Much like the proverbial frog being boiled alive as his ampibious body adjusts to each gradual elevation of heat in a pot placed on a burner, so is the case that most Catholics in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, especially those born in the last four decades who have almost no exposure to authentic Catholicism, have permitted themselves to accept each revolutionary "novelty" or "innovation" that that the forces of the Occupied Vatican on the West Side of the Tiber River have foisted upon them. This process of underming, eroding and eclipsing the authentic sensus Catholicus explains why most Catholics alive today consider that those who hold to the true Catholic teaching and who worship God in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition to be "schismatics" who believe in "byone" teachings and liturgical rites that had to be "changed" to bring them into contact with the "mentality" of the "modern" world.
The situation is so advanced now that the uber-revolutionary himself, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, evidently has given the green light to proceed with the drafting of an "ecumenical liturgy" that can circumvent the dogmatic teaching of the Cathoic Church on the nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist that both Protestants and supposed Catholics can celebrate together. The One World Church is manifesting itself before our very eyes. So few Catholics, relatively speaking, seem to care. Worse yet, many of those who do know about these developments "like" them as they make it easier for families and friends divided on such "unnecessary" things as creeds and doctrines "pray together" without the barriers erected by five hundred years of "misunderstanding."
What am I talking about?
Well, see for yourselves in a posting on site called "One Peter Five," which discussed an article about Jorge's war against Robert Sarah, the prefect of the conciliar Congregration for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, that had appeared on the First Things website, that was sent to me by a friend today, Tuesday, October 31, 2017, the Vigil of All Saints:
[T]here is the matter of the “Ecumenical Mass,” a liturgy designed to unite Catholics and Protestants around the Holy Table. Though never officially announced, a committee reporting directly to Pope Francis has been working on this liturgy for some time. Certainly this topic is within the jurisdiction of the Congregation for Divine Worship, but Cardinal Sarah has not officially been informed of the committee’s existence. According to good sources, Sarah’s secretary, Arthur Roche—who holds positions opposite to those of Benedict XVI and Sarah—is involved, as is Piero Marini, the right-hand man of Monsignor Bugnini, author of such noted works as La Chiesa in Iran and Novus Ordo Missae. . . .
To those names, add the Undersecretary of Divine Worship, Corrado Maggioni, and a layman, the extremely “progressive” liturgist Andrea Grillo. Recently, Grillo harshly attacked Benedict XVI after the pope emeritus wrote in the preface to one of Sarah’s books that with Sarah, “the liturgy is in good hands.” And Grillo attacked Sarah himself, calling him “incompetent and inadequate.” If Grillo behaves so uncouthly, it must be because he is sure of being protected by friends in high places . . . (The War Against "Cardinal" Sarah.)
This particular website, which accepts the nonexistent legitimacy of "Pope Francis," also linked to a comment made by a liturgical revolutionary named Andrea Grillo, who is reported to have said the following about the doctrine of Transubstantiation:
"Transubstantiation is not a dogma, and as an explanation [of the Eucharist] it has its limits. For example, it contadicts metaphysics." (As found at Italian Liturgist Alleged to Be Working On Ecumenical Mass Reportedly Said Transubstantiation Is Not A Dogma.)
Before proceeding to examine the substance of this heresy and to make a few brief comments on the post, perhaps it would be very instructive to take a trip down the memory lane to an article written by the late editor of Catholic Family News, John Vennari, which discussed of the late Father Eugene Heidt by the conciliar “archbishop” of Portland, Oregon, a man by name of William Levada, who had named by the "restorer of tradition," Ratzinger/Benedict as his successor to serve as the prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
Archbishop Levada, while Ordinary of Oregon, also had run-ins with Father Eugene Heidt, a feisty traditional priest. Levada eventually illicitly “suspended” Father Heidt for his no-compromise adherence to Tradition. Before the “suspension”, during a meeting with the Archbishop, Father Heidt complained that the Archbishop’s Pastoral Letter on the Eucharist contained no mention of Transubstantiation. Levada replied that Transubstantiation is a “long and difficult term” and that “we don’t use it any more”. (John Vennari, Invincible or Inculpable, Catholic Family News, June, 2005.)
No, it is not only wild Italian liturgists who reject the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, which was undermined in many subtle ways by Levada’s mentor, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Bishop Donald J. Sanborn explained how the now Antipope Emeritus’s denial of Our Lord’s Bodily Resurrection is related to his subtle denials of the doctrine of Transubstantiation:
Ratzinger’s inability to think of Christ’s Resurrection as a reunion of His body and soul, which is the Catholic dogma, has an effect on what he thinks about the Holy Eucharist and upon the general resurrection from the dead.
1. Transubstantiation. Repeatedly Ratzinger has made the statement, regarding the Eucharist, that “Christ is in the bread.” This is a heretical statement, because there is no bread according to Catholic dogma. The whole substance of the bread is changed into the whole substance of the Body of Christ.
But given Ratzinger’s idea about the resurrected Christ, it is easy to see how he cannot believe in transubstantiation, since what rose from the dead is not the same thing as Christ’s body and blood at the Last Supper. It took an evolutionary leap into a new dimension. (I wish Ratzinger would take an evolutionary leap into a new dimension…) (Modernism Resurrected: Ratzinger on the Resurrection.)
All that the liturgical revolutionaries in Italy at doing as Jorge gives them a wink and a smile is to bring out into the open what the retired “restorer of tradition” has done by means of obfuscation and illogic throughout the course of his priestly career.
Do not be deceived.
Bergoglio and his comrades, whose alleged work on an “ecumenical liturgy” is taking place, it would appear, according to the modus operandi used to plan the outcome the “extraordinary synod” of “bishops” in 2014 and the “ordinary synod of “bishops” in 2015—that is, by means of secret meetings, have now unmasked what his predecessors had clothed in various Modernist slogans by openly endorsing heresy without apology.
In truth, however, the possibility of the “ecumenical liturgy” should surprise no one. After all, some of the revolutionaries, including the notorious Annibale Bugnini himself, were as honest fifty years ago as Bergoglio is being at this time:
We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants." (Annibale Bugnini, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.)
Let it be candidly said: the Roman Rite which we have known hitherto no longer exists. It is destroyed. (Father Joseph Gelineau, who worked with Annibale Bugnini's Consilium, Quoted and footnoted in the work of a Father John Mole, who believed that the Mass of the Roman Rite had been "truncated," not destroyed. Assault on the Roman Rite)
Certainly we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local tradition: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense. (Archbishop Karol Wojtyla, 1965, Quoted and footnoted in Assault on the Roman Rite. This has also been noted on this site in the past, having been provided me by a reader who had access to the 1980 French book in which the quote is found.)
"[T]he intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should coincide with the Protestant liturgy.... [T]here was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense, in the Mass, and I, repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass" (Dec. 19, 1993), Apropos, #17, pp. 8f; quoted in Christian Order, October, 1994. (Jean Guitton, a close friend of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI.)
This is all very relevant to a commentary upon which I have been working for over two months now as a conference of liturgists that took place in Italy fifty-one years ago that included Father Josef Jungmann's belief that the Immemorial Mass of Tradition had failed to sanctify Catholics and that it had "usurped" the role of the laity in the liturgy. Here is a brief description of Jungmann's criticism of the Mass of all ages as found in part of the series on the "dialogue Mass" written by Dr. Carol A. Byrne between 2014 and earlier this year:
While many of his fellow priests were suffering and dying for the Faith in war-torn Europe, Jungmann spent most of WW2 comfortably ensconced in a convent in the Austrian countryside, (9) which he used as the perfect hide-away in which to research for and write his history of the Mass. There, like a captious pedant, he busied himself finding fault with almost every aspect of the Roman Rite as it had been celebrated over the previous 1500 years.
It is interesting to note that while the Nazis were persecuting the Catholic Church in his native Austria, Jungmann, in the safety of his “funk hole,” (10) was jack-booting his way through the history of the Roman Mass. So brutal were his attacks that one could say that he kicked it around and finally kicked it to pieces. When there was nothing left to criticize, he arbitrarily concluded that any prayers of the Mass used after the early centuries of the Church “would really all have to vanish.” (11) The following are just a few examples of his criticisms:
- “The sacrifice of the Mass is not the sacrifice for the redemption of the world, but the sacrifice made by the redeemed.” (12)
- He questioned the authenticity of the words Mysterium Fidei in the consecratory formula of the wine, regarding them as an extraneous element, an unscriptural “intrusion” with no connection to transubstantiation. (13)
- He insinuated that the Catholic doctrine of the priest performing the sacrifice as an alter Christus was a later historical invention and was, therefore, by implication, a false teaching. (14)
- He accused priests of usurping the role of the laity, creating a gap between the clergy and the people and preventing the latter from participating in the liturgy. (15)
- He presented a paper at the Assisi Congress in which he placed the principal emphasis of the Mass on the “community meal aspect” and the “gathering of the People of God,” described the Mass as primarily a service of thanksgiving by the assembled community, disparaged the silent recitation of the Canon as a barrier to participation, and stated that the Mass should be in the vernacular “so that the people can speak and sing together.” (here) (16)
While all of these positions were directly contrary to Catholic doctrine, the last two were the subject of a special condemnation at the Council of Trent. (The Role of Josef Jungmann in the Liturgical Reform.)
There will be more about that 1956 conference held in Assisi, Italy, when time and strength permit me to complete my commentary and after it has been sent out for vetting.
For the moment, however, the roadmap to a "One World Church" liturgy did not start with Jorge Mario Bergoglio. The roadmap was drawn up over seven decades ago, and it is a roadmap charted by the adversary himself, who wanted to use what appears to be the Catholic liturgy as a means to consign the following pronouncements of the Thirteenth Session of the Council of Trent, October 11, 1551, to the Orwellian memory hole:
And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation. . .
CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema. (Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Thirteenth Session, Decree on the Holy Eucharist, October 11, 1551.)
Obviously, many aspects of the conciliar revolution, including its foundational principal of dogmatic evolutionism, has been anathematized solemnly, and those who believe that they have to stay and "fight within the structures" do not realize that error, no less anthematized propositions, can never be the foundation of a "restoration." The counterfeit church of conciliarism, though it may retain vestigial elements of an apparent Catholicism, is as bogus at your neighbor Protestant congregation.
The path to Heaven that was trod by those are enjoying the glory of the Beatific Vision as members of the Church Triumphant in Heaven was full of suffering and travail as there is no other path to Heaven except by means of carrying our crosses as members of the Catholic Church as we offer up unto God whatever merit we might gain from the patient endurance of our trials as the consecrated slaves of His Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially by praying as many Rosaries as our state-in-life permits. We can make no compromises with error in the false belief that the conciliar church is the Catholic Church. It is not.
Every Rosary we pray brings great consolation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.
Every Rosary we pray with in a spirit of meditative reflection helps to win the favor of the very Mother of God, who showers down grace after grace upon those who trust in her intercessory power and maternal protection with childlike confidence.
Our Lady wants us to be participants in her Divine Son’s Easter victory over sin and death. All we have to do is to be willing to suffer a little bit in this passing, moral vale of tears as we refuse to make any compromises with apostates and are willing to lose everything for love of Our Lord and His Sacred Deposit of Faith, remembering in a special way the Poor Souls in Purgatory during this month of November.
The joys are eternal for those who remain faithful to end after praying fervently for the grace to end their lives well, especially by keeping ever close to Our Lady and Saint Joseph, the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faith, in the midst of forgettable men who are but minions of Antichrist.
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of the the Rosary, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.