Inoculation Against Tradition
PAULY FONGEMIE

So many Catholics who have been attending the Novus Ordo Mass exclusively since its imposing eruption onto the scene, and who have had little if any exposure to good Traditional literature and or the Council of Trent and various encyclicals of the Pontiffs before 1960, have been almost completely inoculated against Tradition, which is treated as if it were a fatal, communicable disease. I was reminded of this pathology last week.

 I know a woman who drives a relative to the Traditional Mass, and remains to return him home, then goes back to her own parish for the NO Mass, where she takes Communion, having refrained at the first Mass. I have overheard people discussing the Traditional Mass who suspect that the Mass itself is invalid, which is quite ironic, if you think about it. That woman has a very kind heart and her dedication to her relative who is unable to drive is laudatory. I expect God will reward her with much grace that will impel her towards Tradition when He deems to do so. When you tell these people that it is the same Mass many of them grew up with, they just look at you as if you are eccentric and change the subject. A few turn their backs, literally, they are so repulsed by the mere thought of a Mass in Latin; yet they do not mind at all about attending a "Polish" Mass, a "Spanish" Mass, when they do not speak these languages either. They say, well, there is an English translation provided. Indeed. And one as well, with the Latin Mass. The inconsistency of their argument does not escape them, the realization of which makes them irritable. Truth---and its pristine logic---has this uncanny quality.

They no longer want to be reminded that they now worship as the Protestants do. I know that they know they do, down deep, because almost to a person the same people say, "There's not much difference now between us." One said, "no more difference", not "not much difference." Since the Protestants haven't changed, this must mean by definition that they have. It is the NO Mass that changed them, because it is the common denominator. Books by heretics are not on their reading list as I understand it. I have no reason to doubt them at all. In fact, I know they are devout and sincere.

  Their frame of reference as Catholics is Vatican II, not Tradition, although I suspect they would not put it that way---because they have no frame of reference for that reference point. Then, too, just as the newly formed Anglicans of their day thought themselves still Catholic while Anglican in name only, although their children would know otherwise and be proud of it, these Catholics are no longer Catholic, only this time it is in name only, the very opposite. Of course they intended no such thing at all. Their children know better, too, and being pragmatic as good little Americans, they simply walk away more often than not. The Novus Ordo Mass and the culture it spawned is more than an insult to Almighty God, it is an insult to that which is the best in people and just as it has laid waste to whole dioceses, it has decimated entire families. Almost every Catholic family bewails the apostasy of at least one of the children, sometimes all the children, including families of ten children. I am speaking of families where the Rosary was prayed. The Rosary did not do this, for it is holy and most salutary; it took the full force of liberalism with all its rotten fruits to accomplish the deed. The true cost cannot be calculated this side of eternity. Of course there were other influences, but where the true faith is strong, those worldly lures are minimized, for there is ever the world and its attractions to deal with for every generation.

 I do not place any blame on the first generation [as I don't for the next], for they grew up believing that the priest was beyond reproach and what he says, is right, just as you and I were taught. Those of us who had someone wiser take us under his wing as he guided us out of the scorched earth that was the "American" [C]hurch milieu were blessed beyond the words to tell. Not so, for everyone. Why God's grace is communicated to one and not another at a particular moment is indeed a mystery. We were gently, but persistently prodded to recall our bounden duty to adhere to Tradition, to avoid novelty in faith, morals, and worship, following the counsel of all the Saints, Martyrs [St. Paul for one], and good Popes. Even if it meant disregarding the pastor and avoiding his bad example whenever possible. Eventually it became an utter necessity to avoid it altogether or risk the loss of the gift of faith in some places.

Those left behind, beyond our reach for now at least, are under the sway of priests steeped in the habit of conducting search and destroy missions in order to detect any vestige of Tradition and the authentic Catholic faith that might be lingering in parishioners, thereby to eradicate them before objective truth, reverence for holy things---the sacred---makes a serious comeback. This is why the "new evangelization" is successful in closing parishes because of dwindling numbers while the Protestant hives have an abundance of busy bees with churches springing up all over and those which are long established, building additions. In our locale of a 16 mile radius five Catholic parishes have been joined as one while four Protestant sects have been added to the scene, a large Mormon tabernacle I think is what you call it, two Baptist churches and one of the Pentecostal genre. This is in the last two years alone. Astonishing! They are having more than two children per family and gaining converts, a number of them from the Catholic exodus. If you are going to have Protestantism by another name rammed down your throat, you might as well have the real McCoy which is not playing coy, at least give them that credit. We live next door to a Baptist church and every Sunday we see the families with several children arrive, the girls in dresses, too, not blue jeans and skimpy tops. If you did not know better you would think that they were Traditional Catholic families. Some even have head coverings, I kid you not. The irony is spectacular! They at least do not have St. Paul in a three year cycle designed to avoid pertinent passages pertaining to women in church.

Modernist priests trained in the deprivation of Tradition in the morally depraved and spiritually disoriented seminaries from the 1960s until the beginning of this decade, learned their lessons well. They merit our pity and prayers, for who can gauge the demoralization of spirit, the total "breakdown" they underwent before ordination? Perhaps through the same sort of process they use themselves now? At best they are woefully ignorant. Their parishioners merit our pity and prayers as well. They are contracepting because these priests do not preach on Christian marriage and because of the contracepting, how many future priests have not been born? The current rage---the scam "theology of the body" ought to complete the devastation. How many have been lost at the altar [table now] because the priest is either wishy-washy or swishy-swashy or both? Liberalism destroys the sacerdotal in favor of the man-made or secular; but tepidity, the very soul.

One of the priests who appears regularly on EWTN said that when he was in the seminary in the 60s and 70s, he was told that the Liturgy is "wide open", meaning that he could experiment. The Catholics of today are still feeling the effects of this sacrilege. Although the heady experimentation of those decades has somewhat moderated, the false religion it taught has found fertile ground in the mentality of a captive people stripped of the sense of mystery. That same priest said that Mass facing the people has removed the mystery of the Mass. Why he does not say the ancient Roman Mass exclusively is beyond me! So, even he, who seems to know better, appears to be still imprisoned within the confines of the liturgical shipwreck that is the new "liturgy". It has partially blinded him. He mistakenly believes, with all good intentions, that the NO "offertory" is equivalent, theologically and liturgically with the authentic offertory of the Traditional Roman Mass. A comparison of the two forms, side by side is startling! I am struck that he fails to see!

Inoculating against Tradition is carried out at a three-prong injection site---at Mass---in an unholy trinity:

1. Condemnation of the past [and the sense of the sacred];
2. Marginalization of parishioners who do not get with the program; and
3. Ridicule or sarcasm and mockery.

Human nature and the insidious poison of the Mass of Pope Paul VI [his "smoke of Satan making its entrance"] itself take care of the rest.

Numbers 2 and 3 are nasty, sordid undertakings and the average "apostate" will avoid using them if necessary, especially if he is prescient, because he knows that this renders him smaller than he considers the ones he victimizes. No, the pride of the worldly heretic, the thief in the sanctuary, who has come to plunder the Catholic heritage and strip the altars of the Divine---the new evangelization---induces him to choose the first option with the other two as backup plans B and C. He will only opt for these as first choice if the person or persons, who meet his hubris head on by challenging his conceits, salacious suggestions, and false notions, have any knowledge of the Sacred Councils, Church history and Tradition. He, too, is a good little pragmatic American. The bully in the pulpit has too much self-awareness to let himself be bested in an honest discussion, if he can help it. Lest you think I am being presumptuous, let me assure you that more than one priest has announced his intentions and I quote one precisely, "to change the faith" of the people he has found in his new assignment. One of them even boasted that it would take him "less than two years" and he was dead on, unfortunately. He had prefaced his remarks by saying that he was amazed to find such traditional devotions. It is to weep. He died an unexpected death at what most would consider a far too young age. Ah, but "death" was his constant companion.

Condemnation of the past [and the sense of the sacred]

The tools of the trade for this undertaking come straight out of the secular-liberal manual for denigrating Western culture: Exaggeration of the faults of the past or the deliberate distortion of history, and the tyranny of "tolerance" which in actuality will brook no dissent from its peculiar orthodoxy.

It goes something like this, to use just two prominent, pervasive examples. Father ------- opens his monologue replete with jokes [sermons and homilies are passé now that the microphone has empowered him] with some news item that fits his agenda. Let us use a recent one, the English schoolteacher who was imprisoned by the Islamic Sudanese government for unintended blasphemy and released after international outrage. Any similar incident would suffice, provided it involves a clash of religions or cultures. Father then expresses his disgust, quite normal under the circumstances, then launches into an undocumented, unexplained general condemnation of past injustices at the hands of the official Church toward those of other religions. He is never precise, and omits any context, this way he can't be tripped up by the actual facts. How does one challenge a generality that could be a little bit true about individual Catholics in theory? It is like trying to prove a negative. Tails he wins, heads you lose. Now that his audience---I use the term pointedly---is softened up and feeling a sense of shame for the supposed past injustices of its forebears in the faith, he maneuvers for the coup d'etat. "We must be tolerant". "We ought not judge others." Of course we ought not judge our neighbor per se, but this does not mean we have to pretend to be blind to the situation at hand. How otherwise are we to make an assessment of any danger to the faith, for instance? And sound the alarm? The necessary distinctions are eliminated from the beginning as if to purposefully muddy the waters.

Inordinately skilled at rooting out any trace of intolerance in others, especially the Church he imagines, he is blind to his own. He proceeds to demonstrate this irony with consummate tediousness by always bringing up some irksome person of the past weeks [becoming fewer and farther between] who has had the temerity of pointing out Father's peccadilloes or less than priestly habits that may be bad examples for others, say young children. "How dare they judge me!" "They are being intolerant and judgmental!" Which is a judgmental declaration, is it not?

He fails to see that he has made the very judgment he claims to abhor against his own neighbor, who may have very well have been accurate in his conclusion that Father has room for improvement as they say, without actually judging the state of his soul. Yet Father presumes that the person meant to "judge" him as is forbidden. Following Father's standard no parent could correct a child, no teacher a student, no constituent his Congressman, no Senator his President, and so forth. And no priest his parishioner. Including the person being denounced. A parent who must have a priest who is a good example for his children has the obligation to his children to remove them from bad influences. Now I know that Mutter Vogel, in a short adviso in the PIETA prayer book condemns anyone who would correct a priest, and that this has caused many a Catholic to permit a modernist priest to harm the faith of his children. I do not think that Mutter ever met Father ------- or had any children under his charge. Prudence and humility, yes, stupidity, no!

Now that Father knows the assembly is more likely to be reluctant to disagree with his monologue which gets worse, each and every time, he wipes up his campaign for dissent with the following [example two], with almost no variation:

"In the past the Church was fixated on sin, mortal sin." Since he rightly suspects that his parishioners no longer have a sense of sin, particularly mortal sin---apart from murder and adultery---since it is he that has contributed to the loss, he then explains what a mortal sin was or is. It is Tradition, especially the Roman Mass of Tradition that he fears and despises. So the mortal sins he chooses to expound on are the imaginary ones he presumes the Church once anathematized, using a few real ones, but greatly exaggerating the number, stressing the injustice of it all. Perhaps the best example is that concerning the ancient norms for the Latin Mass that bind the priest under pain of sin, mortal and or venial. He says, or words to this effect, "Personally I never bought into it, all those supposed mortal sins a priest could commit. Now that is no more. This is the same with missing Sunday Mass. The Church used to teach that it was a mortal sin to miss Mass even if you were so sick you could not literally get out of bed. It isn't a sin anymore. If you want to go fishing, well, who's to judge."

Now Father is more than confused, he is being dishonest. Everyone of us older Catholics [the approximate age of Father] remembers what we were taught as wee ones about attending Sunday Mass, the same as today: It is a mortal sin to miss Sunday Mass unless one has a valid reason, illness, unduly taxing and hazardous travel, such as in winter, serious family obligations [an elderly dependent at home who has no one else to care for him, for instance or that do not include social and sporting events] unexpected emergency police duty and the like, or necessary travel that could not be adjusted. Today the problem of finding a Mass that does not endanger the faith of one's children or your own is also a priority.

And in almost every case cited above the obligation to read your Missal still binds where possible. Who judges if we go fishing instead? Christ does, and so do we, objectively speaking, for we know it is still a mortal sin, no matter what Father ------- says. It may not be any of my business if my neighbor goes fishing, but it is if he is influencing my son who likes to fish. How does Father absolve in Confession???? Does he say, "So what?"

As for the mortal sins of the priest, I can think of one he overlooked, the mortal sin of telling one's parishioners that it is not a mortal sin to deliberately miss Sunday Mass of one's own choosing. Regarding the others, yes, some deliberate failures of the priest who did not simply forget due to old age, etc., were indeed included in mortal sin. And to the good! The Catholic people have a right to a noble and pure liturgy, unstained by neglect and casualness. They have this right because they have the obligation to render to Almighty God the worship that is worthy of Him. When the Israelites abandoned the worship commanded by God, they were slain in great numbers, on at least one occasion. Mortal sin is death, death of the soul and merits death itself. But God is patient and long enduring, giving us chance after chance, but for how long? This is why the Church was so exact. Would it were the same today! Sometimes a change in practice can be for the worse, not the better. Just ask anyone who lives in a border state.

Father overlooked the fact that it was Christ Who said to Peter and the other Apostles, "What you bind, is bound in Heaven ...". This is understood by the Church to mean absolution in Confession and governance, the authority to bind in conscience even disciplinary acts. Thus, when the Church was more strict in its requirements for Lenten penance and Friday penance, it had the full authority to do so. Was it "unfair" that my grandmother had to fast more than I am required to do? I think she was better off for it. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We need prods sometimes, stinging ones, like the penalty of mortal sin. Would that we were all Saints now! Father is confusing [I surmise] doctrinal sin with disciplinary sin. Because the latter can change he thinks the former can and that because he thinks the past was unfair the present must be fair. Fair is what is required in a just manner at the time. Fairness or equity is a characteristic of justice, not charity. It is nothing short of a scandal that he would tell his people "I never bought into it." He had to "buy into it" or else be guilty of sin himself, because the Church had the authority under Christ and Christ honors that authority, provided it does not violate morals or doctrine or Tradition. No one has the right to abrogate those. Beyond belief, this priest! Does he not consider that if he can in "good conscience" undermine the authority of the Church herself, that he consequently undermines his own? In this case a good thing no doubt. And he is legion. With one monologue he manages to scandalize those still clinging to the faith, however tentatively, render sin attractive to the rest, mislead children or the pure of heart who trust the priest, and divide the parish along those lines.

He mops up with the usual gag line or amusing joke, sometimes genuinely funny and wholesome, sometimes not at all. So they know what a regular Joe he is, how human and just like them. After all, the church is no longer a sacred place, it is a meeting hall with profane music, clapping and laughing and talking while before the Blessed Sacrament. There is virtually no more Benediction in many parishes and where there is still Eucharistic Adoration it is by the laity and "Eucharistic ministers" with nary a priest in sight, including the placement of the Sacred Host in the monstrance. Attendance is often slight. Mass is a hootenanny circus unbecoming a Catholic people worthy of the name. And to think we do not permit [rightly] dogs to enter a church. Every dog I have raised would show more reverence, if prayer time at home is any indicator. From the profane to the insane. Modern "progress". This is desecration itself, terribly sinful, an abomination, yes mortal sin objectively speaking!

Time for old-fashion regression, less tolerance as befitting a people with the use of reason if nothing else.

Marginalization of parishioners who do not get with the program

This is easily accomplished by the above method, from the pulpit ordinarily, in two formats, direct and indirect. The direct approach is to either mention the person outright while pointing out a fault of "intolerance" with a slight note of humor to cover the legalities canon law-wise, or to condemn parts of a letter the "offending" parishioner may have written to the pastor, about concerns, facts of Church history, and so forth. The excoriation is swift, and withering. The purpose is to dissuade any one else with the same inclination. It works with few exceptions: "I am not going to say a word to Father, I do not want to be the focus at Mass." The person who says such a thing is quite understandable from a human nature point of view. However, since he knows that Father has scandalized the faithful, he undergoes inner turmoil and if he decides to make his peace with his pusillanimity he succeeds at a great price, his self-respect, then the light of faith dims slowly if he feels constrained to repeat the rationalization. This, too, is human nature. I wonder if they have a sub-course in the seminary or update bulletins at priestly summer institutes on how to "dispose" of Traditionalists, just as the teachers' organizations instruct their members how to get around objecting parents. The person who is denounced is now effectively marginalized by the rest if they want to be in Father's favor or seen as one of the crowd. It was the crowd that proclaimed, "Give us Barabbas!" So much for the insights of the crowd ...

The indirect approach involves simply ignoring the concern and never mentioning it to the person who raised it, no reply by mail, phone or in person. As if the person is a non-person. Chairman Mao would be proud. When money is needed the non-person is "rehabilitated" momentarily.

Ridicule or sarcasm and mockery

This is the last resort, although in practice it tends to be combined with the second modus operandi, and is self-explanatory. It is the worst because of its cruelty and spitefulness, and requires no ignorance. The first two at least admit to a possibility: one could say that the priest is simply ignorant and thinks he is doing the right thing, but with mockery there is no such exculpatory circumstance because the Church including the modern "American Church" still teaches the venality and utter sinfulness of willfully subjecting one's neighbor in person or by name [as opposed to the situation sans name in a rhetorical exercise] to derision for his beliefs and the upholding of them. My neighbor may no longer believe in the Real Presence, but I must not use ridicule against him; I ought to pray for him at the very least while looking for an opportunity to talk to him about this doctrine everywhere and always taught by the Church and believed by the faithful. Sarcasm is okay for political satire when dealing with a known hypocrite with unjust designs, if necessary, but this is not what we are talking about. The average Catholic is defenseless against such a merciless attack, which is the whole point in using it. This will stick deeply when the other two barely prick. Lawyers use this approach all the time: if the law is against you, argue facts; if the facts are against you, argue the law; if both are against you, assassinate the character of the opposing witness.

The bad medicine continues, uncontraindicated by a group of bishops who appear to be apostates themselves, if their latest pronouncement about the film, "The Golden Compass" means anything at all. This while still remaining mute as a group on the Motu proprio ...



BACK-------E-Mail

www.catholictradition.org/inoculation.htm