JANSENISM (No. 26)
THE WORK OF HELL IS SPIRITUAL
[...]
G.K. Chesterton's excellent little book on St. Thomas Aquinas, The Dumb Ox, is still available from Image Books. I have just re-read it and marked a few parts. Chesterton writes that "the work of Hell is spiritual." St. John of the Cross had written that "The devil destroys the spiritual with the spiritual." According to Chesterton, most of the early heresies were of this kind, that is, overbalanced on the side of the spirit, downgrading or denying the Incarnation - God become man. And so that cry of Vatican II about a return to the early centuries, of spirit and inspiration, fits in here, as does Bishop Leadbeater's "facing towards the rising sun," etc. Nor is this downgrading of the Incarnation restricted to open adherents of Vatican II, but has been given expression by the well known "Pius X" traditionalist bishop who often appeals directly to some spirit or other. In a lecture at Florence, Italy, the traditionalist bishop has been reported as saying that western civilization is founded on the Mass, whereas it is fundamental Catholic doctrine that the Church (source of a once-Christian civilization) was founded on a Rock, St. Peter, the Papacy. In an ordination sermon, this bishop preached that "There is only one Word, the Word of the Holy Spirit," whereas St. John had written in his Prologue, so hated by our enemies, that "the word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us."
Comparing St. Thomas and St. Francis of Assisi, Chesterton writes as follows: "Perhaps it would sound too paradoxical to say that these two saints saved us from Spirituality; a dreadful doom. Perhaps it may be misunderstood if I say that St. Francis, for all his love of animals, saved us from being Buddhists; and that St. Thomas, for all his love of Greek philosophy, saved us from being Platonists. But it is best to say the truth in its simplest form; that they both affirmed the Incarnation, by bringing God back to Earth."
It is the sound common sense which we find in Chesterton, in St. Thomas and in St. Francis that is lacking today and which has opened the door to all the confusions of Vatican II. Starting years before and continuing on through the time of the Council, the clergy and religious were blown up with Teilhard's noösphere, so that they began to drift with every secular breeze. Saint Thomas was thrown out. Pentecostalists swarm into what are still called Catholic universities, Notre Dame being the saddest example of this insanity. The so-called traditionalists are ready, most of them, to throw out doctrine and the law and follow any leader who promises them the Mass. The attack on the Faith is, before all, an attack on the minds of Catholics.
On page 91 of The Dumb Ox, Chesterton writes of "the Antichrist, the double of Christ; in the profound proverb that the Devil is the ape of God. It is the fact that falsehood is never so false as when nearly true." A curious instance of this today is that those who are going along with all the errors of the mod clergy and strange pope reproach those who reject these errors as having left the Church. In this, the Devil does, indeed, play God's ape. It is a complete turning around of the truth, only one instance of hundreds like it today.
Leadbeater's book, The Science of the Sacraments, is another example. In photos and in many other ways, this book is very traditional - churches, altars, vestments, etc., but it is diabolic by a twist of words, ideas and intention, which renders the whole thing other than Christian. Of course, those who go in for these heresies of the spirit soon lose their true Catholic spirituality, and become lax morally, or they adopt a too rigorous moral stance which is really immoral, a thing of pride. The first road leads to Lutheranism, the second to Calvinism, or Jansenism.
What happened to the Jansenists? Has Jansenism vanished completely since Vatican II? Certainly not, for it is rooted in a state of mind and soul which never ceases to be present in some religious persons. Are the Jansenists, then, keeping silence? No, that is not their nature. Where, then, are they to be found? Surely,among those who are resisting Vatican II Pelagianism. Quite certainly, they play a leading part in the thing which presently goes by the name of Traditionalism.
I think a few words of definition are in order here. All Catholics are bound to follow tradition. For convenience, though, I apply the word in our time to those vocal traditionalists who follow promoters offering to provide Mass and Sacraments in public chapels without jurisdiction. With the recent emergence of one such operator from Switzerland, the word "Traditionalist" has come into use in the news and general conversation.
Jansenism has been defined as that error which denies the freedom of the will to resist grace. The writer in A Catholic Dictionary of 1884 says that it is difficult to describe Jansenism in general terms, and that no one admits to being a Jansenist. Donald Attwater's Catholic Dictionary has this comment on Jansenists: "Many of the heretics showed great piety and asceticism; but Jansenism was harsh, and its harshness pervaded much theological teaching for over a century."
I'm sure that most Catholics with Jansenistic leanings know nothing about the particular doctrinal error of Jansenius, Bishop of Ypres, early in the seventeenth century. I suggest that it is a mistake to tie this Puritanical tendency, which is usually called Jansenism, too closely to the name of Jansenius. I see it as an error which concentrates too much on God's power, particularly the power of the Sacraments, forgetting God's mercy, which is above His works. In time and with gradual loss of the Catholic sense and balance, the Jansenist leaves himself open to the influence or control of those who look for occult powers, the Theosophists. One cannot read their literature without being impressed with Theosophy as the ape of God and, therefore, of the Church and its liturgy.
The Jansenist takes a dim view of God's mercy; he expects that only a few will be saved, but feels quite certain that he will be one of those few (of the remnant or elect) who have earned the right to Heaven, mainly by his spiritual works. This is what makes him frantic when Mass and Sacraments are no longer regularly available. It is what makes him chase after those charlatans and cash operators who promise to provide a substitute church for him in our time. And he takes with him many good Catholics who are simply confused. There are many degrees of that state of mind, soul and temperament, a kind of pietism, which I here call Jansenism. It is, as most writers agree, a thing difficult to pin down, which I am not trying to do precisely. My main purpose in all this is to alert some, who might read this paper, that it is possible to appear very Catholic without being quite so really.
From the 1884 Catholic Dictionary, again: "From the very beginning, Jansenius and his followers had many objects in view, quite distinct from their opinions on the efficacy of grace. Perhaps the best description of Jansenism is that it was a professed attempt to restore the ancient doctrine and discipline of the Church. The Reformers (16th century) professed to restore apostolic doctrine and discipline by making new churches; the Jansenists wished to remain in the Catholic Roman Church and to reform it from within. The Reformers appealed to Scripture and made light of tradition. To the Jansenists the Fathers were all in all, though, practically, St. Augustine, and Western Fathers under his influence, were taken as representative of the Church's doctrinal tradition . . . " They took the dark or grim side of St. Augustine, of those who misinterpreted his doctrine on predestination. Anyway, it will be seen that I do not stray far from the path of correct word usage when I loosely identify a certain kind of traditionalism with Jansenism. This dark mood takes hold of many who know nothing of the doctrine. The Dictionary writer goes on to say: "This position of the Jansenists within the Church occasions fresh difficulty in treating of their history. They called themselves Catholics, and treated the existence of a Jansenist sect as a mere phantom, invented to trouble consciences and calumniate pious Catholics."
In the U.S., six or more traditionalist organizations are definitely Jansenistic. They are impressively Catholic in the appearance of their chapels, as are their priests in the performance of the Mass; and generally in the publications it is difficult for Catholics unread in these matters to see where they deviate from the Catholic balance or center. There exists, among them, as the Dictionary writer put it, a certain rigorism, a scrupulosity, and the self-righteousness of an elite. Some of them affect military postures -- knights, berets, capes and banners; they incline toward a sectarian spirit. The John Birch Society attracts many, with its respectability, civic righteousness, inside knowledge, as they think. I have nothing against inside knowledge and companionship and the right kind of organization, bearing in mind Christ's words, "without Me you can do nothing." Yet, to those disposed to trust my judgement in these matters, I say have nothing to do with present traditionalist organizations -- their "priories," "oratories," "cities of Mary" and like communities, their chapels. As Catholics concerned with salvation before spiritual comfort, as I am certain most of my regular readers are, you are on safe ground in rejecting these things in our time. They are on dangerous ground who join or support them, for these organizations have no authority to command the faithful -- that papal authority which always accompanies a legitimate setting up of a chapel, priory, etc. The fact of a false pope in the Vatican does not change this, for the law of Jurisdiction, of the Power of the Keys, always remains, even when there is no pope, as has happened for two to three years, more than five times. What the presence of a false pope does, unfortunately and dangerously for many well-intentioned Catholics, is to lend credibility to the claims of the outwardly impressive Jansenistic pseudo-Catholic defense of the Faith.
It has been remarked that Jansenism is related to Calvinism, and certainly Calvinism is from the Talmud. It comes out as a certain rabbinical rigidity, contrary to that spiritual freedom from the letter of the law as taught by St. Paul, and which teaching has been perverted to anarchy by St. Paul's namesake in the papal chair. Incidentally, the digest section of Masonic Morals and Dogma has this: "Paul's idea of Law and Grace agrees with the Kabalistic idea of Leniency." This is another way of expressing the Total Liberty program of Paul 6, and is an example of that "ape of God" perversion of the Faith by the Kabalist-Gnostic-Theosophist societies.
I would emphasize, then, these few things about the Jansenist: he appears to be an exemplary Catholic, very much taken up with things spiritual, especially the Mass. (It is the Mass that matters, he will say, time and again, which of course is true in a right sense.) He can write books against Paul 6 and in defense of the true Mass. He can sound very much like W.F. Strojie, except that he is ready to follow, away from the papacy itself (while sometimes protesting loyalty to the Pope) one leader or another who offers to provide him Mass and Sacraments. The Jansenist would stay in the Church, but will brook no opposition to his special doctrinal and devotional emphasis from any pope.
The Jansenistic movement, the movement of those who are at least inclined toward this spirit of rigidity and of low regard for God's mercy, this over-regard for the power of the Sacraments and feeling part of an elite or elect, provides an example of what I quoted previously from Chesterton, that "It is a fact that falsehood is never so false as when it is nearly true." So, I say, beware of all who come with an organization to provide Mass and Sacraments -- even in our troubled time -- without jurisdiction.
Papal jurisdiction is not a manmade law, but of divine origin -- to thee I give the Keys, etc. Not being a manmade law, it cannot be said to have failed the purpose of the Lawgiver and, thus, have become null and void -- for this Lawgiver is God, Christ our Lord. Far from being for our protection only in ordinary times, this Law is even more for our protection (and for that of the Faith and true Sacraments) today, when a false pope could, if there were no permanent Law to prevent it, open the door to every cash operator and schismatic ready to provide public chapels for the neglected sheep. (Among other things, by the way, sheep are for shearing.) As I've said before, this overemphasis on the power of the Sacraments can lead, when Catholic faith and obedience become weak, to a search for occult powers. It was from the Jansenist Church of Utrecht, Holland, that the founder of what became the Liberal (Theosophist) Old Roman Catholic Church, Arnold Mathew, got Holy Orders and passed them on. It is a classical instance of what happens when valid orders exist among those who have thrown off the papacy -- Arnold Mathew being an erratic priest of the Roman Church who had gotten himself a wife and was in other ways ineligible for a bishopric even in the Old Catholic Church of that time. For fifty or more years, Anglican clergymen have gone to Old Catholics and Theosophists for valid orders, and it is this Anglican church that Paul 6 is coming to terms with, as recent photos and news accounts confirm. The Great Traditionalist Leader himself would come to terms with Paul 6.
With the foregoing in mind, then, I say, avoid those traditionalists who, in company with nearly all the anti-Catholic writers of the past, condemn the Jesuits, of any time, simply as Jesuits, or who belaud the Dominican friar, Savonarola. I have read a number of accounts of this Dominican and I generally agree with this estimate of him by an historian of the time: "Heretic he was not and he went to his death with fortitude, a man thought by many to be a saint, but in reality a pitiful victim of self-delusion and disobedience and obstinacy." I say I generally agree with that judgement of Savonarola. It is concerning his orthodoxy that I have doubts. For his self-assumed role as severe judge of morals led, according to several writers, including one in the old Catholic Encyclopedia, to "an actual police for regulating morality" and to "spying and denunciation." Such was this friar's influence that in Florence there was public burning of art treasures, fine clothes, etc., a foretaste of the modern Manichean communist state which is now oppressively well-launched in the U.S.A., having been started early in this mad century in Russia. Savonarola would, in principle, have surely approved the Vatican II - Red China - Hippy or commune program of drab dress which is being established through Jew anti-cultural influence and the big stores which stock mainly clothing "made in British Hong Kong," which is to say, in Red China -- for tiny little Hong Kong could never produce all the tons of sleazy stuff which now crowds these big shops in U.S. cities. So, if Savonarola could not rightly be accused of formal heresy, there was, nevertheless, an anti-Catholic spirit at work within him, a spirit often present in some degree in persons intellectually holding to the articles of the Catholic Faith.
Reflecting on this Puritanism of Savonarola, I think with pleasure of St. Joan of Arc and her spontaneous expression of pleasure in the handsome clothes she had been given, and of her satisfaction in having four fine horses. Yes, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven." But to Hell with the modern drabs and their evil spirit of prideful false asceticism, of the collectivist Assembly of Paul 6 and synagogue. While the fanatic "new church" Clergy and their rabid lay followers have been yapping about the sad plight of the poor, they have been robbing the poor of the beauty they could always count on in former ages as their own, that of the Liturgy and parish church. Taking their directions from the rabbis, the anti-Catholics of the Vatican II reformed church have been transforming, at great expense, parish churches into drab synagogues or theosophist temples. Where the old church remains, they put a mean little table in front of the altar and sing idiotic mind-destroying ditties, and in some parishes recite a Masonic creed. Who could have believed even twenty years ago that most of our priests would stand still for this kind of thing?
Savonarola castigated publicly Pope Alexander VI, preaching forthrightly and stirring up all Italy, especially his city of Florence, saying that Pope Alexander VI was not a Christian and that his election to the papal office had been invalid, null and void. How does Savonarola differ from Catholics like Strojie and others, who in our time have harsh words for Paul 6? In this: there was never any charge, even by Savonarola, that Alexander had attempted to meddle with doctrine, to institute a reform which would destroy doctrine, discipline, and the Sacraments, as Paul 6 is doing. Those of us who openly criticize the works of Paul 6 are concerned to warn good Catholics that Paul is leading them astray, which fact is shown by the bad fruits of his reform. My concern and that of many others is exclusively with Paul's Modernist reform, which was already, at the beginning, of this century, the chief concern of Pope St. Pius X.
In Chapter IV of his book, Sede Vacante, Fr. Saenz y Arriaga: "That a Pope, as an individual, can fall into error or heresy is a fact not at all contrary to the Pontifical Infallibility defined as a dogma of our catholic Faith.
"In Graclan's Decree, this statement is attributed to St. Boniface, Archbishop of Mainz. . . . 'Nobody, among mortals, dare to presume to declare the Pope's faults, because the one to judge everybody should not be judged by anybody, except if he is found to be deviated from the straight way of Faith.' In one of the sermons of Pope Innocent III, the Supreme Pontiff says: 'Faith is so necessary to me, that being so, only God may judge me of all other sins, but if I commit a sin against Faith, I could be judged by the Church'." Father Saenz y Arriaga goes on to cite canonists of the 12th and 13th centuries who said that "a pope's sin against faith is one that, for everybody and always, the Pope may be judged." This, of course, follows from St. Paul's doctrine that not even if an angel from Heaven teach other than in accordance with revealed truth, we must not heed him. It accords also with the teaching of St. Peter that "We ought to obey God rather than man," avoiding, of course, rash and ill-instructed judgements. Certainly, this teaching is not to be restricted to resistance only to explicit, formal teaching of heresy, which would leave the door open to the most deceptive kind of subversion of the Faith, as we have it in the time of Paul 6.
So, we who speak of the works destructive of the Faith of Paul 6 are not in the same category as Savonarola. Certainly, we are not so influential in stirring up fury against wealth and comfort as evil in themselves, as the famous friar did in Florence. Concerning Pope Alexander VI, historians are agreed that he not only did not encourage doctrinal error, but acted vigorously against it. Here are the words of Pastor concerning Alexander's orthodoxy: "Even his bitterest enemies are unable to formulate any accusation against him in this respect." With regard to Paul 6, what is there destructive of the Faith that Paul has not only tolerated but encouraged, but which Alexander VI would undoubtedly have condemned by words and action, scandalous as was his personal life?
With regard to doctrine, some traditionalist apologists for Paul 6 (who thereby share Paul's guilt) have come around lately to saying: "Well, we have had bad popes before," citing Honorius II, Liberius and Virgilius. But by no stretch of the imagination can these three popes (or any others), weak and guilty of compromising or temporizing under duress in a doctrinal matter, be justly compared with Paul &'s total reform, his New Order, a church for all faiths. During fifteen years of intensive double-dealing, Paul 6 has done "more than can be believed" by most Catholics. Or, as Pope St. Pius X put it in his warning against the Modernist as reformer, "there is nothing in all Catholicism on which he does not fasten." So it goes with the total reform of Paul 6.
If I have, in some of my papers, shown scant respect for the person of Paul 6, it is because he has shown his own rejection and contempt for the papal office, making of it the office of J.B. Montini for the advancement of Montini's personal program of world reform. Abjectly, before the whole world, he abdicated his responsibility as pope the day he appeared before the U.N.O. Assembly in New York, from which city he emerged wearing the Masonic breastplate, the Jewish Ephod. I write against Montini out of loyalty to the papacy. I say nothing that those who care to look couldn't see for themselves, if they wanted the whole truth. The reverend clergy, especially sin by their refusal to see and by their silence.
[...]
I could go on at length quoting from the paper of Fr. de Nantes. I wish it were possible to recommend him without reservations. I cannot, for the reason that de Nantes is, as it seems to me, inconsistent and unrealistic in his conclusions. Despite his weighty, numerous and just condemnations of the works of Paul 6, his exposition of "Paul's other Creed," as de Nantes rightly calls it, Fr. de Nantes addresses his Libellum to "Pope Paul VI, Our Brother in the Faith." This, Paul 6 certainly is not, if what de Nantes writes of him is true, which it is. This unrealism is seen also in the Abbé's call for Vatican III, in which, he seems to expect, all those good and well-intentioned progressives, the same who have been destroying the Church since Vatican II, will collaborate in rebuilding the Church, yet not quite on the same lines as in the past. More Dialogue. Worse yet, in a way, de Nantes urges his followers to attend the New Order of Worship of Paul 6 [...]
Is the French Counter-Reform, then, one of those spiritual works of Hell? Certainly not intentionally on the part of the Abbé de Nantes and his close followers. But, by exposing the heresies of Paul 6, de Nantes had prepared the way for the Great Traditionalist Leader who would give the Traditionalists the "old Mass." (Never mind that the Great Leader had not said as much against the Novus Ordo as has Fr. de Nantes.) Having upheld the validity of the Novus Ordo and absolved it of heresy, de Nantes has no convincing argument against the Masonic arrangement the Great Traditionalist Leader has been urging on Paul 6. As it appears to me, Fr. de Nantes' failure to see this comes about through his having willingly, even eagerly, joined in the Dialogue with those fine intellectuals "on the other side." That was the first mistake of the human race, when Mother Eve thought at least to discuss the matter with the Tempter who, no doubt, appeared as a very reasonable fellow, an angel of light. I haven't read anything, from Abbé de Nantes against the obvious contradiction of the Great Leader, who uphold Paul 6 as true pope, but disobeys him repeatedly, publicly, scandalously, pretending that the Sacred Canons do not apply to him. Regardless of good intentions, then, I foresee that, in the long run, The Catholic Counter-Reform in the Twentieth Century will work for the Devil. In a much smaller way, of course, so would the writings of Strojie and a few others against Paul 6, if we had not spoken out against the evil Novus Ordo Missae and seen through the false front of Ecône.
In my Letter No. 12, June 1976, I suggested that, come the death of Paul 6, the majority might elect, as a tactical move of the Revolution, a conservative, "an attractive personality who will restore some Latin to the liturgy." Then, when I read about the June 1976 ordinations at Ecône, I knew immediately my fake conservative to be already on the job. Had I not known this,my six years or so of writing against the Montini revolution would have worked for this evil result. The work of Hell is spiritual. He deceives most effectively who tells most truth, short of the whole truth necessary to a correct judgement. Generally good intentions may be destroyed by some fault, self-seeking or pride, by which a man is partially blinded. I fear this kind of thing always.
[...]
✠ ✠ ✠ ✠ ✠
I have received a letter pointing out that a sentence I had attributed directly to Michael Davies in his book, Pope John's Council, was quoted by Davies from B. and M. Pawly [...] Davies' book is apparently meant to smooth the way for those who have, for fourteen years, apologized for Paul 6, but who are now ready to speak somewhat of Montini's pernicious influence. It is interesting that all the little traditionalist moderate publishers are making this soft turn-around editorially, while displaying an ad for a booklet of extracts from a book of the late Fr. Saenz y Arriaga, which is outspoken about the evil works of pope Montini. Marvelous that all these "moderate" publishers should have woken suddenly, all at once, just when the Great Traditionalist Leader emerges from France and Switzerland, his hour having come.
✠ ✠ ✠ ✠ ✠
So, then, I have put together some paragraphs about the pope who is a vicar of a strange Christ, and I have mentioned those who are ostensibly opposed to the strange pope, but who beg him to take them in as a traditionalist rite. What then remains? There remain those who will have no part of Montini's New Order, and who reject all those organizers who offer a substitute church. It is a simple matter of withdrawal from the Novus Ordo parish with its heretical teaching manuals, sermons, and liturgy -- a matter of simple Catholic obedience which has been confused from all sides. On only one point might it be objected that we who withdraw are wrong -- in our apparent failure to observe the Sunday Mass obligation. To this objection I refer to the conclusion of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci and their associates, that "the Novus Ordo (mass of Paul 6) has no intention of presenting the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent, to which, nonetheless, the Catholic conscience is bound forever." If the Catholic conscience is bound to Trent, a dogmatic Council which affirmed and carried on true Catholic tradition, then I must reject this New Order of Worship and Cult-of-Man religion of Paul 6. It was not the opponents of the "New Mass" who first called it a Novus Ordo, a New Order, but Paul 6 and the others who instigated it. If the Council of Trent was in error, or if it may be believed that with Vatican II we have a new dispensation, as Paul 6 and his Council "progressives" keep telling us, then there is no permanence of Catholic truth. The article of the Faith about immutability of Catholic doctrine is false, and therefore we may safely reject what Paul 6 tells us today, and wait for the latest word tomorrow. But I do not believe that. As I wrote near the beginning of this letter, I have doubts about the truth of Paul's New Order. I think it quite possible that it is Paul 6 who is wrong, not all the popes of the past. That there has not been a radical change is a pretension of most of the clergy, and of Paul 6 himself, on occasion. This notion is beneath contempt and indicative of that insanity which permeates the whole Vatican II mess.
By their fruits you shall know them. Here are a few statistics given at a priests' forum, September 1977. In France, Mass attendance has declined 66 per cent, in Italy 53 per cent to 25 per cent; in the U.S., between 1963 and 1974, a decline of 34 per cent. Seminary enrollment has declined 83 per cent, and the total of 40,000 priests has declined to 27,000 in 1976. Holland now has no seminaries. There are twelve ordinations for the whole country. In Italy, there is an 85 per cent drop in seminary enrollment; 16 major seminaries have closed. In the U.S., for 1967-1974 there was a 64 per cent decline in seminary enrollment. Over 10,000 priests have abandoned the priesthood. As regards religious sisters, a 24 per cent world decline -- 38 per cent in the U.S., where 35,000 left their convents. Many Catholics have become selective in doctrine and morality -- they believe only what they want to believe, and do only what they want to do.
I have another survey at hand which gives approximately the same results. It should not be supposed that all those who decline the new Paul 6 seminaries, churches, schools, convents, etc. are fallen away Catholics -- and here is where the spiritual work of Hell moves in. Those who oppose the personal heresies of this new style of government, never seen before in the Popes, are being tempted to abandon the Papacy itself, by accepting as virtual pope a retired French archbishop, these people having been abandoned by their own parish clergy who defend the destroyer in the papal chair. As to the bishops, I recall what a bishop of the Roman Curia said at the Council -- that there were present 2,000 or so who did not believe in the Holy Trinity or the Virgin Mother of Christ. What we have seen since confirms the correctness of this judgement.
POPE'S FIRMNESS ON CATECHETICS CONTRASTS WITH SYNOD'S EUPHORIC TONE. This column heading appears in the 10 Nov 1977 Wanderer. Because his responsibility for the "auto-demolition" is showing quite plainly now, Paul 6 finds it expedient to put on his orthodox pose again, a game he has played off an on these past fifteen years. About three years ago he performed the same act with his worse than useless Catechetical Directory, and of course all the "conservative" clergy and publishers joined in with this spiritual work of Hell at the time, as The Wanderer is already doing today, even before the lie is quite firmed up. It is all part of the act by which it is being made to appear that Catholics must make a choice between Paul 6 and the French pretender -- "to deceive, if possible, even the elect," that is, those who are earnest about keeping the faith as it was taught before the Great Vatican II Deception and Universal Apostasy.
FINIS
