Agents of Ceaseless Change Complaining About Change

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Revolutionaries thrive on change. Revolutionaries thrive on ceaseless change. Revolutionaries use change to bewilder those over whom they exercise tyrannical control, terrorizing their subjects into expecting the unexpected. The use of ceaseless change is meant to so bewilder the "people" that their natural resistance to change, which is part of any living organism's constitution, will be broken down sooner rather than later.

The liturgical revolutionaries who hijacked the Liturgical Movement, which was begun by Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., in the Nineteenth Century to combat Jansenist attitudes and to reawaken in the lives of Catholics a love of the richness of the Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours, sought to introduce changes as early as the 1920s in order to accustom Catholics to liturgical change as part and parcel of their parish lives. As I noted in Presaging a Revolution over two months ago now, the post-World War II saw the likes of Fathers Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M., and Annibale Bugnini, C.M., use their positions within the Vatican to make preposterous claims about the recapturing of liturgical forms that had "existed" previously in the Roman Rite, which claims were accepted by Pope Pius XII. Thus it was that wholesale changes to the Holy Week liturgy were approved in November of 1955 and implemented in 1956. Although Fathers Antonelli and Bugnini could not be sure that their efforts would result in the abolition of the Mass of Tradition that they desired to accomplish, the floodgates had been opened, as Pope Paul VI noted when promulgating the Novus Ordo Missae in 1969:

Since the beginning of this liturgical renewal, it has also become clear that the formularies of the Roman Missal had to be revised and enriched. A beginning was made by Pius XII in the restoration of the Easter Vigil and Holy Week services;[3] he thus took the first step toward adapting the Roman Missal to the contemporary mentality.

Would Pope Pius XII have approved of the "contemporary mentality" enshrined in the Novus Ordo Missae? It is rather doubtful that this long-suffering pontiff, who is calumniated to this very day by the ancient enemies of Our Lord and His Holy Church, would have approved of the Novus Ordo Missae. It is nevertheless true, however, that Pope Pius XII accepted the misrepresentations made to him by priests in whom he had placed his trust. Thus, whether or not people who are rightly devoted to the memory of Pope Pius XII want to admit it, the bogus Holy Week changes approved in 1955 began the fourteen year process of introducing all manner of changes into the offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.

Antonelli's and Bugnini's Jansenist attacks on the fullness of the liturgy, meant to be protected in perpetuity by Pope Saint Pius V's Quo Primum, resulted in the elimination of various feast days and of twelve of the Church's fifteen octaves before the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958. No one--and I mean no one--who has not experienced the richness of the extension of the feasts by means of octaves (whether privileged, common or simple) can appreciate the beauty that was taken away from Roman Rite Catholics in the name of "simplification," a concept near and dear to the black hearts of John Calvin and Oliver Cromwell and Cornelius Jansen. As sensible beings, we need the beauty of the fullness of the Mass to help move our hearts to love God more fully. Priests had offered the fullness of the Mass, replete with the fifteen octaves, for nearly four centuries without any problems. Jansenists of various stripes, including the Irish-American liturgical minimalists in the English speaking countries, including the United States of America, contended that the octaves, among other things, were "confusing" and "cluttered" up the liturgy.

Excellent studies have been done of the changes made prior to the election of that happy-go-lucky supporter of the condemned Sillon, Angelo Cardinal Roncalli, in 1958 as the successor of Pope Pius XII. Bishop Daniel Dolan's Pre-Vatican II Liturgical Changes: Road to the New Mass and Father Francesco Ricossa's Liturgical Revolution are excellent reviews of the entire preconciliar liturgical changes. The revolutionaries desired to get both priests and the lay faithful used to ceaseless changes in the Mass, accustoming them to novelty and innovation, no less flattering the laity with their "active participation" by means of the "dialogue Mass," which Father Patrick Perez terms rightly the "blabber Mass." My own study of the matter is proceeding, to be published sometime before the end of the world.

For present purposes, however, it is useful to note a few pertinent passages from Father Ricossa's Liturgical Revolution to demonstrate how the Jansenist spirit moved Fathers Antonelli and Bugnini in all of their efforts in the 1950s, both during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII and in the reign of John XXIII. One can see how the Modernists sought to use the condemned heresies of the past as a means of implementing liturgical "reforms" that would help Catholics to accept a new religion, that of conciliarism, as perfectly compatible with Catholicism. To Father Ricossa:

Removal of saints' feasts from Sunday

Dom Guéranger gives the Jansenists' position: "It is their [the Jansenists'] great principle of the sanctity of Sunday which will not permit this day to be 'degraded' by consecrating it to the veneration of a saint, not even the Blessed Virgin Mary. A fortiori, the feasts with a rank of double or double major which make such an agreeable change for the faithful from the monotony of the Sundays, reminding them of the friends of God, their virtues and their protection—shouldn't they be deferred always to weekdays, when their feasts would pass by silently and unnoticed?"

John XXIII, going well beyond the well-balanced reform of St. Pius X, fulfills almost to the letter the ideal of the Jansenist heretics: only nine feasts of the saints can take precedence over the Sunday (two feasts of St. Joseph, three feasts of Our Lady, St. John the Baptist, Saints Peter and Paul, St. Michael, and All Saints). By contrast, the calendar of St. Pius X included 32 feasts which took precedence, many of which were former holy days of obligation. What is worse, John XXIII abolished even the commemoration of the saints on Sunday.

Preference given to the Ferial Office over the Feasts of the Saints

Dom Guéranger goes on to describe the moves of the Jansenists as follows: "The calendar would then be purged, and the aim, acknowledged by Grancolas (1727) and his accomplices, would be to make the clergy prefer the ferial office to that of the saints. What a pitiful spectacle! To see the putrid principles of Calvinism, so vulgarly opposed to those of the Holy See, which for two centuries has not ceased fortifying the Church's calendar with the inclusion' of new protectors, penetrate into our churches!"

John XXIII totally suppressed ten feasts from the calendar (eleven in Italy with the feast of Our Lady of Loretto), reduced 29 feasts of simple rank and nine of more elevated rank to mere commemorations, thus causing the ferial office to take precedence. He suppressed almost all the octaves and vigils, and replaced another 24 saints' days with the ferial office. Finally, with the new rules for Lent, the feasts of another nine saints, officially in the calendar, are never celebrated. In sum, the reform of John XXIII purged about 81 or 82 feasts of saints, sacrificing them to "Calvinist principles."

Dom Guéranger also notes that the Jansenists suppressed the feasts of the saints in Lent. John XXIII did the same, keeping only the feasts of first and second class. Since they always fall during Lent, the feasts of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Gregory the Great. St. Benedict, St. Patrick, and St. Gabriel the Archangel would never be celebrated.

Excising Miracles from the Lives of the Saints

Speaking of the principle of the Illuminist liturgists, Dom Guéranger notes: "the lives of the saints were stripped of their miracles on the one hand, and of their pious stories on the other."

We have seen that the reform of 1960 suppresses two out of three lessons of the Second Nocturn of Matins, in which the lives of the saints are read. But this was not enough. As we mentioned, eleven feasts were totally suppressed by the preconciliar rationalists. For example, St. Vitus, the Invention of the Holy Cross, St. John before the Latin Gate, the Apparition of St. Michael on Mt. Gargano, St. Anacletus, St. Peter in Chains, the Finding of St. Stephen, Our Lady of Loretto ("A flying house! How can we believe that in the twentieth century!"); among the votive feasts, St. Philomena (the Curé of Ars was so "stupid" to have believed in her).

Other saints were were eliminated more discreetly: Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Our Lady of Ransom, St. George, St. Alexis, St. Eustace, the Stigmata of St. Francis - these all remain, but only as a commemoration on a ferial day.

Two popes are also removed, seemingly without reason: St. Sylvester (was he too triumphalistic?) and St. Leo II (the latter, perhaps, because he condemned Pope Honorius.)

We note finally a "masterwork" which touches us closely. From the prayer to Our Lady of Good Counsel, the 1960 reform removed the words which speak of the miraculous apparition of her image, if the House of Nazareth cannot fly to Loreto, how can we imagine that a picture which was in Albania can fly to Genzzano?

Anti-Roman Spirit

The Jansenists suppressed one of the two feasts of the Chair of St. Peter (January 18), and also the Octave of St. Peter. Identical measures were taken by John XXIII.

Suppression of the Confiteor before the Communion of the Faithful

The suspect Missal of Trojes suppressed the Confiteor. John XXIII did the same thing in 1960.

Reform of Maundy Thursday. Good Friday. and Holy Saturday

This happened in 1736, with the suspect Breviary of Vintimille ("a very grave action, and what is more, most grievous for the piety of the faithful," said Dom Guéranger.) John XXIII had his precedent here, as we have seen! The same thing goes for the suppression of nearly all the octaves (a usage we find already in the Old Testament, to solemnize the great feasts over eight days), anticipated by the Jansenists in 1736 and repeated in 1955-1960.

The Antonelli-Bugnini changes from 1955 to 1960 found their way into the missal issued by John XXIII in 1961. Precisely how long was the 1961 Missal of John XIIII in use before the Ordo Missae of Paul VI replaced it? About three to four years, that's how long. This Missal, therefore, which was in use for just three or four years, is supposed to be the norm for the Immemorial Mass of Tradition? Granted, the confusion generated by the rush of liturgical changes and the introduction of the errors of religious liberty and ecumenism left many faithful Catholics uncertain how to protect the Faith and which missal to use. This is exactly what the revolutionaries wanted: confusion and disarray in the ranks of any and all of their potential opponents. Traditional Catholics are still arguing about which, if any, of the preconciliar changes they ought to reject.

In the meantime, however, the revolutionaries who fomented all of the changes--and the ceaseless permutations that have followed in the past four decades--have brooked no opposition even from the ranks of "conservative" Catholics (and I was one of these folks for far too long, I am ashamed to say) who think that the Protestantized liturgy known as the Novus Ordo Missae can be salvaged. The revolutionaries are now howling ("I am liturgist, hear me roar!") because the Vatican has insisted that a more faithful translation of some of the parts of the Ordinary of the Novus Ordo Missae from Latin in English be implemented. What is the howling about? Changing such responses as "And also with you" to "And with thy spirit" when the priest prays "The Lord be with you." Listen to the howling in the groans of the revolutionaries themselves:

Some of the prayers and responses memorized by America's Roman Catholics over the past four decades may be changed under a controversial plan to create a more accurate translation of the Latin Mass.

The revisions to be debated by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who will gather today in Los Angeles, represent the biggest changes to the Mass since those that followed the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s.

Heeding a 2001 directive approved by the late Pope John Paul II to correct errors and omissions in the language of public worship worldwide and following years of complaints from a segment of Catholics that the English-language Mass became a watered-down, Protestantized version of the Latin it replaced the proposed revisions are intended to reflect a more precise translation from the Latin.

"The idea was to make sure the translation that was used is as close to the Latin as possible a more literal translation for the Latin," said Bishop Gerald Wilkerson, head of the church's San Fernando Pastoral Region.

"The previous translations after Vatican II were (based on) principles that were different. The principles were that it should be an equivalent translation. It wouldn't have to be a literal translation."

Under the proposals, the exchange between priest and congregation of "The Lord be with you / And also with you" would become "The Lord be with you / And with your spirit."

That change is a translation of the earlier Latin: "Dominus vobiscum / Et cum spiritu tuo."

Spanish-language masses, celebrated in Catholic churches all around Southern California, say "And with your spirit" "y con tu espiritu."

The profession of faith that summarizes Catholic doctrine now starts: "We believe…" The new proposal is to say, "I believe," as the Latin prayer started with "Credo," or "I believe."

The proposed revisions are to be voted on by some 250 bishops and cardinals at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops spring meeting, a three-day gathering at the Millennium Biltmore hotel.

The proposals have previously come before the bishops and have been sent back for revisions, and there is no guarantee they will be approved this time.

Approval requires a two-thirds vote from the bishops.

Wilkerson, who will be among those voting, said he finds no fault with some of the proposed revisions, but others as written now are unclear or awkward.

One problem, Wilkerson said, is that the revisions are being done for English-speaking peoples around the world. Bishops for England, Wales and Australia have already adopted similar revisions.

"The way the British say things is not always the way Americans say things," Wilkerson said.

If the changes are approved, Catholics will need to relearn the familiar prayers and responses they say every Sunday.

"I think after 35 or 40 years most of us have memorized most of the responses at Mass," Wilkerson said. "If this is passed … we'll have to have a book. The phrases change."

Some think changing decades-old prayers will only upset rank-and-file Catholics, who over the last few years have already seen priests and former priests hauled into court to face child molestation charges and who overwhelmingly feel comfortable with the existing prayers.

"The people in the pews are going to scratch their heads and say: 'What? Why?"' said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a Jesuit priest who is former editor of the Jesuit's America magazine and has written books on the Catholic Church's organization and politics.

"There is nothing HERETICAL about what is said right now. They're not going to be more beautiful. In fact they're going to be more confusing."

The present translations were prepared 40 years ago with input from bishops, translators and even poets, he said. He predicted that bishops who vote for the revisions will do so not out of belief they are an improvement, but out of loyalty and respect for the Vatican.

For Catholics old enough to remember the switch from Latin some 40 years ago, Reese said, "You're going to have to tell them, 'We did it wrong the first time." This is not something the church in the United States needs today."  (Charles Bostwick, Long Beach Press Telegram, June 15, 2006.)

Do you really believe, Father Thomas Reese, that the people are going to be scratching their heads about these minor linguistic changes--that reflect fidelity to the Latin editio typica--in the offering of the Novus Ordo Missae after forty years of warfare against the Roman Rite's authentic liturgy? I mean, older Catholics remember how the Mass they grew up with was attacked with a slow-moving cancer in the 1950s and then with a bulldozer by 1964 before having a nuclear bomb dropped on them in 1969. Catholics have been subjected to the novelties of liturgical dance, clown Masses, polka Masses, the incorporation of various pagan rituals into the context of Mass itself, the proliferation of lay people (to say nothing of immodestly and inappropriately dressed lay people) into the sanctuary during Mass, the removal of the tabernacle from the center of the Church, the construction of a "table" to replace the high altar of Sacrifice, the sacrilege of Communion in the hand, the distribution of Holy Communion by the laity, the removal of feast days and the removal of almost all references to sin and eternal damnation in the propers of the Mass, the removal of any reference to the immorality of perverse behavior in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, the removal of statues of Our Lady and the other saints, the denigration of popular Catholic devotions, commands to stand for the reception of Holy Communion, and other endless outrages, and you, Father Reese, dare talk about people scratching their hands about changes in the Protestantized Mass that reflect a fidelity to the actual Latin text? You, Father Reese, are out of touch with reality. You are living in your own delusional world of revolutionary positivism.

The late Monsignor Klaus Gamber, who was, it must be pointed out in the interests of complete candor, NOT a traditionalist (and who favored some "reforms," such as the use of the vernacular for the readings used in Mass, considering as "fanatics" anyone who opposed the "reforms" outlined in Sacrosanctum Concilium, December 1, 1963) wrote the following in The Reform of the Roman Liturgy about the nature and extent of the changes wrought by the liturgical revolution:

Deep in the heart of every person there is the longing for home, and we can only experience the real meaning of home when we are away from it.

The word Heimat (home or fatherland) is a uniquely German concept. Exactly what meaning does it convey? Heimat is the environment known to us since childhood, the house in which we grew up, the natural surroundings with their people and their habits and customs. To us, the Heimat is always beautiful, even if others don't share our feelings for it.

Man's longing for home is his longing for what is familiar and known. It is a longing for security based on the familiarity of a person's surroundings. Finally, it is the sense of security that the small child feels when he is with his mother and that he misses as an adult when faced with the uncertainties of life.

The religious person seeks security in the Church as his Mother. In her he hopes to find shelter and help for his troubled soul, answers to the probing questions posed by his intellect, but above all, he wants certainty about the Last Things. What he seeks is the Church as an oasis of tranquility and peace, peace "such as the world cannot give" (Jn. 14:27)

In the past, a person was able to find safety and shelter in the Church, even though she had many imperfections. His questions were always answered in a certain and precise way, even if he did not always get answers that satisfied him completely. today, instead of a clear answer, he will receive a description of the problem, a response that does not do very much to help him find inner peace.

Last, but certainly not least, the religious person seeks home and shelter in the celebration of liturgical worship, in the rites and feasts known to him since childhood: these are intimately connected to his faith. For him, the unchanging cult is a part of his Heimat.

These observations apply equally to non-Christian religions. Missionaries come across these concepts all the time. When they bring individual members of a tribe to accept Christianity, they also tear them out of the social structure of their tribes, with all their rituals, customs and traditions. It usually takes some time until the newly converted adapt to their new home, the Christian cult: the old rituals of their tribe continue to pull them back with the force of a strong magnet. . . .

A Catholic who ceased to be an active member of the Church for the past generation and who, having decided to return to the Church, wants to become religiously active again, probably would not recognize today’s [Roman Catholic] Church as the one he had left. Simply by entering a Catholic church, particularly if it happens to be one of ultra-modem design, he will feel as if he had entered a strange, foreign place. He will think that he must have come to the wrong address and that he has accidentally ended up in some other Christian religious community.

The accustomed pictures and statues in the church has disappeared. Instead of a cross hanging over the altar there now is some often indefinable work of art; the altar itself being a bare slab of rock, akin to a barrow. In vain will he look for the tabernacle on the altar; nor will he find the communion rail. He will miss the smell of incense that he remembers to have always lingered after Mass. He may not even find a confessional.

The Catholic woman who many years ago accepted the faith of her Protestant husband will have a similar experience. She continued to go to a Catholic church to attend Mass because that is where she felt at home. Would she feel the same way today, when there seems hardly a difference between a Catholic and a Protestant worship service?

The reformers of our liturgy have failed to consider adequately and address the issue of how the traditional forms of liturgical worship inspired among the faithful a sense of belonging, of feeling at home. They also failed to consider and deal with the issue of the extent to which simply abolishing these forms of liturgy would also result in a loss of faith among the people, particularly among the less educated. The reformers also failed to understand the significance of many of the ethnic elements that were a part of the liturgy.

For example, for many among the faithful the traditional, solemn Rorate Mass celebrated during Advent was an important part of their religious home; and this was also true for Requiem Masses and funeral rites. The Solemn Requiem Mass according to the traditional form, which appealed directly to the heart, has almost completely disappeared. Yet here especially, great care should have been taken in introducing changes, because the customs associated with burial rites are the ones to which people in any cultural setting are most strongly attached. . . .

It will be some time until we will be in a position to measure fully the pastoral damage caused to the faithful by the reforms. We must expect that sooner or later we will be facing almost empty pews in our churches, as the Protestant Reformed Churches have been experiencing for decades now; while, we may point out, that has not been the case in the Lutheran Church which has maintained many of its traditional forms of liturgy. In the end, we will have to recognize that the new liturgical forms did not provide the people with bread, but with stones. . . .

Particularly pernicious is the incessant nature of the changes to which we are subjected. This is diametrically opposed to the concept of liturgy as our home. To constantly change a ritual and to abolish almost completely time-honored customs and traditions is synonymous with robbing a person of his religious home and thus shaking the foundations of his faith. The new assignment of the feasts of the saints in the Church calendar published at the very beginning of the liturgical reforms, a completely unnecessary and radical change, only served to alienate the faithful. Even a person who has but a superficial knowledge of how the psychology of a people works is bound to agree with these observations.

Frequently overlooked is the close association between Catholic teaching and certain forms of piety, an association in which the average Catholic places stock. To many Catholics, a change in liturgical forms means a change in the faith to which they have been attached.

People such as yourself, Father Reese, have been responsible for robbing Roman Rite Catholics of their authentic liturgical patrimony, starting incrementally in the 1950s and then expanding in ever more revolutionary ways in the 1960s. Catholics felt cheated. Millions left the practice of the Faith. Many Protestants have been deterred from converting. Why should a Protestant convert to a church that has adopted liturgical practices that he can find in his own Protestant sect? Thus, you dare, Father Reese, to talk about Catholics "scratching their heads" because a semblance of traditional language is going to make its way back into the Protestantized product known as the Novus Ordo Missae? Alas, a true revolutionary wants no reminders of the past. His revolutionary work alone must be honored and respected as the "norm" for all present and future courses of action.

Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic that is the Novus Ordo Missae will not stop polka Masses and clown Masses. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic that is the Novus Ordo Missae will not eliminate the inherent problems in its Latin editio typica text, including prayers that less fully communicate the truths of the Faith and do not make any reference, as noted before, to a God Who judges souls and the possibility of our going to Hell for all eternity. References to the miracles of many of the saints have been eliminated. The Calvinist-Jansenist spirit of "simplicity" is the order of the day in the "new order" mess that was created synthetically by a committee headed by the Freemasonic mastermind named Annibale Bugnini. We must return to the fullness of Tradition before it was tampered with by the likes of Fathers Antonelli and Bugnini. The Novus Ordo Missae has produced enough devastation in the life of Catholics. It must be suppressed once and for all. Enough of reforming something that produces harm in the lives of ordinary Catholics as it enshrines the spirit of this passing world in the name of "inculturation."

Yes, there is considerable disagreement in traditional Catholic circles concerning the preconciliar liturgical changes. No Catholic should be anathematizing other Catholics who have come to different conclusions about which missal should be followed in order to preserve Tradition and thus protect the fullness of the Faith. Nonetheless, however, these issues should be studied dispassionately, recognizing that the goal of the revolutionaries in the 1950s was indeed to make false representations to Pope Pius XII in order to set the stage for further changes if a fellow traveler could become pope.

The Missal of Pope Saint Pius V represents, as Father Ronald Ringrose noted a few months ago, the zenith of the liturgical development of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. Pope Saint Pius V meant to close off all future developments precisely to protect the Mass--and thus the Faith--from the influences of Protestantism and of Modernity, which is why he mandated the use of the Missal he promulgated in Quo Primum in dioceses that could not prove local usage more less than two hundred years old. Pope Saint Pius V wanted to protect the Mass from any of the influences of heretics such as John Wycliffe or John Hus, the precursors of the multifaceted errors of Protestantism, and from the attempts of Catholics to respond to Protestantism by attempting to engage in unauthorized liturgical experimentations so as to adapt the Mass to "suit the needs of the times." Pope Saint Pius V's wisdom in forbidding any further changes to the Mass was premised on his understanding that Protestantism and its pernicious influences might be attempt to insinuate itself from inside of the ranks of the Catholic Church herself, which is exactly what started to happen when the Liturgical Movement got hijacked by the likes of the Augustinian Father Pius Parsch and his followers in the 1920s.

Consider Parsch's own words of what he was attempting to do, found in an autobiographical treatise he wrote for The Book of Catholic Authors, and then ask yourselves if his goals were not uppermost in the minds of Antonelli and Bugnini when they fomented a cascade of liturgical changes in the 1950s:

The lay liturgical movement has concerned itself first of all with the Mass, and it looks for all the possible ways of bringing the laity into its celebration. The laity must realize then that much in the Mass has become set and fossilized. The movement recognizes the fact that the instruction part of the Fore-Mass has almost completely lost its purpose of bringing the word of God to the hearer. It realizes that the laity were left almost entirely out of consideration, and were represented by the choir and the ministers. It even had to wage a campaign so that the Offertory-meal might be distributed to the faithful in the Mass. The lay liturgical movement then came to three types of congregational Masses: the Mass recited in unison (gesprochene Chormesse), the Mass sung in unison (Betsingmesse), and the Solemn Mass sung by the congregation (Volkschoralamt). The Mass sung in unison is the popular type, which should be the parish Mass of the people; the solemn congregational Mass doubtless comes close to the classic liturgy.

Yet, not only the Mass has been included in the movement, but also the ecclesiastical year with season and feast, with procession and custom; the parish, the church with its altar, organ, baptismal font; the sacraments, the canonical hours with their psalms and lessons-all these have been brought within the compass of the movement. Indeed, a new type of piety has been developed which goes back again to the early Church. The Middle Ages and modern times preferred impetratory devotion and the fear of sin; the early Church lived in devotion proceeding from grace, in that common worship for which our movement stands. Thus we believe, and our work will extend in ever widening circles in the Church and, also, will erect a bridge of agreement with our separated brethren.

For this lay liturgical work, two organizations were established in Klosterneuburg which complement each other: the Lay Liturgical Apostolate and the Liturgical Society of St. Gertrude. The former is an institute that includes a publishing house and an advisory board for lay liturgical work. The latter organization is a Catholic association which endeavors to carry out the lay liturgical revival in a practical way. Theory and practice thus go together. The Apostolate studies the method, and provides texts and aids; the Society is the training school, as it were, which is expected to put into practice what the Apostolate teaches.

Yes, the hijacked Liturgical Movement sought to "erect a bridge of agreement with our separated brethren." What it has done, however, is to infect Catholics with recycled liturgical features that have their origin in the heresies of Calvinism and Jansenism, a hybrid monster that has offended the majesty of God, attacked Catholic doctrine, driven Catholics out of the Church, and reaffirmed Protestants and others in their false religions. The wisdom, therefore, of Pope Saint Pius V of forbidding all future liturgical changes is really beyond question.

Bishop Daniel Dolan offered some cogent advice on this matter in 1983 in The Roman Catholic:

I do not claim that the "Liturgy of John XXIII" is heretical or offensive to God in any way like the Novus Ordo is. I do know it to be a step towards the Novus Ordo, authored by the same men who produced the Novus Ordo. I do believe, finally, that to accept these "reforms" today with the benefit of twenty years hindsight would be wrong. I know as well—I have seen with my own eyes—that the cumulative effect of these gradual changes on priests is disastrous.

The Church today must be rebuilt practically from the ground up. Will we look to the man glowing with health or the one slowly dying as our model? Will we take as our principle the same adage of St. Vincent of Lerins: "Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus" (What always, what everywhere, what by everyone was done) or the "laws" (if indeed they could be considered such) which in the proven intent of their creators served only to pave the way for the destruction of the "most beautiful thing this side of Heaven," the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?

Yes, the changes in 1955 led to the way to the revolution of the 1960s, which has resulted in wasting the time and energy of countless numbers of believing Catholics in attempting to turn back a tidal wave of changes that have meant from their very outset to undermine the Catholic Faith and to prepare Catholics, like frogs being boiled alive slowly in a pot as the temperature is elevated ever so slightly over the course of time, for the one world religion. We need to restore the Mass of Tradition in all of its richness (Holy Week, the calendar, the octaves, the ranking of feasts, second and third orations, the commemoration of saints on Sundays, the celebration of the feast of saints during Lent) in order to protect the fullness of the Faith from the influences of Protestantism and its ally, Modernism.

None of the confusion will end, however, until some pope actually obeys Our Lady and does what she wants done: the public consecration of Russia to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart with all of the world's bishops. No pope, including the great Pope Pius XI and the saintly Pope Pius XII, did this. We are, as Father Patrick Perez, has noted, suffering from the Diabolical Disorientation spoken of by Sister Lucia and the wrath of God and the Apostles Peter and Paul. May our prayers, offered to God through Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, help in some small way to usher in a day when we will have a pope who will obey Our Lady and thus restore Tradition in the Church and Christendom in the world.

Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Jerome, pray for us.

Saint Athanasius, pray for us.

Saint Augustine, pray for us.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.

Saint Francis de Sales, pray for us.

Saint Peter Canisius, pray for us.

Saint Ignatius Loyola, pray for us.

Saint Francis Xavier, pray for us.

Saint Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.

Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, pray for us.

Saint Claude de la Colombiere, pray for us.

Saint Peter Julian Eymard, pray for us.

Saint Lucy, pray for us.

Saint Agnes, pray for us.

Saint Agatha, pray for us.

Saint Bridget of Sweden, pray for us.

Saint Louis IX, King of France, pray for us.

Saint Genevieve, pray for us.

Saint Joan of Arc, pray for us.

Saint Edward the Confessor, pray for us.

Saint Stephen of Hungary, pray for us.

Saint Casimir, pray for us.

Saint Catherine of Sweden, pray for us.

Saint Philomena, pray for us.

Saint John of the Cross, pray for us.

Saint John Bosco, pray for us.

Saint John Mary Vianney, pray for us.

Pope Saint Pius V, pray for us.

Pope Saint Pius X, pray for us.

Saint Teresa of Avila, pray for us.

Saint Therese Lisieux, pray for us.

Saint Bernadette Soubirous, pray for us.

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, pray for us.

Blessed Pauline Jaricot, pray for us.

Blessed Francisco, pray for us.

Blessed Jacinta, pray for us.

Sister Lucia, pray for us.

The Longer Version of the Saint Michael the Archangel Prayer, composed by Pope Leo XIII, 1888

O glorious Archangel Saint Michael, Prince of the heavenly host, be our defense in the terrible warfare which we carry on against principalities and powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, spirits of evil.  Come to the aid of man, whom God created immortal, made in His own image and likeness, and redeemed at a great price from the tyranny of the devil.  Fight this day the battle of our Lord, together with  the holy angels, as already thou hast fought the leader of the proud angels, Lucifer, and his apostate host, who were powerless to resist thee, nor was there place for them any longer in heaven.  That cruel, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with his angels.  Behold this primeval enemy and slayer of men has taken courage.  Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the Name of God and of His Christ, to seize upon, slay, and cast into eternal perdition, souls destined for the crown of eternal glory.  That wicked dragon pours out. as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity.  These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on Her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck the sheep may be scattered.  Arise then, O invincible Prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and give them the victory.  They venerate thee as their protector and patron; in thee holy Church glories as her defense against the malicious powers of hell; to thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly beatitude.  Oh, pray to the God of peace that He may put Satan under our feet, so far conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in captivity and harm the Church.  Offer our prayers in the sight of the Most High, so that they may quickly conciliate the mercies of the Lord; and beating down the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, do thou again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce the nations.  Amen.

Verse: Behold the Cross of the Lord; be scattered ye hostile powers.

Response: The Lion of the Tribe of Juda has conquered the root of David.

Verse: Let Thy mercies be upon us, O Lord.

Response: As we have hoped in Thee.

Verse: O Lord hear my prayer.

Response: And let my cry come unto Thee.

Verse: Let us pray.  O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we call upon Thy holy Name, and as suppliants, we implore Thy clemency, that by the intercession of Mary, ever Virgin, immaculate and our Mother, and of the glorious Archangel Saint Michael, Thou wouldst deign to help us against Satan and all other unclean spirits, who wander about the world for the injury of the human race and the ruin of our souls. 

Response:  Amen.  

A Prayer in Preparation for the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus

O most holy Heart of Jesus, fountain of every blessing, I adore Thee, I love Thee and with a lively sorrow for my sins, I offer Thee this poor heart of mine. Make me humble, patient, pure and wholly obedient to Thy will. Grant, good Jesus, that I may live in Thee and for Thee. Protect me in the midst of danger; comfort me in my afflictions; give me health of body, assistance in my temporal needs, Thy blessing on all that I do, and the grace of a holy death. Within Thy Heart I place my every care. In every need let me come to Thee with humble trust saying, Heart of Jesus help me. 

Merciful Jesus, I consecrate myself today and always to Thy Most Sacred Heart. 

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus I implore, that I may ever love Thee more and more. 

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, I trust in Thee.

 

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us! 

Sacred Heart of Jesus, I believe in Thy love for me. 

Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine. 

Sacred Heart of Jesus Thy Kingdom Come. 

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, convert sinners, save the dying, deliver the Holy Souls in Purgatory.