THE
HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS AND FLEEING ALL UNCLEANNESS
By John Gregory
Christ also hath loved us, and hath delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odour of sweetness (Ephesians 5: 2).
The
Eucharist as a Sacrifice
We must now proceed to explain its
nature as a Sacrifice, that pastors may understand what are the principal
instructions which they ought to impart to the faithful on Sundays and holy
days, regarding this mystery in conformity with the decree of the holy Council
(of Trent).
IMPORTANCE OF INSTRUCTION ON THE MASS
This Sacrament is not only a treasure of heavenly riches, which if turned to good account will obtain for us the grace and love of God; but it also possesses a peculiar character, by which we are enabled to make some return to God for the immense benefits he bestowed upon us.
How grateful and acceptable to God is this victim, if duly and legitimately immolated, is inferred from the following consideration. Of the sacrifices the Old Law it is written: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst not; (Psalm 39: 7) and again: If thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would indeed have given it: with burnt offerings thou wilt not be delighted. (Psalm 50: 18) Now if these were so pleasing in the Lord’s sight that, as the Scripture testifies, from them God smelled a sweet savour, (Genesis 8: 21)that is to say, they were grateful and acceptable to Him; what have we not to hope from that Sacrifice in which is immolated and offered He Himself of whom a voice from heaven twice proclaimed: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Matthew 3: 17)
This mystery, therefore, pastors should carefully explain, so that when the faithful are assembled at the celebration of divine service, they may learn to meditate with attention and devotion on the sacred things at which they are present.
Distinction
of Sacrament and Sacrifice
They should teach, then, in the first place, that the Eucharist was instituted by Christ for two purposes: one, that it might be the heavenly food of our souls, enabling us to support and preserve spiritual life; and the other, that the Church might have a perpetual Sacrifice, by which our sins might be expiated, and our heavenly Father, oftentimes grievously offended by our crimes, might be turned away from wrath to mercy, from the severity of a just chastisement to clemency. Of this thing we may observe a type and resemblance in the Paschal lamb, which was wont to be offered and eaten by the children of Israel as a sacrament and a sacrifice.
Nor could our Saviour, when about to offer Himself to God the Father on the altar of the cross, have given any more illustrious indication of His unbounded love towards us than by bequeathing to us a visible Sacrifice, by which that bloody Sacrifice, which was soon after to be offered once on the cross, would be renewed, and its memory daily celebrated with the greatest utility, unto the consummation of ages by the Church diffused throughout the world.
But (between the Eucharist as a Sacrament and a Sacrifice) the difference is very great; for as a Sacrament it is perfected by consecration; as a Sacrifice, all its force consists in its oblation. When, therefore, kept in a pyx, or borne to the sick, it is a Sacrament, not a Sacrifice. As a Sacrament also, it is to them that receive it a source of merit, and brings with it all those advantages which have been already mentioned; but as a Sacrifice, it is not only a source of merit, but also of satisfaction. For as, in His Passion, Christ the Lord merited and satisfied for us; so also those who offer this Sacrifice, by which they communicate with us, merit the fruit of His Passion, and satisfy. [He who celebrates Mass worthily and he who communicates worthily merit by those personal acts an increase of grace and glory. The communicant receives moreover from the Sacrament the fruits explained above on pages 241 ff. But Communion does not effect directly, as does the Mass, satisfaction for sin.]
The
Mass Is a True Sacrifice
PROOF FROM THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
With regard to the institution of this Sacrifice, the holy Council of Trent has left no room for doubt, by declaring that it was instituted by our Lord at His Last Supper; while it condemns under anathema all those who assert that in it is not offered to God a true and proper Sacrifice; or that to offer means nothing else than that Christ is given as our spiritual food.
Nor did (the Council) omit carefully to explain that to God alone is offered this Sacrifice. For although the Church sometimes offers Masses in honor and in memory of the Saints, yet she teaches that the Sacrifice is offered, not to them, but to God alone, who has crowned the Saints with immortal glory. Hence the priest never says: I offer Sacrifice to thee Peter, or to thee Paul; but, while he offers Sacrifice to God alone, he renders Him thanks for the signal victory won by the blessed martyrs, and thus implores their patronage, that they, whose memory we celebrate on earth, may vouchsafe to intercede for us in heaven.
PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE
This doctrine, handed down by the Catholic Church, concerning the truth of this Sacrifice, she received from the words of our Lord, when, on that last night, committing to His Apostles these same sacred mysteries, He said: Do this for a commemoration of me; (Luke 22: 19; 1 Corinthians 11: 24) for then, as was defined by the holy Council, He ordained them priests, and commanded that they and their successors in the priestly office, should immolate and offer His Body.
Of this the words of the Apostle to the Corinthians also afford a sufficient proof: You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord, and the chalice of devils: you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord and of the table of devils. As then by the table of devils must (1 Corinthians 10: 20) be understood the altar on which sacrifice was offered to them; so also—if the conclusion proposed to himself by the Apostle is to be legitimately drawn—by the table of the Lord can be understood nothing else than the altar on which Sacrifice was offered to the Lord.
Should we look for figures and prophecies of this Sacrifice in the Old Testament, in the first place Malachy most clearly prophesied thereof in these words: From the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation; for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts. (Malachy 1: 11)
Moreover, this victim was foretold, as well before as after the promulgation of the Law, by various kinds of sacrifices; for this victim alone, as the perfection and completion of all, comprises all the blessings which were signified by the other sacrifices. In nothing, however, do we behold a more lively image of the Eucharistic Sacrifice than in that of Melchisedech; for the Saviour Himself offered to God the Father, at his Last Supper, His body and blood, under the appearances of bread and wine, declaring that He was constituted a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedech. (Hebrews 7: 3)
Excellence
of the Mass
THE MASS IS THE SAME SACRIFICE AS THAT OF THE CROSS
We therefore confess that the
Sacrifice of the Mass is and ought to be considered one and the same Sacrifice
as that of the cross, for the victim is one and the same, namely, Christ our
Lord, who offered Himself, once only, a bloody Sacrifice on the altar of the
cross. The bloody and unbloody victim are not two, but one victim only, whose
Sacrifice is daily renewed in the Eucharist, in obedience to the command of our
Lord: Do this for a commemoration of me.
The priest is also one and the same, Christ the Lord; for the ministers who offer Sacrifice, consecrate the holy mysteries, not in their own person, but in that of Christ, as the words of consecration itself show, for the priest does not say: This is the body of Christ, but, This is my body; and thus, acting in the Person of Christ the Lord, he changes the substance of the bread and wine into the true substance of His body and blood.
THE MASS A SACRIFICE OF PRAISE, THANKSGIVING AND PROPITIATION
This being the case, it must be taught without any hesitation that, as the holy Council (of Trent) has also explained, the sacred and holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving only, or a mere commemoration of the Sacrifice performed on the cross, but also truly a propitiatory Sacrifice, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious to us. If, therefore, with a pure heart, a lively faith, and affected with an inward sorrow for our transgressions, we immolate and offer this most holy victim, we shall, without doubt, obtain mercy from the Lord, and grace in time of need; for so delighted is the Lord with the odor of this victim that, bestowing upon us the gift of grace and repentance, He pardons our sins. Hence this usual prayer of the Church: As often as the commemoration of this victim is celebrated, so often is the work of our salvation being done; that is to say, through this unbloody Sacrifice flow to us the most plenteous fruits of that bloody victim.
THE MASS PROFITS BOTH THE LIVING AND THE DEAD
Pastors should next teach that such is the efficacy of this Sacrifice that its benefits extend not only to the celebrant and communicant, but to all the faithful, whether living with us on earth, or already numbered with those who are dead in the Lord, but whose sins have not yet been fully expiated. For, according to the most authentic Apostolic tradition, it is not less available when offered for them, than when offered for the sins of the living, their punishments, satisfactions, calamities and difficulties of every sort.
It is hence easy to perceive, that all Masses, as being conducive to the common interest and salvation of all the faithful, are to be considered common to all.
The
Rites and Ceremonies of the Mass
The Sacrifice (of the Mass) is celebrated with many solemn rites and ceremonies, none of which should be deemed useless or superfluous. On the contrary, all of them tend to display the majesty of this august Sacrifice, and to excite the faithful when beholding these saving mysteries, to contemplate the divine things which lie concealed in the Eucharistic Sacrifice. On these rites and ceremonies we shall not dwell, since they require a more lengthy exposition than is compatible with the nature of the present work; moreover priests can easily consult on the subject some of the many booklets and works that have been written by pious and learned men.
What has been said so far will, with the divine assistance, be found sufficient to explain the principal things which regard the Holy Eucharist both as a Sacrament and Sacrifice.
THE NINTH AND TENTH COMMANDMENTS
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house: neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his hand-maid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is his.” (Exodus 20: 17)
But fornication and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh the saint. . . . For know ye this, and understand that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God (Ephesians 5: 3, 5)
IMPORTANCE OF INSTRUCTION ON THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS
It is to be observed, in the first place, that these two precept, which were delivered last in order, furnish a general principle for the observance of all the rest. What is commanded in these two amounts to this, that if we wish to observe the preceding precepts of the law, we must be particularly careful not to covet. For he who does not covet, being content with what he has, will not desire what belongs to others, but will rejoice in their prosperity, will give glory to the immortal God, will render Him boundless thanks, and will observe the Sabbath, that is, will enjoy perpetual repose, and will respect his superiors. In fine, he will injure no man in word or deed or otherwise; for the root of all evil is concupiscence, which hurries its unhappy victims into every species of crime and wickedness. Keeping these considerations in mind, the pastor should be more diligent in explaining this Commandment, and the faithful more ready to hear (his instruction).
WHY THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS ARE EXPLAINED HERE TOGETHER
We have united these two Commandments because, since their subject-matter is similar, they may be treated together. However, the pastor may explain them either together or separately, according as he may deem it more effective for his exhortation and admonitions. If, however, he has undertaken the exposition of the Decalogue, he should point out in what these two Commandments are dissimilar; how one covetousness differs from another—a difference noticed by Saint Augustine, in his book of Questions on Exodus. The one covetousness looks only to utility and interest, the other to unlawful desire and criminal pleasure. He, for instance, who covets a field or house, pursues profit rather than pleasure, while he who covets another man’s wife yields to a desire of pleasure, not of profit.
NECESSITY OF PROMULGATING THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS
The promulgation of these two Commandments was necessary for two reasons. The first is to explain the sixth and seventh Commandments. Reason alone shows that to prohibit adultery is also to prohibit the desire of another man’s wife, because, were the desire lawful, its indulgence must be so too; nevertheless, many of the Jews, blinded by sin, could not be induced to believe that such desires were prohibited by God. Nay, even after the Law had been promulgated and become known, many who professed themselves its interpreters, continued in the same error, as we learn from these words of our Lord recorded in Saint Matthew: You have heard that it was said to them of old: “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” but I say to you, etc. (Matthew 5: 28)
The second reason (for the promulgation) of these two Commandments is that they distinctly and in express terms prohibit some things of which the sixth and seventh Commandments do not contain an explicit prohibition. The seventh Commandment, for instance, forbids an unjust desire or endeavor to take what belongs to another; but this Commandment further prohibits even to covet it in any way, even though it could be acquired justly and lawfully, if we foresee that by such acquisition our neighbor would suffer some loss.
THESE
TWO COMMANDMENTS TEACH GOD’S LOVE FOR US
AND OUR NEED OF HIM
But before we come to the exposition of the Commandments, the faithful are first to be informed that by this law we are taught not only to restrain our inordinate desires, but also to know the boundless love of God towards us.
By the preceding Commandments God had, as it were, fenced us round with safeguards, securing us and ours against injury of every sort; but by the addition of these two Commandments, He intended chiefly to provide against the injuries which we might inflict on ourselves by the indulgence of inordinate desires, as would easily happen were we at liberty to covet all things indiscriminately. By this law then, which forbids to covet, God has blunted in some degree the keenness of desire, which excites to every kind of evil, so that by reason of His command these desires are to some extent diminished, and we ourselves, free from the annoying importunity of the passions, are enabled to devote more time to the performance of the numerous and important duties of piety and religion which we owe to God.
Nor is this the only lesson of instruction which we derive from these Commandments. They also teach us that the divine law is to be observed not only by the external performance of duties, but also by the internal concurrence of the heart. Between divine and human laws, then, there is this difference, that human laws are fulfilled by an external compliance alone, whereas the laws of God, since He reads the heart, require purity of heart, sincere and undefiled integrity of soul.
The law of God, therefore, is a sort of mirror, in which we behold the corruption of our own nature; and hence these words of the Apostle: I had not known concupiscence, if the law did not say: “Thou shalt not covet.” (Romans 7: 7) Concupiscence, which is the fuel of sin, and which originated in sin, is always inherent in our fallen nature; from it we know that we are born in sin, and, therefore, do we humbly fly for assistance to Him, who alone can efface the stains of sin.
TWO PARTS OF THESE COMMANDMENTS
In common with the other Commandments, however, these two are partly mandatory, partly prohibitory.
Negative
Part
“THOU SHALT NOT COVET”
With regard to the prohibitory part, the pastor should explain what sort of concupiscence is prohibited by this law, lest some may think that which is not sinful to be sinful.
WHAT SORT OF CONCUP9ISCENCE IS NOT FORBIDDEN
Such is the concupiscence of the spirit against the flesh; (Galatians 5: 17) or that which David so earnestly desired, namely, to long after the justifications of God at all times. (Psalm 118: 20)
Concupiscence, then, is a certain commotion and impulse of the soul, urging men to the desire of pleasures, which they do not actually enjoy. As the other propensities of the soul are not always sinful, neither is the impulse of concupiscence always vicious. It is not, for instance, sinful to desire food and drink; when cold, to wish for warmth; when warm, to wish to become cool. This lawful species of concupiscence was implanted in us by the Author of nature; but in consequence of the sin of our first parents it passed the limits prescribed by nature and became so depraved that it frequently excites to the desire of those things which conflict with the spirit and reason.
However, if well regulated, and kept within proper bounds, it is often still the source of no slight advantage. In the first place, it leads us to supplicate God continually, and humbly to beg of Him those things which we most earnestly desire. Prayer is the interpreter of our wishes; and if this lawful concupiscence did not exist within us, prayer would be far less frequent in the Church of God. It also makes us esteem the gifts of God more highly; for the more eagerly we desire anything, the dear and more pleasing will be its possession to us. Finally, the gratification which we receive from the acquisition of the desired object increases the devotion of our gratitude to God.
If then it is sometimes lawful to covet, it must be conceded that not every species of concupiscence is forbidden. Saint Paul, it is true, says that concupiscence is sin; (Romans 7: 20) but his words are to be understood in the same sense as those of Moses, whom he cites, (Exodus 20: 17) as the Apostle himself declares when, in his Epistle to the Galatians he calls it the concupiscence of the flesh, for he says: Walk in the spirit, and you shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh. (Galatians 5: 16)
Hence that natural, well-regulated concupiscence which does not go beyond its proper limits, is not prohibited; still less do these Commandments forbid that spiritual desire of the virtuous mind, which prompts us to long for those things that war against the flesh, for the Sacred Scriptures themselves exhort us to such a desire: Covet ye my words, (Wisdom 6: 12) Come over to me all ye that desire me. (Ecclesiasticus 24: 26)
WHAT SORT OF CONCUPISCENCE IS HERE PROHIBITED
It is not, then, the mere power of desire, which can move either to a good or a bad object that is prohibited by these Commandments; it is the indulgence of evil desire, which is called the concupiscence of the flesh, and the fuel of sin, and which when accompanied by the consent of the will, is always sinful. Therefore only that covetousness is forbidden which the Apostle calls the concupiscence of the flesh, that is to say, those motions of desire which are contrary to the dictates of reason and outstep the limits prescribed by God.
TWO KINDS OF SINFUL CONCUPISCENCE
This kind of covetousness is condemned, either because it desires what is evil, such as adultery, drunkenness, murder, and such heinous crimes, of which the Apostle says: Let us not covet evil things, as they also coveted; (1 Corinthians 10: 6) or because, although the objects may not be bad in themselves, yet there is some other reason which makes it wrong to desire them, as when, for instance, God or His Church prohibit their possession; for it is not permitted us to desire these things which it is altogether unlawful to possess. Such were, in the Old Law, the gold and silver from which idols were made, and which the Lord in Deuteronomy forbade anyone to covet. (Deuteronomy 7: 25, 26)
Another reason why this sort of vicious desire is condemned is that it has for its object that which belongs to another, such as a house, maid-servant, field, wife, ox, ass and many other things, all of which the law of God forbids us to covet, simply because they belong to another. The desire of such things, when consented to, is criminal, and is numbered among the most grievous sins. For sin is committed the moment the soul, yielding to the impulse of corrupt desires, is pleased with evil things, and ether consents to, or does not resist them, as Saint James, pointing out the beginning and progress of sin, teaches when he says: Every man is tempted by his own concupiscence, being drawn away and allured; then, when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; but sin, when it is completed, begetteth death. (James 1: 14)
When, therefore, the Law says: Thou shalt not covet, it means that we are not to desire those things which belong to others. A thirst for what belongs to others is intense and insatiable; for it is written: A covetous man shall not be satisfied with money; (Ecclesiasticus 5: 9) and of such a one Isaias says: Woe to you that join house to house, and lay field to field. (Isaias 5: 8)
“HIS WIFE”
The Commandment which forbids us to covet the goods of our neighbor, is followed by another, which forbids us to covet our neighbor’s wife—a law that prohibits not only the adulterer’s criminal desire of his neighbor’s wife, but even the wish to marry her. For of old when a bill of divorce was permitted, it might easily happen, that she who was put away by one husband might be married to another. But the Lord forbade the desire of another’s wife lest husbands might be induced to abandon their wives, or wives conduct themselves with such bad temper towards their husbands as to make it necessary to send them away.
But now this sin is more grievous because the wife, although separated from her husband, cannot be taken marriage by another until the husbands death. He, therefore, who covets another man’s wife will easily fall from this into another desire, for he will wish either the death of the husband or the commission of adultery.
The same principle holds good with regard to women who have been betrothed to another. To covet them is also unlawful; and whoever strives to break their engagement violates one of the most holy of promises.
And if to covet the wedded wife of another is entirely unlawful, it is on no account right to desire in marriage the virgin who is consecrated to religion and to the service of God. But should anyone desire in marriage a married woman whom he thinks to be single, and whom he would not wish to marry if he knew she had a husband living, certainly he does not violate this Commandment. Pharaoh (Genesis 12) and Abimelech (Genesis 20), as the Scripture informs us, were betrayed into this error; they wished to marry Sarah, supposing her to be unmarried, and to be the sister, not the wife of Abraham.
Positive
Part
DETACHMENT FROM RICHES ENJOINED
In order to make known the remedies calculated to overcome the vice of covetousness, the pastor should explain the positive part of the Commandment, which consists in this, that if riches abound, we set not our hearts upon them, (Psalm 61: 11) that we be prepared to sacrifice them for the sake of piety and religion, that we contribute cheerfully towards the relief of the poor, and that, if we ourselves are poor, we bear our poverty with patience and joy. And, indeed, if we are generous with our own goods, we shall extinguish (in our own hearts) the desire of what belongs to another.
Thoughts
which Help one to Keep these Commandments
In order to extinguish the fire of passion, it will be found most efficacious to place before our eyes the evil consequences of its indulgence.
Among those evils the first is that by obedience to the impulse of passion, sin gains uncontrolled sway over the soul; hence the Apostle warns us: Let not sin, therefore, reign in your mortal body, so as to obey the lusts thereof. (Romans 6: 12) Just as resistance to the passions destroys the power of sin, so indulgence of the passions expels God from His kingdom and introduces sin in His Place.
Again, concupiscence, as Saint James teaches, (James 1: 14) is the source from which flows every sin. Likewise Saint John says: All that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life. (1 John 2: 16)
A third evil of sensuality is that it darkens the understanding. Blinded by passion man comes to regard whatever he desires as lawful and even laudable.
Finally, concupiscence stifles the seed of the divine word, sown in our souls by God, the great husbandman. Some, it is written in Saint Mark are sown among thorns; these are they who hear the word, and the cares of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lust after other things, entering in, choke the word , and it is made fruitless. (Mark 4: 18)
Chief
Ways in which These Two Commandments are Violated
They who, more than others, are the slaves of concupiscence, the pastor should exhort with greater earnestness to observe this Commandment. Such are the following: those who are addicted to improper amusements, or who are immoderately given to recreation; merchants, who wish for scarcity, and who cannot bear that other buyers or sellers hinder them from selling at a higher or buying at a lower rate; those who wish to see their neighbor reduced to want in order that they themselves may profit in buying or selling; soldiers who thirst for war, in order to enrich themselves with plunder; physicians, who wish for the spread of disease; lawyers, who are anxious for a great number of cases and litigations; and artisans who, through greed for gain, wish for a scarcity of the necessaries of life in order that they may increase their profits.
They too, sin gravely against this Commandment, who, because they are envious of the praise and glory won by others, strive to tarnish in some degree their fame, particularly if they themselves are idle and worthless characters; for fame and glory are the reward of virtue and industry, not of indolence and laziness.
Conclusion
In light of these teachings, we are reminded that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass calls each soul to purity of heart, clarity of mind, and fidelity to God’s law. The indulgence of impure desires does not remain a private fault but becomes a doorway through which sin gains power over the soul, darkens the understanding, and drives out the presence of God. By recognizing the grave consequences of coveting what is forbidden and by contemplating the spiritual harm caused by unchecked passion, the faithful are moved to vigilance, repentance, and renewed commitment to virtue.
Therefore, let every Christian strive to extinguish the first sparks of concupiscence, to guard the sanctity of marriage and betrothal, and to cultivate a heart free from unlawful desire. In doing so, we honor God, preserve the integrity of our souls, and prepare ourselves to participate worthily in the sacred mysteries. May the grace of Christ strengthen us to flee all uncleanness and to walk steadfastly in the light of His truth so that we may enjoy the perpetual perfect liturgy, forever unfolding the essence of God for our eternal adoration and felicity.

Flee the Novus Ordo and all those who promulgate that abomination!
ReplyDeleteTom,
DeleteAbsolutely!!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Well said Tom. What I find after breaking from the NO years ago is those fake "priests" who on a Sunday say a True Mass and then a hour later a NO with women, etc in the sanctuary. How they are so deluded in their minds thinking the NO is the same.
ReplyDeleteGreat Writing John. I pray you are feeling much better now. Prayers for you. God bless
Thank you very! Please keep praying for me and my family.
DeleteThose who have the opportunity to attend the Traditional Latin Mass are blessed ! I have only ever known the Novus Ordo Mass, and there is no Traditional Latin Mass in my area. The next time you go to Mass, please pray for me, a poor sinner!
ReplyDeleteSimon
DeleteMaybe you could contact Bishop Roy or another Traditionalist Bishop and see if they can send a priest with a portable altar to your home or near where you live--even if it's only once a month or every two months.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I'm sorry you are in such a predicament. Such a good willed and devout Catholic.
DeleteJohn Gregory
https://www.wmreview.org/p/susanvacantism
ReplyDeleteMaybe Salza & Siscoe are the true authors of this (?!?!)
@anon8:08
DeleteLOL!! That was HYSTERICAL!! Thanks for sharing the link!
God Bless
---Introibo
Nice article, John Gregory. I hope and pray that you are feeling better.
ReplyDeleteIn reading this, I am reminded of what has transpired in recent years. Bergoglio gave his “blessing” for divorced and “remarried” couples to receive "Holy Communion." It has always been the teaching of the church that public adulterers cannot receive Communion. What was always condemned is being pushed as becoming a new norm under the V2 sect. If the V2 sect eventually promulgates this as “official teaching” (which is where this is headed very quickly), then St. John the Baptist, St. Thomas More, and St. John Fisher died for absolutely nothing and they died for a complete lie. What Herod and Henry VIII did was not only moral, but should have never been opposed by these men. If the upper echelons in the Vatican get their way and push through Bergoglio’s agenda here that he was pushing so hard for, then the entire Novus Ordo sect should gladly go along with this change because it is being instituted by a true “pope.” Furthermore, the V2 sect’s own ecclesiology has made it very clear time after time after time that “all are saved” and everyone goes to Heaven, so who cares anyway? The days become darker and darker.
-TradWarrior
By encouraging communion for adulterers, the Vatican apostates are more than merely implying that there is no difference between receiving Communion worthily or unworthily; the underlying message is that no one can be unworthy because (1) sin is not actual and that (2) all are equal to God (according to the modernist belief that the universe is not separate from God but is His manifestation). The two are necessarily related as a consequence of one to the other. And as you have said, they say "everyone goes to Heaven, so who cares anyway" ? In the end, the novus ordo 'communion' becomes an act of self-worship, celebrating equal status with God, independence from His Law, and unbounded self-will. These we know are the devil's doctrines. Of course it is not yet all official, explicit, as that; but it is going there and will be ratified by the lawless one.
Delete+JMJ+
P.S. All the things which John Gregory pointed out in his excellent post will no doubt fly over the heads of those who see no lawful bounds to their concupiscence and so the novus ordo (and as it is developing) serve their will. In a real sense it is as though they -must- receive Communion in their state as an act of defiance against God's Law. The reprobate tend to heap sins upon themselves which will finalize their reprobation, as it were. I forget where in Scripture the reference comes from (heaping sins upon themselves).
God bless.
Very well stated! Thank you very much Cairsahr
DeleteThe anonymous response to Cairsahr was from me.
DeleteJohn Gregory
Trad Warrior,
ReplyDeleteI saw a long comment of yours to me in a previous article of mine regarding Pope Pius XII. I am putting together an article that responds to your will thought out comment. If it can be posted, with the proper disclaimer from Introibo, stating the need to following the liturgy in place at the death of the last valid pope.
It is an opinion editorial, which seeks not to prove which side is right and which side is wrong, but to end division. Not superficially, but on solid theological grounds showing the plausibility of both positions without condemning either.
John Gregory
John Gregory,
DeleteI look forward to reading what you have to say on the matter. Was this regarding the long comment I wrote where I mention the various problems that one runs into if we say that Pius XII was not the pope? After that, I mentioned the 3 other vacancy pusher positions. I like very much what I wrote there because if we remove Pius XII as pope, then we are faced with all of the dilemmas that I mentioned in that lengthy response, plus many more! Are we willing to go that far? This was in response to where you mention the continuous controversy surrounding Pius XII. Perhaps that is the comment, but if not, then maybe it was another one from another article. At any rate, I look forward to reading what you have to say. I know you had a lengthy back and forth exchange much earlier in the year over the Pian liturgical changes with Steve Speray, so perhaps that is the topic that you are referencing – the Pian changes, which you have written about several times. I’ll read anything you send my way. I look forward to it!
God bless,
-TradWarrior
Hello Trad Warrior,
DeleteYes. It is in response to what you had to say regarding my comment but regarding the pian charges. I accept Pope Pius XII as a valid Pope until his death and therefore hold that the changes were not in themselves harmful.
I consider Steve a friend, have not communicated with him since I retired.
He seemed overly defensive in his responses to me and I believe unreasonably harsh in his responses.
I like two way conversations where each grants legitimate points made by the other. When I made a point in favor of his opinion he used it as a hammer to slam me down.
That is in fact what motivated me to eventually put together the article I will be checking for errors tomorrow before I send it in.
It is shorter than my other articles mainly quoting others.
Its purpose is to stifle division and foster unity.
I believe those on both sides of the issue will find it interesting and hopefully enjoyable.
John Gregory
Thank you JG. Off-topic, sorry, though do you or Introibo (TW or anyone else) have information of Our Lady of Laus? I note it is a 27th C. apparition 'approved' in 2008.
ReplyDeleteAny info6or guidance would be appreciated.
I know nothing.
DeleteJohn Gregory
@anon4:11am,
DeleteI am not familiar with Our Lady of Laus. I looked it up. It seems Pope Pius IX was favorable towards this apparition as I read he granted a Canonical Coronation in 1855 to the marble image of Our Lady of Laus. Introibo has cited theologian Volken several times and how there were only 10 Marian apparitions with church approval and 7 cases where the local bishop and Holy See implicitly attested to the veracity of those apparitions. This one is not on the list, but I suppose it could be legit. There could be more than just these 17 cases that are legitimate, but we have no ruling pope to decide the matter. Then again, perhaps it is not legit. I don’t know. I would have to defer to Introibo on this apparition. It does look interesting. Thanks for sharing.
God bless,
-TradWarrior
Thank you very much TW. I'm not as scrupulous (if that is the word I want) as most (Traditionalists) regarding the authenticity of Mariam apparitions, not as exacting, however the time-frame of this series of apparitions was a red flag to me. Over 59 years if memory serves. That seems odd.
DeleteAs of 1882, Benoite Rencurel's cause for beatification was open before the Sacred Congregation of Rites.
DeleteAround 1894 that same Roman Congregation has decided in favor of the validity and relevance of the inquiry instituted by the bishop of Gap (the diocese where Sister Rencurel lived) as to the sanctity, virtues, and miracles of the Venerable Benedicta (Benoit in French) Rencurel, a Dominican tertiary Sister who died in the odor of sanctity in that diocese.
Source: The Northwestern Chronicle Sep. 24, 1894
It seems the beatification process did not progress and there was never a Vatican-led investigation into the supernatural character of the apparitions at Laus before Vatican 2 but the visionary, Sr. Rencurel, does have a right to be called Venerable.
God Bless,
Joanna
Joanna,
DeleteThank you for the information!
God Bless
---Introibo
@anon3:14pm,
DeleteI agree with you that a case where the apparitions go on this long would be a red flag. It is reminiscent of Medjugorje. That doesn’t mean it’s not legit, it’s just bizarre! In most legitimate apparitions, it was just 1 apparition by Our Lady, or possibly a few. I don’t know of any authentic apparitions that went on and on like this.
God bless,
-TradWarrior
Joanna,
DeleteThank you for the information.
God bless you,
-TradWarrior
Thank you TW, Joanna & Introibo.
DeleteIntroibo. The above comment about a Novus Ordo "priest" saying the True Mass and then the Novus Ordo with women,etc. How can these fakes be so deluded into thinking they are the same thing. Do you think a number do know what they are doing is wrong but don't have the guts to stand up and get out. We remember a friend telling us that she overheard a "priest" make bad comments about how bad his local "bishop" was and all the problems in the diocese but kept on in the parish as its parish "priest". Do you believe these types of fakes are heading for damnation unless they take action. How could anyone of a sound mind think the Novus Ordo with all of it's abominations is the True Church. It is beyond words. I would love the view of Trad Warrior too.
ReplyDeleteNew to this site and love your writings. God bless and our Lady keep you
These is no doubt a fake and phony "priest" like that is on the wide road to perdition. Look at Prevost, he knows what he is doing and has no fear of God.
DeleteI have no idea. But in some cases the pension might have something to do with it. Salvation is too inconvenient for some.
DeleteJohn Gregory
@anon4:18am,
DeleteI often wonder about this too. How culpable are these men? Some certainly have more knowledge than others, and if they are fairly convinced that the V2 sect is false, yet they stay there anyway due to comfort and not wanting to conform to the much more difficult Sedevacantist position, then that doesn’t bode well for their souls. I certainly pray that God has mercy on them, but the greater gifts and talents that one has, the more God will demand on Judgment Day when he renders an account. It is a scary thought, but one that we have to ponder. I helped a Novus Ordo clergyman for several years. I showed him that the Sedevacantist position was the ONLY logical solution to the crisis of Vatican II. To this day, he remains a V2 sect “priest.” I personally believe that he will die without ever crossing over formally to the Sede side. What will happen to him when God judges him? I have no idea. He knows and understands this more than most, and yet, he seems like he still has severe mental blocks when it comes to seeing that the entire Conciliar Church is fraudulent and so he just remains there. Every situation is unique and different and we cannot read souls, but I often wonder the same thing – are these men more likely on the path to damnation because they can see where the Truth lies but they still reject it? I wish I knew. The Great Apostasy affects everyone.
I welcome Introibo’s thoughts on this matter.
God bless,
-TradWarrior
@anon4:18
DeleteThose ordained pre-Vatican II are entirely without excuse. As per canon law, we must consider them culpable. In the internal forum it is POSSIBLE (not probable) they are not subjectively guilty.
As to those who were raised and "ordained" in the V2 sect, they are not presumed guilty but have a duty to investigate. If they are good-willed, they will find their way out as was the case with Fr. Oswalt --a "priest" of the V2 sect who left and is now a real priest affiliated with the CMRI. My opinion--post V2 priests are more likely on the road to perdition.
Welcome to the One Ture Church, my friend! Be assured of my prayers!
God Bless
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteThank you for your thoughts on this matter. I agree with you!
God bless,
-TradWarrior
@Introibo 6:47 pm:
DeleteTheir culpability is somewhat mitigated when we consider that they were deceived along with everyone else; for all everyone knew the 1958 election was normal (except for the smoke signals and that Pius XII's designated successor did not appear). And with Papal Infallibility it would not occur to them to be suspicious. The changes certainly caused conflict, but that is 'internal forum' which is up to God. Some people blame the Infallibility dogma for their acquiescence; I don't; but the blame has to go somewhere right?
The devil did not get the victory he thought he had in 1958 (Apoc. 12). This must have certain consequences even if one cannot be quite certain what they are or how far it goes. It's on faith again.
+JMJ+
I'm sorry for not responding sooner here. I somehow transitioned to a different article and responded to comments there thinking I was still in my article.
ReplyDeleteJohn Gregory
The Sacrifice (of the Mass) is celebrated with many solemn rites and ceremonies, none of which should be deemed useless or superfluous.
DeleteThat is a key phrase from the Catechism of Trent. Has anyone one of authority, or purported authority claimed this was done in the 50's. I believe there could be much a valid pope can do with the liturgy, though I am sure. And what he could do in and of itself would not be an incentive to impiety or worse.
But there is no guarantee that a pope always does the best or most prudent thing.
That a reigning pope can not be disobeyed regarding anything he binds on the Church is not denied by any legitimate sedevacantist.
John Gregory
TradWarrior
ReplyDeleteWere all the NO Churches you attended extreme liberal or moderate?
I know of one "priest" who dresses his Sunday NO with fine vestments, incense, six candles, etc but at the same time also has women lectors, etc. One with a Catholic sense can see it is a empty shell and would not be deceived. You can make the NO look traditional but the whole rite is not Catholic. Think of all the thousands of martyrs who died for the Faith, they would see it straight away as a protestant service.
God bless
@anon4:52pm,
DeleteWhen I attended the Novus Ordo, I tried to go to more “conservative” parishes, for lack of a better term. You are correct in your assessment. You can dress up the Novus Ordo with candles, fine vestments, smells and bells, etc., but at the end of the day, it is still a Protestant service. The martyrs would indeed see it as a Protestant service, as well as any Catholic that saw what the Mass looked like from 1958 and before.
God bless you,
-TradWarrior
You don’t need to see what the mass looked like before the grotesque changes by The Modernists in order to discern and fully realize that The Novus Ordo was hatched in Hell. If people can’t figure out that clown masses, guitar masses, sodomite pride celebrations, communion in the hand given out by women and men in tshirts and jeans, the hideous architecture, priests rapping, and the list goes on. If people can’t figure out that this is all sacrilegious evil and blasphemy, then they will be held accountable. It’s not hard to figure out. People seek human respect, convenience, and have a herd mentality, they have also been infected with Liberalism. The antidote is simply rejecting Liberalism and seeking out The Truth. I’m not saying people can’t be in error in good faith but there is quite a bit of excuse making for people who go along with unambiguous evil.
Delete@anon3:51pm,
DeleteI agree with you. When we look around now at all of the ridiculousness that the V2 sect spawned, it’s hard to imagine that people cannot see how fraudulent all of this is, and yet many people still cannot see it! When Roncalli was “elected” after Pius XII, the world naturally thought that one pope was replaced by another. Once the council took shape and things progressed after Vatican II, and then went further along to where we are today, it has become more and more apparent and clearer that we are dealing with a false religion. Yet, many are still so blind.
God bless you,
-TradWarrior
So TradWarrior those folk who were brought up before 1958 and went along with the changes, would you say they were following blind obedience.
ReplyDeleteI think the best recent book on the Novus Ordo "Mass"is the one by the late Father Cekada.
No blind obedience. You obey what a valid popes binds on the Church. Or risk your soul. Some were not pleased with though.
DeleteJohn Gregory
John,
DeleteI think anon 5:14 was speaking of those who went along with Montini's New "Mass" although they had been brought up in the true Faith well before Vatican 2.
Thank you anon 11:14. I see you are right. Dude was a currently reigning, but not as pope.
DeleteJohn Gregory
Correct Anon . 11.14AM
Delete@anon5:14am,
DeleteSee my response above to @anon3:51pm. I would just reiterate that same comment to you here that I wrote.
God bless you,
-TradWarrior
Introibo
ReplyDeleteDid Father Gommar DePauw use the reformed Holy week rites of 1956?
What happened to all his personal belongings, private letters, books, etc at his Church in NY?
Did he do his own Confirmations and where did he get his Holy Oils from?
Did he ever have any contact with Bishop Vida Elmer up in Albany, NY or Bishop Robert McKenna?
--- God bless
@anon5:58
Delete1. Yes. Pian Holy Week.
2. All his personal belongings are now the property of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement’s Board of Directors.
3. No. Only Bishop Kurz performed Confirmations. He received holy oils from Bp. Kurz and a couple of retired Bishops in Europe who were sympathetic to his fight for Truth and Tradition.
4. He knew of them but did not discuss them with me.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
This is a short and a very beautiful pre-Vatican 2 prayer that all those who cannot attend Mass should find quite consoling. I know I have.
ReplyDelete"Send Your Holy Guardian Angel to Mass"
O Holy Angel at my side, go to church for me;
kneel in my place at Holy Mass where I desire to be.
At Offertory in my stead take all I am and own
and place it as a sacrifice upon the altar's throne.
At holy Consecration's bell adore with Seraphs' love My Jesus,
hidden in the Host, come down from Heaven above.
Pray for those I dearly love and those who cause my grief
that Jesus' Blood may cleanse all hearts and suffering souls relieve.
When the priest Communion takes, oh bring my Lord to me
so His Sweet Heart may rest on mine and I His temple be.
Pray that this Sacrifice Divine may mankind's sins efface
and bring me Jesus' blessing home - the pledge of every grace. Amen.
God Bless,
Joanna
Ah, thanks for this. It will go together with the Spiritual Communion prayer.
Delete+JMJ+
Joanna,
DeleteThank you so much for passing on this prayer!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Joanna,
DeleteThank you for that post about sending your guardian angel to Mass. I have to do this many times myself. I always enjoy reading your writing.
God bless you my friend,
-TradWarrior
Thanks you Introibo and John Gregory for this wonderful article which strengthened and confirmed me this day.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless,
SPR
I'm very glad to hear that SPR! Thank you for the compliment. It means a lot!!!
ReplyDeleteMay God bless you and
Our Lady keep you,
John Gregory