THE MASS AS LURE OR BAIT (No. 67)
VATICAN II RENEWAL, 1983
. . . Note to the Reverend Clergy. . . A California Seminary. . . Mother Teresa, Birth Preventer. . . Growls from Jerusalem and Moscow. . . John Paul to Canada. . . The Traditionalist Movement. . . To Our Friends. . .
It might have seemed to regular readers of these Letters that Number 65 and 66 were a rehash of what we all know about the New Liturgy and New Religion. What I attempted was a commonsense argument based on what all can see -- what has actually happened to the Mass and Catholic religion as contrived by the Vatican II reformers. I quoted the updated Catholic Press, one of whose members, Sunday Visitor, circulation 400,000, late last year forecast "not one but many faces of Catholicism," more changes "followed by surprises". Maybe so, but many of us are beyond being surprised any more by what the modernist reformers have dredged up from the ancient seedbed of heresies, so as to fulfill the 1907 prophecy of Pope St. Pius X of a coming "synthesis of all the heresies," and St. Paul's prediction of a great "falling away" from the Faith, a universal apostasy, a return of heathenism, which return is increasingly evident.
As in the Garden of Eden, the Vatican II affair started with a Dialogue. Since we have not heard of an official cancellation of the Dialogue, we mailed Numbers 65 and 66 to the nearby Benedictine Abbot and Fathers whose dumping of their main altar I had noted in these Letters; but we have not received an acknowledgement, much less thanks, for our contribution to the Dialogue. The same goes for thirty or so other such establishments to which these Letters were sent. Possibly the fault is in the postal service.
The Boston PILOT editors whose paper I quoted received No. 66, as did one of their writers who only two or so weeks before had written a piece against "neo-Gnosticism". We haven't heard from him either, nor from the editors of National Catholic Register and The Wanderer, to whom No. 66 was sent. Perhaps there is good reason for the silence of these men on things touching the Catholic religion; for, while writing with restraint in those two Letters, it had to be evident that I do not write as an approved Ecumenist, but as a Catholic. Of course I do not think that they or anyone else ought to respond to all the unsolicited things that turn up in the mail these days.
Anyway, you must see, dear Fathers, that writing as a Catholic, I expect a Catholic answer, which you cannot give; or refuse to give, which is a strange thing in one committed to the Dialogue. Perhaps modesty will not yet allow you to say that you and your confreres have discovered a new religion; or at least a new stage of religious evolution, a "higher form", as Cardinal Montini put it before he became Paul VI.
No hard feelings, Reverend Fathers and Professional Scribes of the New Order. It's just that I see what you have taken up is that modern Gnosticism Pope St. Pius X forewarned against, when he said among other things: "We have to lament at the sight of so many young men, once full of promise and capable of rendering great services to the Church, now gone astray." While aping Catholicism you destroy it in the minds of unsuspecting laity who take your word that nothing essential is being changed. Pope St. Pius X not only analyzed as evil all that you are teaching as "updated" Catholic doctrine today, but warned that it was being promoted in his time, especially in Seminaries and Catholic publishing houses.
My main reason for writing to any of you is to discover how you came into your present state of mind. Of eight priests of the Reform whose minds I came to know since Vatican II, one was an active pusher of the Reform, one weakly apologetic about it, two left the active priesthood for reasons not good, and four carried on as parish priests, disturbed but managing to do the necessary mental contortions required by the new religion. These last were middle-aged men, two of whom have retired. All the evidence indicates that these reforms were not popular, that the whole affair was diabolically managed, that "an enemy hath done this."
I had approached these priests courteously, wanting to at least understand how it was they could carry on with so radical a departure from the Catholic Faith, as they had previously taught and practiced it. I was mindful of what a fundamental virtue is obedience; what a grave obligation the priestly vows of obedience put on a man. I thought of Christ's words "Blessed is he that is not scandalized in Me." Were these words meant to apply to the present lunacies, heresies, scandals, and so on? Christ had used "Me", not "My Church", when he rebuked Saul on his way to attack the infant Church. In my rejection of these things as they appeared in the Vatican II reforms, was I overlooking something that better men than I, especially priests, knew about fidelity to the Catholic faith? What about the cockle, sown with the wheat? There are those words of Christ which even learned theologians have interpreted as meaning that no pope can ever lead the people astray, and that the Mass and sacraments can never be lost to those who would follow the pope. I thought of these things, and more. But the First Vatican Council had defined the limits of the papal guarantees, which could in no way cover the savage attacks by pope and bishops now being made on Catholic practices, customs, and on doctrine itself. The First Vatican Council made it plain that there had to be another explanation than the one by which the Catholic Church was being destroyed in the name of obedience to the Vatican II popes and their New Beginning of the Catholic Church. There could be only one answer: not a Beginning, but the End. This is the only explanation, in view of the worldwide throwing off of the Catholic Faith and practice, of our Lord's words, "Behold I shall be with you even to the end of the world."
The Catholic Church, twenty years after the promise of a mighty Renewal, said to have come from the Holy Spirit, is in shambles -- an "Open Church", the title of a book extolling this openness to people of all beliefs. The Catholic sense has become increasingly weak. More and more taken up with "the things of this world", [...]
MOTHER TERESA, BIRTH PREVENTER
I had thought at first that perhaps Mother Teresa was simply the ugliest old woman they could find to dress up as ideal nun of the New Order; and to travel about being photographed on the New Equality women's lib policy of equal time with John Paul II. And exhibiting her as super social-worker carries the new social gospel of the reformed religion. But it seems that again in my estimations of evil intent, of the deep malice behind the Reform, I fell short of the truth. For the Sunday Visitor of a week or so before Christmas has one of those inserts, of eight pages, praising the Birth Prevention works of this woman, endorsed by John Paul II. "Mother Teresa," the article reads in part, "won a Nobel Prize for her work". Her Natural planning program has prevented 1.1 million births in India alone. Note the irony -- MOTHER Teresa, apostle of birth prevention. [...]
Growls From Jerusalem and Moscow
[...]
In the time of Christ there were the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Zealots, the last of these violently nationalistic, like today's Zionists. The Pharisees were of the bitter, smug, puritan party of updated Hebrewism, who, as Christ pointed out, "sat in the Chair of Moses." They did this, pretending to special, personal knowledge of the Law, partly as inspiration, as at Vatican II, or as certain "Traditionalist" Catholics do today, pretending that the laws of God and His Church (Canon Law) demand knowledge of Latin and Greek and an understanding of subtle nuances. The Pharisees hated Rome and Roman government, from which they stood aloof, but switched their position when pressed for a point of Roman law upon which to murder Christ as a criminal; at which time the Pharisees cried out that they "would have no king but Caesar." (This, by the way, was the message Paul VI brought to the UNO Assembly.) The Zealots were the violent ones, Jew nationalists of bitter zeal. An absolutely no-compromise party, they would have no king but themselves. Barabbas was one of them. They called for his release, and they all desired Christ's death -- for Christ stood alone against all their wicked plans and pretensions, which are those of the modern Ecumenist leaders. The Sadducees were for an accommodation with Rome, of which Pope John's "opening to the world" is a latter-days expression of the Sadducean position. It is for this reason they are especially happy about Luther, who turned to the secular rulers of his day as supreme authority. Henry the Eighth made himself, as secular ruler, head also of the Church in England. Calvin made himself religious and secular tyrant of Geneva. Protestant rulers began claiming divine right for themselves. The Sadducees appear today as the international Jew of Big Money and Freemasonry, to which party the Vatican II popes belong. Paul VI wore the emblem of Royal Arch Masonry, which he often displayed in public; and John Paul II has made it very clear that he follows Paul VI as his "revered father". As I wrote in one of my first papers, and which I've held to since, the modern Revolution in Church and world are the same. And it is the same old thing of political wheeling and dealing, lies and murder.
The world Jew and atheist economic squeeze and state slavery experiment began in Russia long ago. The Bishops of the Catholic Church joined in the movement officially, as a partner, at Vatican II; and they now proclaim this New Order as their very own Vatican II Renewal; which it is, that of the "devil loosed for a time".
The program by which Big Government destroys families, homes, farms, business enterprises, especially such as are privately owned, and gives every encouragement to all that leads to sick minds, depraved morals and a spirit of revolt, has been evident these past forty and more years. But it might be that those who have made plans for 1984 will at that time feel the hand of God. "God sees the truth but waits."
[...]
--------------------
Has there been any outward, effective resistance to the Vatican II program for destruction of the Catholic Church? None to speak of -- none at all, really. There has been active a so-called Traditionalist Movement, which does not resist but only adds to the confusion. I have written extensively on this in other Letters, but will add some further comments here. This is in accordance with my intention to sum up, in this and several recent Letters, much that I've written before, especially on the diversionist false Traditionalist Movement.
THE TRADITIONALIST MOVEMENT
Who are the Traditionalists? I use the word as the self-styled Traditionalists use it in this country, those whose main concern is to get for themselves the true Mass. They are mostly simple Catholics who are sick and tired of the insanity and worse of the post-Vatican II reformed clergy. They are led by a mixed bag of priests, a few of them well-intentioned, some heretical and schismatic, some of shady background. The basic heresy is in these people's insistence on a supposed right to the Mass, wherever they can find or arrange it.
About 1969 when Paul VI's New Order of Protestantized Liturgy supplanted the Mass, I began to look more deeply into the reasons for this fake new 'Mass'. Certain Traditionalist activities and organizations came to our attention. From one of these sources we received a tape recording by a Traditionalist priest who repeated, over and over, with strong emphasis, "It is the Mass that matters, It is the Mass that matters". I shut this recording off, half way through, the voice and manner, more so the message, striking me as false. I knew there was something wrong with the message, which is this:
Those who hear this recording with its pounding on one simple, unqualified assertion, will come to believe that nothing matters but only that they might have the Mass. It is this which becomes their supreme rule: "Get the Mass." During the years since then, we have read this in one form or another, in many of the thousands of letters received here. One woman wrote that she and three others had done "research" (that marvelous word) on this subject, and concluded that it was right for them to attend any Mass they thought to be valid. Of course she was echoing what all schismatics would tell her, that validity is all in all -- validity of Orders, Mass, Sacraments, especially in these "extraordinary times".
The wishful thinking of these ladies can be summed up in these words:
"We love the Mass, don't we. We are surely entitled to it. Moreover, we are defending the Faith."
Second Traditionalist:
"Of course, of course. It is the Mass that matters. Didn't Father Audio Tapes say that. He did, time and again. And we must have true bishops. That follows too. How otherwise will we save the Church. Come to think of it, whatever happened to God?"
But for these doughty researchers there is waiting an underworld of "Traditionalists" -- schismatics, heretics, Theosophist occultists, ready to offer Mass and a New Beginning, even as the Gnostic Left.
In 1917 (as I've mentioned in other Letters) Theosophist Bishops Leadbeater and Wedgewood wrote of "a new presentation of Christianity," and that "among those who will be living at the time there are sure to be some who will love His older Church and its ritual, and the Old Catholic Church might offer a convenient resting place for them."
In several Letters I have suggested that the Traditionalist heresy is that of Simon Magus, in combination with schism. Simon had proposed to buy the powers of the priesthood from St. Peter, which powers he presumed might be exercised apart from the authority of St. Peter. Theologians have concentrated on this attempt to purchase for cash, calling it simony. But surely the underlying heresy is that presumption of Simon in supposing he might exercise the priestly powers independently. The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907, says that money need not be part of the bargain, but some other exchange of favors. Simon has been called the "Father of Heresies".
A clearly simoniacal bargain was that of Abp. Lefebvre in ordaining young men without papal authority. Lefebvre had no diocese, no jurisdiction, that is, no authority at that time. The bargain in this was that for the young men -- the priesthood; for Lefebvre, young priests who were his to use as he pleased. That money and lots of it did come into the deal is shown by the property-grabbing activities of the Lefebvre priests, notorious on both sides of the Atlantic. Lefebvre later spoke distinctively Gnostic heresy found in Leadbeater's book The Science of the Sacraments.
The Mass as Lure or Bait
It is the desire for the Mass, put out of our parish churches by Paul VI and his Vatican II bishops, which opens a wide door to the Jansenist and Old Catholic underworld, and to other "Traditionalists".
A letter from "down under" contains this questions, concerning the Mass today: "Why are you so against private Masses? If they want chapels, let them have them. Not all are for Wojtyla. Were I a priest I would go on saying the Mass. Holy Orders were given by Christ to feed His flock and not to be hid under a bushel." This is a fair sample of mixed-up notions held by most Traditionalists. No wonder these people are easily taken in by every kind of operator. The few priests of generally right intentions lend support to the false Traditionalist Movement as a whole. Their groups serve as focal points for recruiting by the Underworld operators.
It is the simplistic notion of the good guys here, the bad ones over there, which has contributed so greatly to the present confusion. Those of us who see things from behind a stack of correspondence and news clippings, and from personal experience, too, know the situation to be otherwise -- a can of worms. Perhaps there is some excuse for this naive view of things, as coming from Africa, Australia, Greenland, and other areas remote from the main centers of action. We here in the U.S. -- those who open our eyes -- see the bitter factionalism among the self-styled Traditionalists, who have made of the Mass a bone of contention, a scandal to all except the contestants themselves. Scarcely a month goes by during which we do not hear of a chapel group being split, one faction bringing suit against and locking out the other. As I typed this page, word arrived about a priest who has been thrown out bodily, down the steps of his chapel, and locked out by the laymen operators. Years ago we heard of a chapel taken over at gun point by a man dressed as a priest.
Traditionalist communes, masonic "knights", Trad publishers and book sellers, a grab bag Trad Directory, chapel operators and vagrant priests of questionable background and intentions; bigger operations, all of which makes for a jungle into which even the well informed Catholic easily becomes entrapped.
There comes to mind underground Masses in times of persecution by civil authorities in Mexico, Ireland, England and Scotland. But the priests of those days had delegated jurisdiction from the Pope. In reading Peter Anson's detailed book Underground Church in Scotland, even though I had written often about jurisdiction, I was surprised and impressed by how the priests of that country without bishops, remained keenly aware of the necessity of jurisdiction to support their ministrations. They had authority from Rome, at first through the Scots College at Paris, later from Rome direct. The underworld church of modern Traditionalists has no such authority, nor can their spooky operators get it.
We have often heard from the Traditionalists: "If we only had a bishop." I don't know what good that would do the honest Catholics among them. The leaders quote Canon Law endlessly but say nothing of the Divine Law it contains. Here is doctrine on the Papacy, Canon 218: " . . . the Pope has supreme and full power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, in matters of faith and morals as well as in those pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church through the whole world. This power is episcopal, ordinary and immediate, and extends over each and every church, and over each and every pastor as well as over the faithful, and is independent of all human authority."
So much from Canon Law. Here it is in a simpler form, from a Catholic Dictionary:
All the Apostles received their jurisdiction, which (except in the case of St. Peter) was personal and extraordinary, immediately from Christ. This jurisdiction they did not transmit; the bishops and their successors receive their jurisdiction from Christ, but through Peter.
From another dictionary, "LAW DIVINE. . . Positive: precepts known through Revelation. These fall into three classes: (a) moral -- a more explicit determination of the natural law; (b) ceremonial -- with respect to the Sacraments and the Mass; (c) juridical -- with respect to the constitution and authority of the Church."
This doctrine assures us that any consecration of a bishop without papal approval is illicit. It is a matter of Divine Law and therefore irreformable by men. See Canon 220 on that, or consult most any fairly complete book of moral and pastoral theology.
So a heretic sits on the papal chair? That is a problem, one that has been exhaustively studied by great theologians of the past, none of whom could have suggested that it might be solved against the Divine Law.
I have heard these Traditionalists say, "Well, it is not we who have changed. It is not we who are schismatics. We believe the same as ever." But "believing the same as ever" in Catholic doctrine generally, does not preclude schism. There is no sin of schism in refusing obedience to the unlawful commands of the Vatican II popes of a New Order -- those who themselves formally broke the Catholic Tradition. The break in either case is away from Christ Who remains as the real Head of the Church, and Who promised to always remain so. It is the Devil's own rancid humor to lead in the name of Tradition to the Old Schismatics for rescue.
The Divine Law, Christ's plan for eternal salvation, is not made void by large defections from the Divine Law. It doesn't follow from a universal abandonment of the Law that this or that priest can get himself legitimately made bishop because there is no pope to appoint him. (What presumption to suppose a true pope would appoint him anyway!) They who ignore the Law are not justified in doing so because they think that God has gone asleep, or has made themselves His own elite rescue squad, latter-days Apostles. On the contrary, he commits a crime who receives or passes on illicit Orders.
So, then, to our "down under" correspondent, concerning chapels, etc., it is not I who can "let them have them". But come to think of it, Theosophist Bishop Leadbeater was down under too. One might consult him on the astral about the matter. Let him get onto his Lord Maitreya. Tell him you've got to get a few red hot bishops, and perhaps a pope, if he's got one handy. There's no time to lose.
Still down under: A letter from New Zealand contains information about an "American Bishop -- calls himself Bishop Francis -- and a half dozen priests and some nuns, lecturing in New Zealand against Vatican II." Our correspondent inquires if we know anything about this crowd. Quite certainly it is the Traditionalist bishop who got his Orders (?) from an Ohio cartoonist, who got his from one of the shadowy lines of the "Mathew succession". Mathew was a Roman Catholic priest who dropped out and married. He went to the Old Catholics, who made him a bishop. Francis runs a spiritual menagerie in northern Idaho. He was among the first Trad operators in the U.S., and many who were hooked by him and later fell out are still looking for the latter-day Moses who will rescue them from the Vatican II Reform. With regard to this 7,000-mile trip to New Zealand, I think of what Christ said of the Pharisees, that "they will compass land and sea to make one proselyte."
The post Vatican II Seers Absurd are part of the Confusion. A few people have asked us about a Brother Gino. In a copy of an interview recently in New England, he says how bad things are going in the Church -- "but in the end John Paul II will triumph." The faker is exposed in that bit of lunacy -- except maybe the Johns and Pauls will achieve a certain amount of further seeming triumph for the devil.
There are dozens of new seers, publications and Trad priests turning up. At hand is a thing from the Philippines, one form South Dakota, one from New York. We hear of new Trad priests from one place or another monthly. It is impossible to keep up with the increasing number. In this and in other things we are preserved from deception by adhering strictly to the laws of the Church. And by that I do not mean clever 'interpretations' of those Laws by those who have something to promote, whether it be a Mass center, special prayers, miracles, 'Marian revelations' (a big favorite of the hucksters), pious publications, and so on. This is the time of all times when we need to hold closely to our Catholic common sense and sound doctrine.
As Catholics we are entitled to certainty of doctrine and Divine Law. But aside from the Law, common sense ought to keep us clear of Trad ventures which have stranded thousands here in the U.S. alone. I assure you that the thing is far worse than the generally light tone of this Letter might suggest.
I touch lately on Traditionalist pretensions in anticipation of the biggest yet, to return to outward forms of Catholic religion and moral practice. I refer to the Opus Dei masonic movement, champion of John Paul II. Here is another of those fake rescue squads for conservative and traditionalist Catholics. It is a move I have thought possible from the first, and which would fit in with Leadbeater's scheme "for those who will love His older Church and its ritual". To appear as Catholic as possible, especially in imitation of Catholic ritual, and to have also one who is accepted as Pope, that is the ultimate deception. Leadbeater's 'Mass' with much of the old furnishings and vestments may yet be seen.
We hear that the parish churches have been showing increased attendance the past year or two. That is a development I hadn't thought of -- that the Ecumenic Church with its good fellowship programs and remnants of Catholic ritual and a bit of sound doctrine here and there, plus the hoopla of John Paul's parades, might bring in many ex-Protestants and other churchless for a time. All men have a natural craving for ritualistic worship, and the best the Devil can offer would be, as I've said, a good imitation of the Mass. I don't know why that wasn't done right off after Vatican II, unless it seemed better to approach the New Universal Church for All Religions along the path of Protestant worship, or a combination of the Mass liturgy and Protestant Supper. Anyway, I see more of occult Bishop Leadbeater's Mass-as-Magic already in the mill.
To Our Friends
[...] Starting last September, there was a sudden drop in the orders for past writings, which income helps to keep us going; and we began to hear more of "layman keep quiet" from certain fake Traditionalists. It was that which occasioned my note. [...]
We have received two letters which say some very strange things, one of which is from a priest (?) who says that I must get an Imprimatur from a schismatic bishop I'd scarcely heard of, and who is at the other extremity of the USA. As I've written in Letters 19 and 31, and in other of my writings, including our "Vatican II Dictionary. . .", the Church's laws cannot be applied even by lawful authority to suppress ordinary expressions of Catholic truth. Curiously, it has been only Traditionalists who have attempted to silence the few laymen who have written against the Vatican II confusion. Even were we dealing with lawful authority, there is no Divine Law or any other which can prohibit a Catholic's profession of the Faith. As to my message, it is simple: What goes on in your parish churches since the Council of our time, is not Catholic, so don't go there. But avoid anything which might be of even doubtful legality, especially in the matter of Mass, Sacraments and group arrangements, which tend to become sectarian, or which are led by schismatics. You will of course understand that I am a simple layman, who as a writer, mainly relies upon publications approved before Vatican II. Unlike those who have presumed to use the name of Pope St. Pius X for their organization, I have quoted this Pope over and over again, more than any other authority, whereas those who use his name do not speak of his doctrine.
[...]
As mentioned in a recent Letter, we have heard of another disturbing "Traditionalist" operation, this one calling itself the "New Bishops". The thing being so absurd a pretension, I thought to pass it over; except to reiterate some principles which I've mentioned time and time again, especially in regard to the Econe operation, of which this latest differs mainly in style.
Who are the new Bishops? We don't really know; I simply call them what they call themselves.
Msgr. Thuc, Archbishop exiled from Viet Nam, a few years ago ordained and made bishops several members of a crazy sect in Spain [the Palmarian Church -- ED]. It appears that he could not have examined these fellows, either for their orthodoxy or their sanity. Their leader, one Clemente, become blind as the result of a car accident, later declared himself pope, the Chair at Rome being, as they said, vacant, because occupied by a heretic. The Sede Vacante argument was taken up by a noisy sect in Mexico. Abp. Thuc was later induced to consecrate bishop a priest in France and two in Mexico, who in turn consecrated two priests in the U.S. Whether or not these men were validly ordained Roman Catholic priests I do not know for certain. What cannot be denied is that the New Bishops -- if they are bishops -- have been illicitly consecrated. The attitude the New Bishops assume is that of audacity, huffing and puffing great clouds of smoke on all who question their pretensions.
In the September issue of a little publication on Hunting, Fishing, and Trad Religion, appears a letter addressed to a friend, from one of the "new bishops" who signs himself Moises Carmona R. This letter is full of gyrations; for example: "But if men fail, God cannot fail, nor can He leave His Church abandoned." It follows from this, we are to feel certain, that new Trad bishops are being sent as rescuers of the Catholic Church. If it weren't for these men, hardly known even to themselves, the Divine plan of salvation must fail. The editor of the paper plays the same tune: "Why should we not expect God to answer our prayers and provide His Church with holy, capable, courageous bishops" -- and presto! here they are. Again the false suggestion, with no proof of holiness and all the rest. No proof even that they are bishops, having been consecrated, as the bishop correspondent says, in a "true catacomb" (whatever that may be), with "two illustrious witnesses" (whoever they were -- and what has "illustrious" to do with it?). Definitely underworld though. Nothing at all of the Divine Law which tells sane Catholics why they should not expect what is promised here. Canons that don't fit aren't mentioned.
The bishop letter writer continues:
"As it can be seen, our detractors ignore that axiom which says:" (he quotes the Latin here; more impressive) "He who walks with the rule, walks safely" -- exactly what he is not doing. Then comes the mention of rules and rules, eleven and eighty-eight of them, said to be from Popes Gregory IX and Boniface VIII, none of them quoted, but supposedly all justifying the claims of the New Bishops; then the big gun, Canon 20. And of course the old reliable which (if you will but believe) opens the Door; first in the Latin (which I refuse to quote): "Necessity makes licit which is illicit." With that whopper, used so freely, all law, man-made and Divine, goes out John's Open Window. The Law becomes what Bishop (?) Moises Carmona R., or anyone else, says it is. What readers of this thing ought to know, is that consecrating bishops without papal approval is a crime. And these men if they know any law at all, must know that.
There are in this letter false references to the Gospel. One of these, "you shall weep and lament", plays on the reader's emotions, by suggesting that the text applies to the New Bishops' fakery. With a flourish about "eighty-eight rules of Boniface VIII," and a bit of Latin thrown in here and there, the writer leads further into the Mysteries -- farther from Doctrine. And of course the old reliable is put on display: "given the circumstances in which we live," and "necessity knows no law," which opens wide the Door to self-appointed rescuers of Mass, Sacraments, and even the Papacy -- or so they hope we will believe, especially when it is written in Latin. And there is this sophistry, crude as can be, which exposes the whole effort as charlatanry and ignorance of Law: "The necessity of Catholic Bishops, of Catholic priests, and the lack of true Sacraments, can easily be seen; therefore" -- and here is the most amazing part of this bamboozle -- "therefore, we were validly and licitly consecrated." Some strange things have flown in through Pope John's open window,and some out of it, but none stranger than that leap into the noosphere.
In the last paragraph of his letter Moises Carmona R. begs for his friend that "God will continue to illuminate you". Well, let those who are in search of such illumination do as they please. But it is not the way of the Catholic Church with its traditional laws, organization, and exercise of authority. Another illuminist, John XXIII, let loose a disastrous Council, which Council opened a wide gate to every kind of phony rescuer.
I have at hand an "Editorial" from a priest (?) of the New Bishops sect, in which the editorialist does a clumsy job of attempted deception. (But it will deceive many.) He speaks hypocritically of those who usurp the authority of the Church to teach Canon Law, pretending it is someone other than himself who is doing this. He lards his piece with references to Pope Pius X and what a "tough job" to revise the Code. From what is contained in this Editorial and what this priest inquisitor (?) says, we are to take it that only super-experts can know even the plain sense of Law. At Vatican II they called this gnostic thing "inspiration". For "those who will love His older Church" it is "illumination". I suggest the plain sense of Catholic doctrine, custom and law, which is sanity.
We have held off cutting our mailing list until next time, hoping that a few more of our readers will decide to settle on the side of true Catholic Tradition.
W.F. STROJIE
