Monday, January 23, 2017

In The Red


 "Father" John Zuhlsdorf, a former Lutheran, was "ordained" a Vatican II sect "priest" by John Paul the Great Apostate on May 26, 1991. Known as "Fr. Z," he maintains a popular blog wherein he promotes so-called conservative ideas and sells coffee for profit. He currently resides in Wisconsin, but it seems like this man spends more time promoting himself and his products on the Internet than doing anything one would expect from a cleric. On the other hand, since what many Vatican II clerics are doing these days lands them in jail, perhaps it's a better option after all. Mr. Z is fond of writing "Say the Black, Do the Red." This is a reference to the True Roman Missal, where what is to be said is written in black type, and what is to be done is written in red type. (The very name "rubrics," or "rules" to be observed in offering the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, comes from the Latin word ruber, i.e., "red"). The same is true of their "Sacramentary" for the Novus Bogus, or at least it was; keeping up with how fast the Vatican II sect changes is difficult.

Mr. Z wants to promote "reverence" in the Vatican II sect mockery of the Mass, known as the Novus Ordo Missae or "New Order of the Mass." (sic) I prefer to call it the Novus Bogus, as it is both new and invalid. Trying to make one of these services "reverent" is like putting lipstick on a pig. In 2002, the bishops of the United States, with the blessing of Modernist Rome, issued another General Instruction on the Roman Missal (Hereinafter, "Instruction"). This is their version of the rubrics to be employed for a "proper and reverent celebration of the Eucharist."

 Much has been written about the evil doctrines and invalidating consecration brought about by the recitation of the heretical text of the Novus Bogus. In this post, I will show how even the very actions are either evil or incentives to impiety. Since the True Church cannot give that which is evil or an incentive to impiety, it did not come from the Church, but from heretics who lost their office by Divine Law and started a false religion.
The Instruction will appear in red type, and my response below it will be in regular black type.

A Heretical Structure

35. The acclamations and the responses of the faithful to the Priest’s greetings and prayers constitute that level of active participation that is to be made by the assembled faithful in every form of the Mass, so that the action of the whole community may be clearly expressed and fostered


  • The Mass is not a "communal activity;" this idea was expressly condemned by His Holiness Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei, "For there are today, Venerable Brethren, those who, approximating to errors long since condemned teach that in the New Testament by the word 'priesthood' is meant only that priesthood which applies to all who have been baptized; and hold that the command by which Christ gave power to His apostles at the Last Supper to do what He Himself had done, applies directly to the entire Christian Church, and that thence, and thence only, arises the hierarchical priesthood. Hence they assert that the people are possessed of a true priestly power, while the priest only acts in virtue of an office committed to him by the community. Wherefore, they look on the eucharistic sacrifice as a 'concelebration,' in the literal meaning of that term, and consider it more fitting that priests should 'concelebrate' with the people present than that they should offer the sacrifice privately when the people are absent." (Emphasis mine)
  • The emphasis is always on "conscious, active participation." The clear import is that for centuries at the True Mass (and Traditionalists today) are unconscious and inactive at the Holy Sacrifice when they lift up their mind and heart to God by praying the Rosary, following the prayers in a hand Missal, or meditating on the sacred action. To "participate"  for Vatican II means to banter back and forth and be preoccupied doing something so you don't get bored.

50. When the Entrance Chant is concluded, the Priest stands at the chair and, together with the whole gathering, signs himself with the Sign of the Cross. Then by means of the Greeting he signifies the presence of the Lord to the assembled community. By this greeting and the people’s response, the mystery of the Church gathered together is made manifest.After the greeting of the people, the Priest, or the Deacon, or a lay minister may very briefly introduce the faithful to the Mass of the day.

  • "Standing at the Chair" means the "priest" is now at the center of the assembly. Where is the tabernacle? Probably relegated to a hole in the wall. 
  • The "mystery of the Church" is not made present by the assembly and "presider" or "president of the assembly" (as they now commonly call the former "priest") exchanging greetings and responses. The Mass is the Sacred Mystery in and of Itself.
  • "Introduce the people to the Mass of the day"---whatever that means

59. The function of proclaiming the readings is by tradition not presidential but ministerial. Therefore the readings are to be read by a reader, but the Gospel by the Deacon or, in his absence, by another Priest. If, however, a Deacon or another Priest is not present, the Priest Celebrant himself should read the Gospel, and moreover, if no other suitable reader is present, the Priest Celebrant should also proclaim the other readings as well.

  • In typical Protestant fashion, the role of the priest is reduced. There is some wacky distinction between  what is "presidential" and "ministerial." You will look in vain at pre-Vatican II sources for such terminology and distinctions
  • Get as many laymen and even laywomen involved as possible. The priest is a last resort to "do the readings." Have a married "permanent deacon" at every "celebration." 
  • I wonder if the female "lectors" ever "proclaim" the following reading, "Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith." 1 Corinthians 14: 34.
82. There follows the Rite of Peace, by which the Church entreats peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family, and the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament.

  • The Church always has Unity; it's one of the Four Signs of the True Church along with Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity. There is no need to "entreat" "unity for herself" (sic)
  • The "whole human family" cannot have peace if they are outside the True Church. It may be "bumper sticker theology" but it's true; Know Christ (in His One True Church), Know Peace. No Christ (outside His One True Church), No Peace.
  • The "sign of peace" is now a bunch of handshakes, kissing, back-slapping, and idle chatter while Christ is (allegedly) Physically Present. Yet they clearly believe that His "presence in the assembly or community" is of equal importance. A denigration, if not implicit denial, of the dogma of the Real Presence. 
379. The Church offers the Eucharistic Sacrifice of Christ’s Pasch for the dead so that, since all the members of Christ’s Body are in communion with one another, what implores spiritual help for some, may bring comforting hope to others.

  • Excluded in the Instruction is ANY mention of the dreaded word "Purgatory." It would be decidedly Catholic.
  • No mention of the Four Last Things.
Conclusion

 I could go on and on, but I need not belabor the obvious: The Novus Bogus is invalid and heretical even in its very actions; by what it does, and fails to do. Actions often speak louder than words. This whole farce is an incentive to impiety. However, we know the Church cannot give incentives to impiety. The Council of Trent declared, "CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema." So ask yourself "recognize and resisters" of the SSPX and the rest, "How could this be from the True Church?" Please don't talk about "abuses" and what "the pope really said," because this is from the official text of the Modernist Vatican! 

 Perhaps after a few more cups of his coffee, Mr. Z will wake up to realize the only "black and red" coming from the Modernist Vatican is the black smoke from the red flames of Hell. 

30 comments:

  1. I remember in the past reading Scott Hahn's "masterpiece, The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth," and he states that the problem of the Novus Ordo Missae is only aesthetic, of out-of-tune singers and antics, but That that is Heaven on Earth, using stretches of the Sacrosanctum Concilium to justify this. Today, I see that he even participates in charismatic events, as happened here in Brazil, by Canção Nova and in the US as well. I, as an ex-Calvinist like him, am very impressed by this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hahn traces the root of the rot where it rightfully comes: the documents of Vatican II. However, when he claims that a Neo-Protestant bread and wine service devoid of Catholic theology is merely a problem of aesthetics, it's analogous to claiming that the problem with the Titanic was not polishing the furniture enough.

      Clearly, Mr Hahn is not stupid, but in my opinion, a deceiving man involved in all types of error, including the "charismatic movement." (For more on that, see my post "It's Not A Joke." ).

      If he thinks "Heaven on Earth" is the Novus Bogus, I'd hate to see what would constitute Hell.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. Mr.Z,who is at best a doubtful priest,is a snake oil salesman.
    He's not stupid plus he is knowledgeable & educated.
    Based on pure academics he (Z) knows the Novus Ordo is at best doubtful,which renders it invalid.Sacraments which are doubtful are to be treated invalid for the safer course.
    He is simply riding the money train and enjoying the scenery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. Another Vatican II sect deceiver like Scott Hahn.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  3. "------it's analogous to claiming that the problem with the Titanic was not polishing the furniture enough." Your bestline yet, Introibo. So glad I read you first off this morning.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "379. The Church offers the Eucharistic Sacrifice of Christ’s Pasch for the dead".

    Also note that it does not say "for the faithful departed", but simply for "the dead". The profession of the true Faith is not even a remote idea.

    Karol Woytija was consecrated a Bishop in 1968 as far as I remember, so I think he was more than just a Priest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wotyla is an apostate bishop. He was validly consecrated in 1958 just days before the death of Pope Pius XII. You make an excellent point about the omission of "faithful departed."

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. Do you think that simply by using the Novus Ordo Missae, even a properly ordained Priest, (say, an ex Society Priest) by itself manifests a defect of intention?

    If he used the Anglican or Lutheran Lord's Supper service, even though it has "This is My Body/Blood", it certainly would be a defect of intention. If he thinks the Novus Ordo is doing what the Church does, is it better to say "doubtful" rather than outright "invalid"? It doesn't matter in practice, of course.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike,
      You ask a most interesting question. Even with a valid priest and valid matter and proper form, I do believe the Novus Bogus suffers from an invalidating defect of intention. According to theologian O'Connell, a priest who recites the words of consecration AS A NARRATIVE manifests a defect of intention as he does not act in persona Christi (in the Person of Christ). Notice that the new Rite calls the former Canon the"Eucharistic Prayer" and contains an "Institution Narrative." So, yes, I don't think there's any way to salvage the validity of Montini's monstrosity.

      God bless you Mike!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. So even if an ex-Society Priest says the Novus Ordo, and when it says "Institution Narrative", he says to himself "I am going to recite these words as a consecratory formula, not a narrative", we still would not know he has the intention, because it is not manifest. Would it still have to be regarded as invalid?

      (I have a Novus missal from 1974 which heads the consecration calling it "The Lord's Supper"; the missal being complete with a cover letter and signature from the Bug himself!)

      Can he have the correct interior intention and not make it manifest, and still be valid? I'm not goint to it anyway, because I think it does not fulfil one's obligation to worship God in "Spirit and in Truth".

      Delete
    3. I would say that the defect was lacking because in the Mass, the Words of Consecration MUST be recited in a distinct way and no secret positive intention can rectify that. According to theologian Merkelback, "The Words of Consecration must be pronounced not only as as if said by Christ historically, narratively, and recitatively, for the purpose of narrating those things Christ did...but they must also be Said assertively or significatively, for the purpose of imitating Christ and applying the words (to the bread and wine) present." (See "Summa Theologiae Moralis 3: 226).

      The Words of Consecration would be substantially altered by reciting them as an Institution Narrative. In this case it would be analogous to omitting the word "Body" from the form of the consecration over the bread but having the proper intention--it would be invalid and the intention can't save the defect. Likewise, the Words of Consecration must be recited in an assertive manner as in the True Mass. The form and intention are linked in such manner that you can't effectuate transubstantiation without proper assertive recitation; no interior intention can cure the defect.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. I hold sedevacantist position but recently learned that if someone has a theological bachelors & minor in history,that individual can make the Novus Ordo seem valid and Roman Catholic to an amateur like myself.

      Delete
    5. The truth will always win. Keep informing yourself on the issue, read the pre-Vatican 2 theologians and you will understand more and more. There are great articles for you to read on traditionalmass.org

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  6. We laymen were probably never meant to have to delve into sacramental theology like this. Intention, narratives, comparing forms, etc. Sometimes I still pinch myself - I can't believe that things have come this, but they have come to this!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know what you mean, Mike! The laity must do all they can in this time of near universal Apostasy. Let's hope it doesn't remain this way much longer!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. @Mike I have been thinking thee exact same idea lately!
      Never thought I would be comparing matter form intention for Episcopal Consecration rites & the origins of Gallican & Roman Rite Lavabo prayers.It's not good we are running a major risk of getting In over our head.

      Delete
    3. Yes, we do run the risk of getting in too deep into matters which Providence has not ordained. For me, it is enough to resolve the crisis as far as it pertains to me and my state in life, and not go too far beyond this point. The Church cannot poison the Faithful, teach error or heresy.

      I try to promote the traditional Faith according to my state in life and bring others to the Church. The SSPX has a valid Mass and Sacraments. That's where I go, and thank God every time, and don't listen to the other controversies. Beyond this, I have learned to to bother, and I think that's what God's will is for me.

      "Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability: but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious."

      Ecclesiasticus 3:22

      Delete
    4. Yes, I think more people are recognising the voice of a stranger and not the true Shepherd and His Vicar on earth, and looking into these things as far as necessary to keep the Faith as was handed on since the Apostles. That much is necessary I think. Hold fast to tradtion and reject strange new ideas and those who promote them - including Episcopal Consecrations of 1968 and all that follows them!

      Delete
    5. One more thought on this: I shudder to ever become a Gerry Matatics. A brilliant mind who lit up like a comet across the sky - and then burned out - when he converted to the Catholic Church; then went from Novus Ordo - to FSSP - to SSPX - to sedevacantism to home-alonism.

      I wonder what he has put his wife and children though, trying to resolve each and every mystery single handed, instead of leaving things alone and taking the minimum stance necessary to keep practicing the Faith until the crisis ends in God's good time...and then there's Richard Ibranyi, who simply appears to be an insane schismatic.

      Delete
    6. @Michael Me & you are on the same wavelength except I am blessed to have sedevacantist chapel (our priest hates that term and tells me to say Roman Catholic chapel) 25 mins from home.(he celebrates pre-1951 Holy Week 1945 missal) From what I know the SSPX is fine long as they have a valid priest and not a Novus Ordo presbyter on the Altar.
      Pray for Richard I and John L that's all we can do.
      The home alone position is not consistent with Our Blessed Lords promises.
      If only all of us (Sede SSPX Home alone) could unite & work together,that's my hope.The
      Home Alone crowd,to me personally,are just like us.
      They're doing what they think is Catholic.That's one reason I don't get in over my head.There's a possibility of learning too much without an instructor and winding up home alone.

      Delete
  7. Hi Introibo, I read your blog for some good time and that's the first time I post a comment here.
    First, I apologize because it's an offtopic comment that I thing you could explain to me:
    According to the traditional Church teachings and dogmas, is it true that there must exist at least one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction? And how can it be reconciled with the sedevacant position?

    Thanks in advance and God bless you for your great work here!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've never heard that there must be at least one bishop with Ordinary jurisdiction. This is not a dogma. For more on jurisdiction, pls read my post, "The Church Can Supply Jurisdiction But Not Common Sense" of July 4, 2016.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thank you very much!

      Delete
    3. You will find the John Lane and John Daly school of thinking to say that it is a dogma that there must be at least one Bishop with Ordinary Jurisdiction, because the Church can't lose Her teaching office. I don't know how to reconcile all this, and as far as I understand, it is over my head. I do know that I must keep the tradtional Faith and receive traditional Sacraments if they are available. I refuse to stay home when there is a valid Mass provided by the Society within reasonable distance. It is not my job to solve all the issues of this dark and mysterious crisis, and I will go mad if I try.

      Delete
    4. I sympathize Mike. I will say this; not to have an active Teaching office is not the same as lacking a Teaching office. For example, the Bible certainly teaches us, and continues to do so, even though nothing can be added.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. The Roman Catholic Church absolutely defines itself by a living magisterium Introibo. You are spreading sedevacantist rubbish to lost sheep who actually listen to you as if you know what you are talking about. You don't. According to you, the teaching authority is the bible? Give me a break. The fact is your church doesn't exist except in theory and Mike is beginning to figure it out. Good for you Mike.

      Delete
    6. If tearing down a Strawman argument is the best you can do, no wonder you're NOT Sedevacantist. Go back and read what I wrote. I never claimed the Bible "was the teaching authority." I wrote "The Bible continues to teach us" meaning that nothing is added to Sacred Scripture yet it teaches us along with Sacred Tradition (under Church guidance of course).

      That being said, many theologians such as Dorsch taught that the Church could remain without a pope "for many years." She still teaches us through what has already been handed down.

      From whence does YOUR teaching authority come? Frankie? "Proselytism is nonsense." "There is no Catholic God." That guy? What's your defense; these were not authoritative teaching? What about encyclicals--they are authoritative. Place Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI next to "St" Wotyla's Ut Unam Sint. They are nearly word for word contradictions. Either Pope Pius was correct or Wotyla was correct. They both can't be true.

      Unless, of course, you "recognize and resist" with Bp. Fellay or Williamson. Your pope teaches and YOU decide what to accept as true and what to reject as false. The SSPX will tell the alleged pope and his bishops which annulments they "got right."

      Mike is an intelligent man who retains the Catholic Faith, and does not want to delve into the theology deeply--at least at this point. He never said he outright rejects sedevacantism. If he did, he wouldn't be a regular reader of my blog.
      So, yes, good for Mike and prayers that you see the light for you.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  8. I do not know if Francis is the Pope or not, though I act as if he is not. So in my actions I am basically a sedevacantist. I attend an SSPX Mass, though I do not agree with all of the SSPX positions. I found your blog recently when I saw a link to your recent post about Padre Pio. I wish you well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for commenting Matthew! I hope you'll read my posts each Monday and continue to grow in Faith and the knowledge of the Truth! You're in my prayers.

      ---Introibo

      Delete