in the Sacred
Mysteries. Too many of our priests have abandoned the outward devotion
necessary: 1) to give proper reverence to Christ in the Blessed
Sacrament; 2) to teach the people through example that the highest
reverence must be shown to Our Lord Jesus Christ truly present in the
"Yet, the post-Conciliar catastrophe will not go on indefinitely.
Someday the Church will once again be blessed with a hierarchy that
gives Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament the reverence due to the King
"In the meantime, let us resist sacrilegious innovations such as
Communion in the hand and lay-Eucharistic ministers, encourage others
to resist them, and cling to the Latin Tridentine Mass wherein the
rubrics that safeguard the reverence to the Blessed Sacrament are
The author later writes about the need for reparation for this
sacrilege, from which I will incorporate a portion into the body of my
Meanwhile, the shrill strains of disharmony five have already been
heard in the background:
The Rejection of Fatherhood
Now that the sacred order within the sanctuary and between the sexes
had been turned upside down, with women predominating without regard
for the sacredness of place as prescribed by Almighty God our Creator,
it was a foregone conclusion that the emasculation of men and their
indispensable, rightful, that is supremely just position as head of the
family would be eclipsed to the ruin of the Church and society itself.
Let me interject that I in no way discount the parallel influence of
the feminist movement largely run by embittered, spoiled, ill-mannered
boorish women of unbelief and often the just plain lesbian; but the
addressing of secular and or pagan forces is not my purpose here. It is
the rejection of the Fatherhood of God in practice and the rejection of
the father as head of the family as an absolute necessity, within the
Church herself, that is my focus. The first men to be affected were not
the heads of families but the heads of their flocks, the priests, all
too often with their own complicity, if only through ignorance.
"And there shall be like people like priest: and I will visit their
ways upon them, and I will repay them their devices."
Ironically it all began in the early 70s with a brief movement that I
have chosen to call, "the Abba initiative". During these few years
modernized priests were going about the laity introducing them to
"Agape meals", seder suppers, and above all, encouraging their flocks
to say "Abba" when they prayed. It was "Abba" this and "Abba" that,
like a mantra. One priest was heard to refer to God the Father as "the
Great Whobody". I am not kidding. Now, since "Abba" means "Father", one
would be inclined to think that this practice would be a good and not a
hindrance to orthodoxy. But think about it.
When the abortionists wanted to quell our ability to respond to their
outrageous and cruel demands, they devised the habit of substituting
the word "fetus" for unborn baby. Actually a fetus is an unborn baby at
a particular stage of physical development to be technically accurate.
But human nature in the day-to-day arrangements does not work this way
and the enemy knew this better than we should have. With the habit of
using "fetus" for the unborn child established, the humanity and
uniqueness of the child in the womb was soon abolished psychologically,
a purposeful dynamic for those engaging in warfare on the helpless
preborn. The war of words or "conditioning" always precedes the actual
war that ensues and no less in social battles. And so it went with
The use of the word, Abba, like that of fetus in of itself is not
incorrect. Fetus to the doctor or medical scientist it is normal and
signifies what preborn baby does to the layman; and Abba, when used by
those ancient cultures from which the term comes, it was the same. But
just as "fetus" has the effect of signifying something less than
"preborn baby" to the layman, so it was with "Abba." Only in this case,
it still meant God the Father, but it changed our perception of the
dignity of the Trinity, that is to say, the intimacy was one of
over-familiarity. Hence the "Whobody" nonsense which followed so
easily. I do not think it was coincidental that during this same period
of time that many priests asked us to call them by their first name,
rather than Father --------. Again the improper familiarity.
Once more I must interject that I am well aware that the "Abba
initiative" was too brief-----and not universally in effect in the
English-speaking Catholic world-----in of itself to actually be of much
import. I mention its advent because in my experience it was a small
but sure signpost that we were headed in the wrong direction, if only
we had paid attention: that even the unnatural has a natural
progression, and this one a portend of coming horrors.
Parallel to both phenomena was the feminist thrust within what was once
called the "switching points" of power in the institutions of the local
Church and within the United States Bishops' Conference committees. The
stress at the time was on the supposed injustice in the Church, in
Scripture, considered "the source of violence against women" 8
combined with prayer "as a propaganda tool". 9
The means to indoctrinate women with a seething rage against the Bible
and the hierarchical nature of the Church was the tried and true:
diocesan workshops and conferences. One of the more notorious of these
was a conference held in Auburn, Maine in the early 90s at which the
Auxiliary Bishop of Maine was present. The purpose of the event was to
"advise" the Bishop of women's needs for the upcoming US Bishops'
Document on Women. Bishop Proulx served on the committee with his
friend Bishop Imesch. A prayer sheet was handed out that was idolatrous
to the core and utterly impious. A new prayer to the Trinity had been
devised in which all-male pronouns had been removed and the Mother of
God became the poster girl for abandoned women, and unwed mothers, as
if St. Joseph could have done such a thing! The unwed mother canard but
worse because it used prayer to say it. The Bishop did not seem to
mind; in fact I overheard him afterwards expressing how pleased he was
with the session, pure agitprop from abortion to contraception to
clever, subtle hints at lesbianism. He actually laughed at
"contraceptive-like" jokes! He also advised me personally, suggesting I
would be better off if I became more "liberal" when I sent a letter of
concern about a similar conference prior to the one just described.
I was told by insiders that similar sessions had been held and would be
held in other dioceses.
And it was also at this time that women lectors were changing the
pronouns in the readings at Mass, either on their own or in conjunction
with a wink from the pastor. I will never forget the use of "Child of
God" when referring to Christ the Savior as fully grown into manhood.
Anything to avoid the dreaded "He" or "Son". Soon some of the sillier
priests were heard to gush over the "Sheness" of God the Holy Spirit,
recommending that their parishioners use the feminine "She" for the
Third Person, as a sign that "we had grown in our faith." This is an
exact quote. The Fatherhood of God was now on an indefinite
back-burner, an embarrassed part of our past; to call Him Father,
rather than Mother was considered an injustice, and although no bishop
of ours ever promulgated this in any way officially, none of them did
anything to stop the scandal and so the tyranny of ideological idolatry
became part of our lexicon and then incorporated into how we
contemplated the Blessed Trinity. There were of course, the usual
references to God as "She" with the throwaway lines accompanied by
nervous laughter, as if to convey that the proponents of this blasphemy
really knew their complicity in the sin, so used laughter as a cover.
Oddly, the Apostles' Creed was still intact. But as I said we had grown
used to contradictions as the price we paid for "social progress".
A scant few years later the priest was suddenly no longer the priest,
but "the presider." This unfortunate term is now the accepted norm
throughout the United States. I do not think it would have been
possible for this to have happened if we had not first "demoted" God.
We had grown up respecting the dignity of the priest as one just below
Mary but above that of the Saints and Angels. No matter the particular
faults of any priest, he was God's chosen "another Christ". But if the
Trinity can be the object of veiled contempt, it's a small matter to
put the priest in his place by having him and the hierarchy do it for
themselves, to which they readily consented, taking up the spirit of
the times. And surely it was no coincidence that this same period of
time saw many priests leave the active ministry, some just faded away
into secular society, others left to marry. The priestly "sabbatical"
was born, as more and more of them took a few months to a year off,
ostensibly for study and or rest or "to discern their vocation". Having
said this, I do not mean to convey that men answered the call to the
priesthood for the title; of course not. But just as they used to
tremble before ordination, just as surely they ought to have trembled
before permitting the sacerdotal office to be so cavalierly
"rearranged." If the priest does not safeguard the dignity of his
office because it belongs to Christ, who will or would want to?
It was a foregone expectation that the new feminized and as Fr.
Trinchard of MAETA says, diabolical local Church would soon midwife the
anti-male male, first by favoring and using the increasing numbers of
effeminate priests and demoralizing the still normal males, of all
ages. The first sign was the loss of male altar servers [the term
acolyte no longer in use] in vast numbers. Eventually the majority of
the servers were girls, some in adolescence and even grown women. The
boys were lost because the girls were found in numbers to disobey the
then prohibition. Use girls to create the problem, then require them to
solve the problem. The standard operating procedure of Modernism. The
singular males stood out as the exception. This phenomenon was matched
in the education posts: probably close to ninety percent, based on my
observation in the diocese, of the top teaching volunteer staff are
held by women. In times past nuns predominated in the instruction of
the young, but always with the priest whom everyone knew was in charge,
not just on the sidelines pro forma. And those good nuns did not attend
workshops for "updating".
In today's Church the young boy sees few manly males to identify with:
certainly not the all too numerous gushy, goofy acting "presiders", and
seldom at Catholic education [if we ought to still call it that].
Everywhere he sees women as the head, especially since too often the
priest plays into the goals of these proliferating women, who are able
to intimidate the pastor to go along in order to keep a false peace or
avoid conflict. I heard numerous pastors say that "I no longer have the
stomach for conflict." Our embittered instructor at one workshop
boasted of being able to manipulate her pastor. He later became so
confused and demoralized he left to become a "social worker". He told
me he no longer "knew who to believe, the Chancery or the Vatican." In
those days the Vatican was still issuing orthodox norms although they
were seldom enforced. This priest was told by the Portland Chancery
that he could "disobey" in good conscience, in so many words.
Please pray for him, wherever he is now.
Right along came the open mocking of the passages in St. Paul that the
feminized Church considered old-fashioned, the father as head of the
family being a Church teaching. Eventually pastors agreed to not use
the "offending" passages. I do not know if the Bishops formally did
away with them with permission from Rome or not, but it does not
matter. Out of earshot out of mind. This, too, is on a par with
sacrilege, for it brazenly defies and defiles the Word of God which is
sacred and for all time. When His creatures no longer have holy zeal
for the sacred and that which is not to be touched, not even one iota,
nor disregarded as if some outdated trash or quaint saying, how can we
expect Him to approve by granting us the actual and sanctifying graces
As the father became the titular head only, on some level more afraid
of his wife and the few children he consented to, than he had fear of
God, the trend of boys coming to Mass with body piercings and multiple
earrings, among other atrocities was realized. What self-respecting
father who knows he has to answer to God could permit a son of his to
enter the church, the House of God, in such disrepair? Only one who has
lost his position except in name only. Boys emulating the effete: a
sign of the loss of grace from God. Enter the last-----and most
soul-searing , screeching and hideous sequence . . .
"For This Cause God Delivered Them Up to Shameful Affections"
"And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness
of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four footed
beasts, and of creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up to the
desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies
among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and
worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is
blessed for ever. Amen.
"For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their
women have changed the natural use into that use which is against
nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of
the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men
working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the
recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have
God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense . .
For many years now the laity had become used to frequently increasing
number of effeminate and or emasculated men who were being ordained and
assigned to their parishes. To be fair, almost every lay person I know
simply could not grasp the reality beyond the mere appearance. What
normal, decent person, no matter how worldly knowledgeable would be
capable of thinking then what we all know now?
Actually this aspect is immaterial because the real problem was the
disordered theology that came with these priests. Even the normal
priest was affected by it, but he at least did not try to project it
onto his parishioners usually, as if something or Someone held him
back. The priests who suffered from the disorder of being attracted to
unnatural vice, and who believed they had a "right" to the sacerdotal
office, are a special breed. Not only were they becoming more "open"
about who and what they were, they were teaching us an inversion of
belief. The disorder they suffer from is so pervasive that it affects
more than the base appetites. The perpetual virginity of Our Lady, the
sin of "self-abuse", were the first to go. And then, it was that Christ
had no idea what His mission was until He finally hung on the Cross.
The new Arianism. Christ had to become as helpless as they perceived
themselves to be. Or to put it more accurately, they made Him to be as
hapless as they knew we perceived them to be. And Our Lady as impure as
they knew they were in their pronouncements here and there. I mean,
imagine a priest daring to write a weekly column in which among other
hideous things he discusses his homosexual fantasies, and then gets
away with it essentially, despite protests from the outraged laity?
Liberties were taken at Mass that surpassed anything the dismal Mason,
Bugnini, of the Consilium that composed the New Mass, could have
imagined. As one woman put it, "It has become a circus!" Literally. The
only thing missing was acrobatic attire. Balloons set aloft, strange
and or profane musical instruments, a crowd gathered around "the
presider", children well over the teething age chewing on cookies and
playing with toys, with much laughter and all sorts of profane
furnishings, noisy water fountains, decorator fabrics by way of
pendants, arranging the Cranmerian table askew at an angle to copy the
latest fashion of interior decor and on and on, such as purple stuffed
rabbits at Easter and gigantic pumpkins that overtook the sanctuary.
Stopping in at a local parish while traveling in the Northeast several
years ago, I encountered a pumpkin so large it had to have set an
agricultural record: it sat before the table which was dwarfed by its
enormity. Thinking that I could not see the Tabernacle because of the
size of the pumpkin, thankfully not yet a jack-o' lantern, I
genuflected. As I knelt in the pew to begin my prayer I was so
unsettled by the pub-type piano music being pumped out to the side, I
got up to leave. Passing a nun I asked her about the Tabernacle since
the atmosphere was so profane. She pointed to a little corner in the
back of the church, a dusty place no larger than a closet actually, and
there Our Lord was waiting. I had to fight the scream which welled up
in my throat when I realized I had genuflected to the Great Pumpkin! At
one point plastic butterflies adorned one Tabernacle long ago set to
the side in another Northeast church, and as we all know, the
"ressufixes." Even clown Masses on occasion. Or priests in stoles with
cartoon faces. Priests in pink shirts with Roman collars, swishing all
over the place with exaggerated gestures and odd turns of phrase as
happened to me while visiting for a few weeks in the Southeast, and
even one sporting an earring himself here at home. Priests conducting
tours on cruise ships for their parishioners or to Atlantic city for
shopping and gambling.
These things should have been enough to send us in flight in droves,
rather than the comparatively slow trickle that actually left. Parents
willing to expose their children to this sacrilege and general mayhem
have some responsibility for what we later learned had been happening
all along. If this sounds hard and without compassion, let it be. One
ought not have to think of sexual perversion to recognize spiritual
corruption; the soul is more important than the body at all costs. We
supported these misfits and degenerates, period! I recognize that this
appears a caricature and that it was more "complicated" than I am
reporting here. And that there were good, traditional Catholics who did
not know what else to do just as there were and still are and
like-minded priests, too. This is not my point. There were those of us
who did know what to do and we asked for help from our fellow
Catholics: some who knew better reneged on promises, but most just
refused and turned away. One such "traditional Catholic" told me "get
used to it, it won't seem so bad after a while." I guess she did
because she ended up gushing over one of the most outrageous gushy,
effeminate priests an absolute heretic and blasphemer, saying to me "I
wish he were my pastor." At the time she was among the better Catholics
one met at least in practice, believe it or not. Instead of a few small
committees of concerned and outraged laity meeting with the bishop, we
should have gone en masse to him, in such numbers that he would have
had to do something, even if only as little as he was willing to do,
given that some of the bishops were degenerate pederasts and perverts
themselves. At least as inadequate as the Vatican had become, it would
have had to take notice and for the sake of publicity if nothing else,
taken some action. And anyway, that some of the bishops were like these
priests was unknown then, so there was nothing preventing us from going
to him whole parishes at a clip. That is, if we had still our Catholic
soul which we had sold a piece at a time, for the sake of a phony
harmony. When a Catholic mother and father sees the priest acting like
a buffoon and or openly mocking Tradition and even simple, basic human
dignity before their children, the most Catholic and normal thing to do
is to get up and go, fleeing "into Egypt" with the Holy Family before
Herod "slays" their children. The fact that over half [and now almost a
third] came back Sunday after Sunday is nothing less than tragic, the
saddest statistic of all. As things declined from bad to worse than
worse, eventually there was nowhere left to go, but to drive out of
state in many an instance, or out of the county, which in Maine may be
more difficult than out of state in other dioceses. There was almost
nowhere left to go because the chastisement of perversity in all things
had spread like a virulent disease left unchecked. The safe havens were
becoming fewer as the good old priests died off or got too ill to be
there for us. We should have had the courage of the Martyrs----the
Japanese Martyrs and their descendants for instance, who went it alone
with their Rosaries, Baptizing their children themselves until God
permitted the fullness of the Sacraments and parish life, if need be.
Courage requires grace along with the act of will. And for the most
part we had surrendered any claim to this special grace long before. We
no longer knew how to suffer, shrinking from the very idea of it. We
have to want the virtue of courage and have to pray for it and even do
penance! We had become Americans first and Catholics, second, no make
that third, second place going to consumerism, especially on Sunday.
Without dismissing the untold misery of those young men whose bodies
were ravaged by these rotten, diseased Judases, destroying their souls,
too, as horrible as this was and is, the greatest sorrow, the greatest
sin is that we allowed them to pervert our precious Catholic faith; we
bought the lies of tolerance, the cunning deceit that excluded
Tradition in the name of diversity and became non-Catholics, keeping
but the name. There is no other way to say it and to say it thus, says
it all in its ugly essence. I say it once more: We, too, sinned,
diabolically, and unnaturally. They may have sodomized some of our sons
but we allowed them to rape our souls, to change the faith according to
their own unbelief . . .
Now is the Time for Mercy
Whenever God is so displeased with a nation or a people He leaves them
to their own devices, that is the worship they devise to suit their
vanity: the last punishment He sends them is contrariness, perversions
of all sorts and never more evil and repugnant than that described by
St. Paul in the above passage from Romans. History also teaches us this
about the fall of societies and whole nations and empires. Inversion is
the last proverbial nail in the coffin. But all is not lost as we still
have been granted a great grace, that of recognizing our error, our
weakness, the sins of sacrilege and idolatry and God is not without
mercy. Some of the Doctors of the Church, such as St. Alphonsus Liguori
write that God has an acceptable time in which He grants His mercy but
that if we wait too long to repent the time may never come, that is we
could be left unrepentant because of our lukewarmness.
Now is the time to do penance and to seek His forgiveness. He wants to
show us His mercy:
"The Lord is sweet to all: and His tender mercies are over all His
Our Blessed Savior got up on the Cross to die for our sins and secure
our redemption. Not content with waiting for us poor sinners He has
sent His Holy Mother as our Lady of Fatima, not only as an ambassador
from Heaven, and His prophet, but His gift of mercy, Divine mercy. She
has given us a foolproof plan of action for ourselves, our families,
indeed for the world, if only we heed her. She has asked for the daily
Rosary and the Saturdays of Reparation and to offer up our daily duty
done with purity of intention as penance. Reparation is the act of
making amends for wrongs done to others, either God or our neighbor.
In John Vennari's article on the sacrilege of Holy Communion in the
hand, he closes thus:
"In 1916, a year before Our Lady's visitations at Fatima, the "Angel of
the Eucharist" appeared with Chalice and Host to the children. He
administered the Sacred species to the three children saying, "Eat and
drink the Body and Blood of Our Lord, horribly outraged by ungrateful
men. Make reparation for their crimes and console your God." The Angel
left the chalice and the Host suspended in the air, and prostrated
himself before It. The children imitated him. The Angel then prayed
repeatedly this act of reparation:
'Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, I offer Thee the Most
Precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in all
the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for the outrages,
sacrileges and indifference by which He Himself is offended. And by the
infinite merits of His most Sacred Heart and of the Immaculate Heart of
Mary, I beg of Thee the conversion of poor sinners.'
"Let us commit to memory this prayer and say it throughout the day as
often as possible. The "outrages, sacrileges and indifference" toward
the Blessed Sacrament engendered by the Vatican II revolution are
unprecedented, probably the worst in history. Sacrilege is so
commonplace that it is no longer recognized as sacrilege. The need for
reparation is colossal." 12
There are two kinds of reparation, that which is directed to God, which
is called satisfaction, and which is the reparation that Mr. Vennari
writes of and pleads for. The other kind is called restitution and is
directed to restoring to our neighbor that which was justly his and
taken unjustly. This, too, we owe our neighbor and our country. Our
country, because unless the Catholic Church is as holy as possible the
nations, although they be non-Catholic as political states, are
dependent on the Church for grace, whether they recognize this reality
or not. Our neighbor, [and ourselves] because he and we have souls to
be saved above everything else, even our very lives. It is only just
that right order [restitution] be put back in the sanctuary and in
society. Maybe we cannot see how anyone else might want to do likewise,
but God will not judge us by what our neighbor may or may not do; He
judges us by what we do.
First, if you have not already done so, I urge you to obtain a copy of
the February, 2006 issue of Catholic Family News or a reprint of John
Vennari's article, "Communion in the Hand is a Sacrilege". Ask for
#2075; it is only 2.00. The telephone number is  871-6292. I know
that you will be very moved by it and if are not convinced as yet that
receiving Communion in the hand and distributing it as a regular lay
Eucharistic minister is a sacrilege, although permitted unwisely by the
Holy See, you will be. I beseech you to stop and go back to Tradition
in this most urgent matter.
Second, If you have been misinformed or have a spouse that is and are
not observing the marriage laws of the Church as always taught in
Tradition, pray for the grace that you and your husband or wife will
repent and begin to do so.
Third, if you a woman or young girl, and are not presently covering
your head when in church, please, do so now. Likewise, if you are
serving as a lay lector and are a woman or young girl, discontinue the
practice, no matter what anyone may suggest to you so as to dissuade
you. I am not asking you to listen to me, for who am I but just another
sinner? I am asking you to listen to the greatest Evangelist and a
Martyr, St. Paul.
The other points covered are mostly beyond our ability as laity to do
anything about, but we can pray and offer up our suffering,
deprivation, and loneliness as a sacrifice in union with the Passion of
Christ in partial atonement for our own sins and those of others.
However, if you are in such a parish as described above, flee, even if
you think you can withstand it, especially for your children's sake. If
we had all done this much sooner, the Novus Ordo establishment would
have been neutralized, at the very least. Do not support degenerates,
whether of the mind or body.
The First and Third are not only restorative to the order prescribed by
Almighty God, they provide a means of witness and silent but resounding
testimony. The second restores grace in such way that the graces proper
to the Sacrament of Matrimony can have their salutary effect of
All three prepare us for true spiritual combat and as we sanctify
ourselves through prayer, daily duty and love of neighbor and the Holy
Roman Mass, when available, we will also be better citizens, lifting up
society, not letting it drift into utter degradation.
You may well ask, why are you writing this for me to read? I am a
Traditionalist, that is, a Catholic as only a Catholic must be, you are
preaching to the choir, madam. Oh, do you not see that I am not writing
this for you, but for all those well-intended Catholics who have been
de-Catholicized through the increasingly apostate ETWN channel, their
local parishes and fellow Catholics and the mass media; they may still
want to do the right thing; they may even think that they are. This is
very important, heed these words: you may be the only courageous and
properly informed Catholic they still know. I do not know who they are,
but you do, just as I know those in my own life. If and when an
opportunity presents itself-----each one of us will need to pray for
prudence here----we ought to have on hand a copy of Mr. Vennari's short
and most excellent article to give them to read. This may seem like a
small step, but it is in fact a very great one and such an act of
charity for a fellow Catholic, that although I know you would not want
to have your acts of kindness brandished about like a boast, for our
boast must be only in Christ, Jesus, you will be truly the Good
Samaritan, known only to God.
If you think about it, we all had a John Vennari somewhere in our past,
that someone who has the truth by the horns and would not let go,
neither of that saving truth, nor of us, and we found our way out of
the trap laid for us by the devil and his minions. We may still wander
in the wilderness, having to be content with crumbs cast so miserly to
us by our bishops, but we can rejoice for Christ has gone before us and
we know that if we persevere to the end we will be victorious with Him.
Eternity in Heaven is worth the little dry martyrdom we may endure now!
O Saint Cecilia
O glorious Saint, who chose to die
Instead of denying thy King,
We pray thee please to help us
As His fair praise we sing!
We lift our hearts in joyous song
To honor Him this way,
And while we sing, remembering,
To sing is to doubly pray.
At once in our hearts and in our tongues
We offer double prayer
Sent Heavenward on winged notes
To praise God dwelling there.
While in our hearts and tongues we try
With song to praise God twice,
We ask dear Saint, to help us be
United close to Christ!
St. Cecilia's Feast Day is November 22.
The link for Catholic Family News on line is HERE.
1. You are referred to http://anglicanhistory.org/gore/contra1930.html
2. Paraphrase of the
opening quotation: Note that the emphasis is in the original
Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, Challoner version, and was not added by
3. Fr. L. Bouyer as
cited by Michael Davies in Chapter 1 of Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II
4. The Roman Rite Destroyed
Davies, pp. 20/21.
5. Pope John's Council,
Michael Davies, Chapter 9. The reference to the immediately preceding
admittance by Cardinal Ratzinger was at the Christfidelis Conference in
Fort Lee, NJ, May 20, 1995.
6. "Communion in the
Hand is a Sacrilege", John Vennari, Catholic
, February, 2006 issue, p. 1.
., p. 20.
8. "The Midwives" of
Modernism, a series in the former GUARDIAN, by this author, that was
written in 1988, and updated for publication, 1992.
9. "Prayer as
Propaganda", THE GUARDIAN, September, 1992, p. 28.
10. St. Paul to the
Romans, Chapter 1, verses 23-28, Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible. Emphasis
added by this writer.
11. Psalm 144: 9,
Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible.
12. "Communion in the
Hand is a Sacrilege", John Vennari, Catholic
, February, 2006 issue, p. 20.