Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                                   August 24, 2005

Rewarding a Syncretist, Slapping Our Lord in the Face

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The murdered Brother Roger Schutz, the Protestant heretic who led a syncretist ecumenical movement in Taize, France, received his last wish: a Catholic funeral Mass presided over by the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity , Walter Cardinal Kasper, who read a letter in behalf of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI that had been sent by Angelo Cardinal Sodano, the Secretary of State of the State of Vatican City. The funeral Mass, which was conducted yesterday, August 23, 2005, at the headquarters of the Taize ecumenical community, featured the sacrilege of every single person present, Protestant and Catholic alike, receiving Holy Communion. Is it any wonder that there was an earthquake registering 4.5 on the Richter Scale shortly thereafter in Rome yesterday?

This a report of the sacrilegious exercise in syncretism that was presided over by a Catholic syncretist, Walter Cardinal Kasper, as carried in today's edition of The New York Times:

TAIZÉ, France, Aug. 23 - Brother Roger Schutz pursued many ecumenical dreams in his long life, but in death one of them came true: At a Eucharistic service celebrated Tuesday by a Roman Catholic cardinal for Brother Roger, a Swiss Protestant, communion wafers were given to the faithful indiscriminately, regardless of denomination.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, the president of the Vatican's council for the unity of Christians, who celebrated the Mass, said in a homily, "Yes, the springtime of ecumenism has flowered on the hill of Taizé." Beyond religious divisions, Brother Roger also abhorred the division between rich and poor. "Every form of injustice or neglect made him very sad," Cardinal Kasper said.

Brother Roger's community and friends, including President Horst Köhler of Germany and the retired archbishop of Paris, Jean-Marie Lustiger, attended the liturgy in the vast wooden monastery church at Taizé, while thousands more followed it on a huge screen in fields outside the church.

Brother Roger was 90 when he was stabbed to death by a Romanian woman, Luminita Solcan, 36, during an evening service in the church one week ago. His successor, the Rev. Alois Leser, a Roman Catholic priest from Germany, prayed for forgiveness: "With Christ on the cross we say to you, Father, forgive her, she does not know what she did."

The gathering here in the hills of eastern France under leaden, showery skies reflected the spirit, and also the popularity, of Brother Roger, the son of a Swiss Calvinist pastor, who first gathered followers here in 1940. The monastic community here encompasses about 90 members from 20 or so countries and virtually every Christian denomination. Four Roman Catholic priests from among the members celebrated the funeral Mass with Cardinal Kasper.

Brother Roger's simple wooden coffin, a wooden icon lying upon it, was carried into the church by brothers. It was followed by a group of Romanian children who had been visiting the community when Brother Roger was killed.

Brother Roger founded Taizé as a monastic order only a 10-minute drive from Cluny, the site of Europe's largest and best-known monastic abbey before its destruction during the French Revolution. In the 1970's, Taizé developed into a pilgrimage site where people from different countries and faiths gathered annually at Easter. Many returned, in sadness, on Tuesday. Holding candles, they followed his coffin in procession to the Taizé cemetery.

Petra Simmert, a schoolteacher from southern Germany, came with her husband and two children. She is Protestant, he Catholic; one child is Catholic, the other Protestant. "We're an ecumenical family," she said, with a laugh. Watching the funeral of Pope John Paul II on television, they saw Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, give communion to Brother Roger, even though he was not Catholic. "That struck us," she said.

The last paragraph of this article is quite instructive. At the very funeral Mass for Pope John Paul II that Father Brian Harrison exclaimed in an article on the Seattle Catholic website was an expression of "tradition," then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger knowingly gave Holy Communion to a known Protestant syncretist, Brother Roger Schutz. Father Harrison, that was not "tradition," that was sacrilege. What do you have to say now that Pope Benedict XVI has personally sanctioned one of his curial cardinals to distribute the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ indiscriminately to Protestants (and Hindus and Buddhists and New Agers, most likely) at the funeral Mass in Taize yesterday, Father Harrison? Still convinced that Pope Benedict XVI is committed to a "restoration" of the Catholic Faith?

Petra Simmert and her husband were influenced positively by what the current Holy Father did at his predecessor's funeral Mass on April 8, 2005. Was she alone? Is she an anomaly? The emperor has no clothes, Father Harrison. This is apostasy writ large. This is the rewarding of a syncretist's lifetime of trying to "raze the bastions" of Catholicism so as to institutionalize Protestant and other heresies as normal and accepted practices within the Catholic Church. This is the lowlight thus far of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI. This is one of the worst and saddest days in the history of the Catholic Church. How cannot Our Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart be breaking anew over these sacrileges against her own Divine Son's Sacred Body with the approval of His Vicar on earth?

The floodgates have now been opened wide for bishops and priests to commit the sacrilege of the distribution of Holy Communion to non-Catholics more regularly than has been done in the past. Just as the late Annibale Bugnini's loyal acolyte, Archbishop Piero Marini, admitted two years ago that the novelties introduced into the public Masses of Pope John Paul II were meant to provide precedents for all bishops in the world, so have the actions of Cardinal Kasper set a precedent that will be impossible, humanly speaking, to turn back. This is incontestable. Cardinal Kasper has sanctioned the "springtime of ecumenism" that was the brainchild of a syncretist, responsible in no small measure for the very un-Catholicity of the Novus Ordo Missae itself.

Consider this excerpt from Father Didier Bonneterre's The Liturgical Movement: Roots, Radicals, Results (Angelus Press, 2002):

On April 10, 1970, when Pope Paul VI received the members of the Consilium for the last time, his picture was taken with the Protestant observers who had been involved in rewriting the Catholic liturgy. This photograph illustrated the cover of La Documentation Catholique on May 3rd. Even so, Protestant influence on the New Order of Mass was still being debated five years after its introduction. For instance, in 1976, an exchange of letters was published in La Libre Belgique between Consilium member Dom Botte and His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Dom Botte vehemently insisted that, despite the undeniable presence of Protestant "observers," there was no Protestant influence on the drafting of the new liturgy. Archbishop Lefebvre refuted his claim outright, citing statements of approbation made by Protestants as well as the famous intervention of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci.

Four years after this debate, a powerful testimony to the truth of Archbishop Lefebvre's assertions came into the author's possession. It was a document, the ritual used at Taize to celebrate the Eucharist in 1959 [reproduced on pp. 102-119 in Father Bonneterre's book]. The document is reproduced here in its entirely with permission from the Taize Community. The reader will quickly see that this Protestant rite of 1959 prefigures the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969. Archbishop Lefebvre was right: the Protestants collaborated actively--whether directly or indirectly matters little--in the reform of the Mass.

An important note must be made at this juncture. Father Romano Thommasi, who has had access to letters written by some of the German Protestant "observers" of the work of the Consilium, has proved that the "observers" made their comments during coffee breaks, after which the bishops who were members of the Consilium simply read the "observers'" comments into the record as their own. The "observers" exercised direct influence on the development of the synthetic concoction known as the Novus Ordo Missae.

Father Bonneterre's narrative continues:

The Taize movement began as a project of Roger Louis Schultz-Marasuche [note: it is Schutz, not Schultz], born in Switzerland in 1915, the son of a Lutheran minister, and now known to the English-speaking world as Roger Schultz or simply "Brother Roger." Schultz was active in the Swiss Student Christian Movement while a seminarian in Switzerland; there he studied monastic life and dreamed of establishing an "ecumenical" monastic community. Popular history holds that Schultz left his native Switzerland after the occupation of northern France by German troops in 1940; the German invasion of France evidently awakened in him a desire to assist war refugees while pursuing his "monastic" aim. Thus, in August, 1940, Schultz moved to the small town of Taize, located between Lyons and Dijon in rural Burgundy, just south of the line dividing occupied from Vichy France. Most of the refugees Schultz received at Taize were those fleeing into Vichy France due to political hardships; many were Jews. When Germany invaded northern France in 1942, Schultz returned to Switzerland, fearing German retribution. In Geneva he was joined by Max Thurian, "theologian" of the Swiss Reformed Church, and Pierre Souveran, an agricultural engineer. The group returned to Taize in 1944, and by 1947 the first "brothers" took "life vows [of] celibacy, community of property, and acceptance of the authority of the community."

According to a 1959 article in Theology Today, the small Taize community quickly became an active element of ecumenical, liturgical, biblical, and evangelical movements in France. Their "twelfth century church, built by Cluny monks, was restored along lines of liturgical reform. Taize quickly established ties with ecumenical movements in French Catholic circles and with the [note: pro-abortion, pro-contraception] World Council of Churches. in Geneva."

Meanwhile, the two co-founders, Schultz and Thurian, had quickly become ecumenical icons in their own right.

Schultz's personal achievements was Taize itself, from its outset a non-confessional "parable of a community" (as he called it) which emphasized life in common over questions of dogma: "In living a common life," he wrote, "have we any other end than to unify men committed to following Christ into a living sign of the unity of the Church?" Just as the true Church of Jesus Christ is His Mystical Body in the world, so too would Taize become the ecumenical movement incarnate: "The ecumenical imperative is fundamental to an understanding of Taize. Representing various church traditions within itself, it is, in effect, a rather advance incarnational witness of ecumenical endeavor."

One will see very quickly that the defined teaching of Our Lord, which Pope Pius XI had noted in Mortalium Animos (1928) as binding upon all believers in its entirety without one iota of dissent, meant nothing to Roger Schutz and the Taize community. Pope Benedict XVI has said that Schutz has entered into "eternal joy," thus saying that he is in Heaven. Let's get this straight, therefore: syncretists who denied (as opposed to being ignorant as a result of never having heard the Faith preached) articles contained in the Deposit of Faith, including the necessity of formal membership in the one true Church, are capable of going straight to Heaven four months after a sacrilegious reception of Holy Communion and a lifetime of trying to get Catholic popes and bishops to approve his syncretism? And there are still people out there who do not have a problem with this, who are so foolish as to think that the mind of Pope Benedict XVI is not seriously infected by major theological errors?

Returning to Father Bonneterre:

Max Thurian (1921-1996), a Reformed Church pastor born in Geneva, was known as the "theologian of Taize," and was for many years a member of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. Under its auspices he edited the influential (in ecumenical circles) volume Ecumenical Perspectives on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, in conjunction with which was developed the infamous "Lima Liturgy" of 1982.

For those in the Catholic hierarchy evidently intent on abandoning the concept of ecumenism as renunciation of error and return to the Catholic fold, Taize, Schultz, and Thurian became living examples of the kind of Christian reconciliation allegedly possible. During one of several audiences with Schultz, Pope John XXIII responded to a reference to Taize by saying, "Ah, Taize, that little springtime!" In spite of the fact that Thurian personally asked Pope Pius XII not to define the Assumption, both he and Schultz were invited to the Second Vatican Council, where, according to Schultz, they had numerous private meetings with the Council fathers, to "study the evolution of the texts, write up notes, and give our point of view when asked." it is well known that Thurian participated in the Consilium which revised the Roman rite; speaking of the Consilium's ecumenical fruit, he later declared, "It is now theologically possible for Protestants to use the same Mass as Catholics."

Roman fascination with the Taize experiment was not, however, reciprocated by a corresponding interest in the Roman religion by the Taize founders. In 1975 Roger Schultz asked of Rome, that a reconciliation come about without requiring non-Catholics to repudiate their origins. Even with truly...catholic communion in view, repudiation goes against love." And Max Thurian expressed similar sentiments in 1976, asserting that "if a Protestant has the conviction that the Catholic Church, following the Second Vatican Council, rediscovered conformity with the apostolic church, he can then consider himself to be a member of that Church without, however,  renouncing his adherence to another ecclesial community.

In spite of such indifferentism, the Holy Father [the late Pope John Paul II] deigned to grace Taize with his presence on October 5, 1986, effectively inscribing his name on a long list of admiring visitors, including three Archbishops of Canterbury, Orthodox metropolitans, the fourteen Lutheran bishops of Sweden, and countless pastors from all over the world. Thurian received Holy Orders in a semi-secret ceremony conducted by the former Archbishop of Naples, Cardinal Ursi, and was later invited by John Paul II to join the International Theological Commission, and yet, according to the Taize community "no abjuration of [his] Protestant religion took place [!]"

It is even admitted by some Catholics that the change in Rome's attitude toward ecumenism was directly inspired by the work of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches, through which Thurian accomplish so much of his ecumenical work in the 1980's: "...the Roman Catholic church changed her understanding of what we now call the ecumenical enterprise. . . Let me say that this huge change of Roman Catholic mentality is certainly in great part due to the high quality of the world done by the World Council of Churches, and especially Faith and Order."

Such a change of mentality was no doubt welcomed by the Taize founders, and in some fashion accepted by Pope John Paul II. Thurian once suggested that "unity today in the churches exists as we renounce all our divisive ways, only holding to the fundamental faith which saves and joins us." In 1986 the Pope congratulated the members of the Taize community for "desiring to be [them]selves a "parable of community," [that] will help all whom [they] meet to be faithful to their denominational ties, the fruit of their education and their choice in conscience."

After the death of John XXIII, his brother, Giuseppe Roncalli, visit Taize. During his visit, Roncalli remarked to his grandson, "It was my brother the Pope who began what will come out of Taize." (Father Didier Bonneterre, The Liturgical Movement: Roots, Radicals, Results. Kansas City, Missouri: Angelus Press, 2002. pp. 97-101.)

Once again, I ask: Is it not a little bit disturbing that a Vicar of Christ, in this case the late Pope John Paul II, praised a community that would help all people to "be faithful to their denominational ties," giving every impression of indifferentism at that time and in that place? How can anyone pretend that these comments are in concert with the Deposit of Faith. And we are now faced with a situation where a Pope has not simply in "some fashion" embraced the "vision of Taize" but has done so most directly. Pope Benedict XVI's embrace of the syncretist, indifferentist errors of Taize raise many significant questions that must be left to those more competent than I to address (and anyone who thinks that the description of "vision of Taize" above can be squared the patrimony of the Catholic Faith is delusional). The vision of Taize is a manifest and complete rejection of the Deposit of Faith that the God-Man entrusted to solely and exclusively to His true Church for its safekeeping and explication.

Among the many things that have "come out of Taize" is the Novus Ordo Missae, as Father Bonneterre demonstrates in an irrefutable manner. Some, including Father Brian Harrison, have taken issue with my saying that the Novus Ordo is offensive to God. Well, it's just not crazy, extreme Droleskey who says this as though he whipped it up out the air one day because he wanted to make it difficult to support his family and make a living (especially by losing the support--and friendship--of more than a handful of former benefactors). Consider the comments of a few priests, interviewed for Priest, Where is Thy Mass? Mass, Where is Thy Priest (Angelus Press, 2004) on how the Protestant influences in the Mass do indeed offend God greatly.

First, Father Ronald Ringrose, responding to the following question: "Is the New Mass erroneous. It is evil?"

Well, there you've got the crux of the problem. See, insofar as it is a Mass, of course, it can't be evil But, insofar as any Mass is schismatic, it is evil. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is of infinite value and is infinitely acceptable to the Father. But the circumstances of the Mass can be evil, and certainly if it is a Mass said by a schismatic, it is evil under the aspect. The New Mass is evil under the aspect that it is Protestant, ambiguous, not a clear expression of Catholic doctrine. No Mass is per se evil, bit it is evil secundum quid (under a certain aspect).

Second, Monsignor Raymond Ruscitto, responding to the question: "What were the problems that you had with the this [the new] Mass?

When the new Mass came out, I was the director of CCD for the diocese, and I was put on the committee to review the proposed general catechism. We go preliminary papers, and I read through it all and said, "This isn't Catholic!" The definition of the Mass in the Missal of 1969 was "The gathering of the people under the presidency of the minister." I said, "That could be a novena! I mean, it's so vague! This is supposed to be the definition of the Mass?" I couldn't accept vagueness, this disorientation, and I was very uncomfortable because all that new stuff was so disruptive. It was not promoting that spirituality that we were supposed to develop in the parishioners. These things represent a disorganization, a disorientation of our very human faculties, let alone our spirituality.

Another thing that I noticed as the Masonic set-up of the New Mass. The altar is turned around and placed in front of the "president's chair" (or the grand master's chair). You've got your wardens (one's going to take care of the announcements, and the other will read the Gospel or the Epistle, or whatever they do), the master of ceremonies, and so on. Anybody who has studied the background of these things could see their relation to Freemasonry, but the others who didn't know about Masonry couldn't recognize the change which was taking place. . . .

What really opened my eyes was the New Theology that everybody is saved. "For all" means that even those who are not Catholic, even those who don't know about Christianity, are saved. I said, "That's contrary to what we've been taught!" I was astounded. They not only put a Protestant twist on things, but the capital letters in which they used to print the words of Consecration were gone. The text was now in a narrative form, retelling a story, and not in the old form, where the formula of consecration was clearly a sacramental form.

Then came the ecumenical movement, joining the other religions in prayer, which is absolutely forbidden by the First Commandment., you know. This is doctrine that we were taught, and the leaders were doing  the exact opposite. I said, "This cannot be accepted," so in conscience, " I couldn't follow.

Monsignor Ruscitto was asked about the new Offertory Prayers:

That was one of the big points, because you know that those are--these are Jewish table prayer! I knew that from the beginning, because I had read up on it. They were trouncing the essence of the Mass, in that they were not putting in the Offertory prayers (which emphasize the sacrificial nature of the Mass), but prayers for the "preparation of the gifts," which will become "our spiritual food and spiritual drink." This is so ambiguous that Protestants can use these prayers now! In fact, I've heard of Baptists and Lutherans using the same "missalette" the Catholics are using. They don't accept the Mass, the sacrificial Mass, but these prayers seem to present no difficulty for them. Bishop [later, Cardinal Timothy] Manning told us that there was a Catholic priest who "concelebrated Mass" with an Episcopalian woman "priest." I thought. "My goodness, how could they go this far?" but they went even further then that.

Third, Father William Young, commenting on the Protestant aspects of the Novus Ordo Missae:

The old Mass grew organically. Of course, it was changed from time to time, but they were organic changes, and the whole thing is seen as one consistent development. But the New Mass is literally a new creation, invented by Paul VI and obviously influenced by the Protestant periti (experts), invented that it's an accommodation to Ecumenism, and they that they tried to keep it valid--they tried, I think, to keep some semblance of Tradition--but, at the same time, they tried to accommodate the Protestants. They tried to make it a ritual that virtually any Christian could celebrate, and I think that the Anglican and Lutheran rituals are now incredibly close to the New Mass. In fact, I know Lutheran ministers who will use the Novus Ordo Mass, especially "Eucharistic Prayer II." (Everybody likes to use "Eucharistic Prayer II," because it's short, and it's alleged to be the "Canon of Hippolytus," which it doesn't resemble at all.!)

Finally, there is a letter on the subject that was written Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani. It was addressed to Pope Paul VI himself, dated September 25, 1969:

The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any; heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.

The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith. . . .

An attentive examination of the Novus Ordo reveals changes of such magnitude as to justify in themselves the judgment already made with regard to the "normative" Mass. Both have in many points every possibility of satisfying the most Modernists of Protestants. . . .

From the outset therefore the New Rite is launched as pluralistic and experimental, bound to time and place. Unity of worship, thus swept away for good and all, what will become of that unity of faith that went with it, and which, we were always told, was to be defended without compromise?

It is evident that the Novus Ordo has no intention of presenting the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent, to which, nonetheless, the Catholic conscience is bound forever. With the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, the loyal Catholic is thus faced with a most tragic alternative.

There are, of course, many other commentaries on this subject. The priests quoted above are not mentally ill. They are not ill-informed. They are not disloyal. They are not schismatic.(Neither was the late Cardinal Ottaviani) They are (and were) Catholics who understand how the currents that flowed out of such places as Taize resulted in the very structure and theology of the Novus Ordo Missae--and thus the ethos that led to a curial cardinal offering Mass for a syncretist and distributing Holy Communion sacrilegiously to non-Catholics. The errors have come full circle: the errors of the men of Taize have eviscerated the "normative" Mass of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church and have produced a milieu in which it is now considerable acceptable for people who are not members of the Catholic Church to receive the ultimate sign of complete union with Our Lord's Mystical Body, Holy Communion. [Appended below, following the Afterword, are several sections of a conference given by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, in 1982]

Sacred Scripture records how our sins caused the manhandling of Our Lord's Sacred Body during His Passion and Death:

And while He was yet speaking, cometh Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve; and with him a great multitude with sword and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the ancients.

And he that betrayed Him, had given them as a sign, saying: Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is He; lay hold on Him, and lead Him away carefully (Mk. 14:43-44).

Judas Iscariot offered Mass for Brother Roger Schutz, being authorized to do so by a Pharisee who has endorsed a philosophy and a movement at odds with the God-Man Himself and all that He has entrusted to His Holy Church.

And when He was come, immediately going up to Him, he saith: Hail, Rabbi; and he kissed Him. But they laid hands on Him, and held Him." (Mk. 14:45-46)

Judas Iscariot offered a Mass hailing the virtues of a false prophet while betraying Our Lord, permitting heretics and non-believers to lay hold of Him in their non-consecrated hands.

For many bore false witness against Him, saying: We heard Him say, "I will destroy this temple made with hands, and within three days I will build another not made with hands". And their witness did not agree. (Mk. 14:58-59)

False witness was borne by Judas Iscariot on Tuesday, August 23, 2005, whenever he opened his mouth, saying, among other things, that, "more than a guide or spiritual teacher, Brother Roger was for many like a father, a reflection of the eternal Father and of the universality of his love."  No one reflects the "universality" of God's love who denies one jot or tittle contained in the Deposit of Faith.

Then the high priest rending his garments saith: What need we any further witnesses? (Mk. 14:63)

The high priest, Pope Benedict XVI, does not need any canonization process for the heretic Schutz. A man who bore false witness all throughout his life is deemed to be in Heaven.

And some began to spit on Him, and to cover His face, and to buffet Him, and to say unto Him: "Prophesy:" and the servants struck him with the palms of their hands." (Mk. 14:65)

Judas Iscariot and the cohorts who came out with him in Taize, France, spat on Our Lord, covering His doctrine and buffeting Him by daring to reward a man who spent his entire life denying the importance of doctrine, which is a tool of the devil himself.

Then therefore, Pilate took Jesus, and scourged Him. And the soldiers platting a crown of thorns, put it upon His head; and they put on a purple garment. And them came to Him, and said: "Hail, king of the Jews; and they gave him blows." (Jn. 19:1-3)

Our Lord received blows to His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity as hundreds of heretic Schutz's disciples received It sacrilegiously in Taize on August 23, 2005. Our Lord was mocked in His Real Presence, establishing a papally-sanctioned precedent that will be followed in dioceses around the world.

And the soldiers also mocked Him, coming to Him, and offering Him vinegar. (Lk. 23:36)

The sheep in the One Sheepfold of Christ are being offered vinegar by their most of their shepherds, who do "not endure sound doctrine," having "itching ears," being ever ready to turn "away their hearing from the truth," preferring instead to "be turned unto fables." (cf. 2 Tim. 4:3,4)

Who in the episcopate, other than the four bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X, who have recently completed a Mass in reparation for the abomination of worship being rendered unto false gods, that is, devils, by Hindu "priests" in the Chapel of the Apparitions at the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima on May 5, 2004, who will defend Our Lord from the errors of Taize and the sacrileges committed against His Real Presence? Are there any bishops who will oppose publicly Pope Benedict XVI's praise of Roger Schutz and the Taize heresies? Are there any bishops who will denounce the sacrilege of distributing Holy Communion to heretics and infidels?

Archbishop Raymond Leo Burke, how about you? Will you defend Our Lord as His truths are being mocked and His Real Presence is spat upon? Will you stand up to these outrages and denounce them publicly?

Archbishop Charles Chaput, how about you? Will you defend Our Lord as His truths are being mocked and His Real Presence is spat upon? Will you stand up to these outrages and denounce them publicly?

Archbishop Eldon Curtiss, how about you? Will you defend Our Lord as His truths are being mocked and His Real Presence is spat upon? Will you stand up to these outrages and denounce them publicly?

Archbishop John Joseph Myers, how about you? Will you defend Our Lord as His truths are being mocked and His Real Presence is spat upon? Will you stand up to these outrages and denounce them publicly?

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, how about you? Will you defend Our Lord as His truths are being mocked and His Real Presence is spat upon? Will you stand up to these outrages and denounce them publicly?

Bishop Kevin Rhoades, how about you? Will you defend Our Lord as His truths are being mocked and His Real Presence is spat upon? Will you stand up to these outrages and denounce them publicly?

Bishop Robert Vasa, how about you? Will you defend Our Lord as His truths are being mocked and His Real Presence is spat upon? Will you stand up to these outrages and denounce them publicly?

Bishop Thomas Olmsted, how about you? Will you defend Our Lord as His truths are being mocked and His Real Presence is spat upon? Will you stand up to these outrages and denounce them publicly?

Bishop Thomas Wemski, how about you? Will you defend Our Lord as His truths are being mocked and His Real Presence is spat upon? Will you stand up to these outrages and denounce them publicly?

Won't one bishop have the courage to defend Our Lord and to denounce falsehood and sacrilege?

How about priests? Are there any traditional priests in the Ecclesia Dei communities who will defend Our Lord as His truths are being mocked and His Real Presence is spat upon? Is there just one who will stand up to these outrages and denounce them publicly?

Bishop Fernando Areas Rifan and the priests of the Society of Saint John Mary Vianney in Campos, Brazil, is there anyone among you who is willing to defend Our Lord against these outrages.

Any priests in the Institute of Christ the King who will defend Our Lord against these outrages?

Any priests in the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter whowill to defend Our Lord against these outrages?

Father Gilles Wach, how about you?

Father Arnaud Devillers, how about you?

Monsignor R. Michael Schmitz, how about you?

Father Brian Bovee, how about you?

Father James Jackson, how about you?

Father George Gabet, how about you?

Are there any traditionally minded priests in the diocesan structure who want to defend Our Lord against these outrages?

Any priests in the Diocese of Rockville Centre, my home diocese?

Any priests in the Archdiocese of New York?

Any priests in the Diocese of Lafayette in Indiana?

Any priests in the Diocese of Richmond, Virginia?

Any priests in the Diocese of Paterson, New Jersey?

Any priests in the Archdiocese of Indianapolis?

Any priests in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati?

Any California-based Norbertines, most of whom are on the warpath against Our Lady Help of Christians Church as a "threat" to the Catholic Faith, want to stand up and denounce the real enemies of Christ, those in shepherds' clothing?

Anyone in Opus Dei have the courage and the integrity to defend the fullness of the Catholic Faith and to denounce sacrileges sanctioned by the Pope himself?

Anyone in the Legionaries of Christ who wants to start thinking for a change and to recognize that not everything that comes from Rome is received from the hand of God?

Are there any conservative newspapers wandering out there that have a bit of a problem with Roger Schutz receiving a Catholic funeral and non-Catholics receiving Holy Communion?

Are there any priests in Rome at all, either those working in the curia or those working for Catholic organizations, who will resist these outrages and sacrileges directly to the face of the Holy Father himself?

Are there any eternally wishful television networks out there who are going to defend Our Lord against these sacrileges? Or will these sacrileges be portrayed by that positivist satellite network as being perfectly compatible with the fullness of Tradition?

Are there any Catholic pro-life leaders out there who are willing to sacrifice the perquisites and privileges they enjoy in order to defend Our Lord against ecclesiatstically-sanctioned sacrileges and outrages that lead directly to the aborting of babies?

Are there any leaders in the Catholic home-schooling movement who are willing to stand up and to denounce the praise of a heretical theology by the Holy Father and curial cardinals and to defend the integrity of Our Lord in His Real Presence?

Are there any leaders of "conservative" Catholic colleges who are willing to explain that Taize is a slap in the face to the Deposit of Faith and that Our Lord was dealt a severe blow to His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the funeral Mass for Roger Schutz?

Or is it going to be the case that bishops and priests and laymen who know better are going to keep their mouths shut hoping that this will all somehow go away and that it doesn't really concern them at all, that the lionizing of heretics and the distribution of Holy Communion to non-Catholics en masse by a curial cardinal with the knowledge and approval of the Vicar of Chrsit is no problem at all?

Oh, I can hear some of my many former friends in the diocesan priesthood chortle with disdain, "What can I do about this? Nothing's going to change."

Well, Fathers, let me tell you this: regardless of whether anything will change in the Vatican you have to remember that the martyrs did not care about results. They bore witness to the truth without caring what it cost them, including physical life itself. Saint Athanasius did not care about what would happen to him when he denounced Arian bishops and priests. Why should you care about any consequences of bearing a visible, tangible witness in the midst of apostasy and sacrilege? And you might be able to help one person, such as Mrs. Petra Simmert, who was influenced by the then Cardinal Ratzinger's administration of Holy Communion to Roger Schutz on April 8, 2005, to understand that the praise of Taize and the administration of Holy Communion to non-Catholics is from the devil, not from God.

What can diocesan priests, in particular, do? Stop offering the Novus Ordo Missae, which flows from the errors of Taize and results in the sacrileges committed there yesterday. Offer only the Traditional Latin Mass. It is your right as a Roman Rite Catholic priest. Don't want to leave your parish and leave it to the wolves? Fine. Offer the Mass there in your parish. Let the bishop dare to remove you for offering the Immemorial Mass of Tradition while the Vicar of Christ sanctions a curial cardinal to offer a funeral Mass for a heretic and distribute Holy Communion to all present. Start offering the Traditional Latin Mass tomorrow and never look back. Never offer the Novus Ordo Missae again. Afraid of losing benefits and being unable to support elderly parents? Trust in Our Lord and His Most Blessed Mother. No priest devoted to the Traditional Latin Mass has ever suffered from a lack of sufficiency of the means of this passing world.

Some will blanche at my having alluded to the Holy Father as a Pharisee. There is a reason why I chose that phrase: the Chief Priest of the Pharisees chose to expose Our Lord to the judgment of Pontius Pilate and thus to His fearful treatment at the hands of the pagans. Pope Benedict XVI chose to expose the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the God-Man to unspeakable outrages in Taize (leaving aside the horror that was World Youth Day in Cologne, Germany). He acted the part of the Chief Priest in the Passion of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Saint Tarcisius died a martyr's death in 255 A.D. rather than let than let "the Blessed Eucharist be violated by the crowd which attacked him. The angels protected Our Lord in the Eucharist from these heathens after his death." How freely the Vicar of Christ today turns over Our Lord in His Real Presence to the heretics and infidels.

We turn, as always, to Our Lady, begging her that we might live long enough as her consecrated slaves to do reparation for our own sins and for those of the whole word. If we live penitentially, beseeching her tenderly in her Most Holy Rosary and keeping her Divine Son company in His Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament, then our prayers will be purified more than they would be otherwise and they might be more powerful before the Throne of God Himself to bring about the proper consecration of Russia to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

This necessity for an end to the errors of Modernity in the world and Modernism in the Church does not seem close to fruition, especially now. Nevertheless, as faithful sons and daughters of the Church, we must maintain the Supernatural Virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity as we denounce error and sacrilege while tending first and foremost to the care of our own immortal souls by the habit of hearing the Traditional Mass daily, spending some time with Our Lord in His Real Presence, and offering up all of the merit we are privileged to earn freely as the consecrated slaves of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

With prayers that Pope Benedict will abjure the actions he authorized to take place in Taize, France, we ask the intercession of Saint Louis IX, King of France, that the land that has spawned so many errors in the past two hundred years will return to the glory of the High Middle Ages in which he lived and reigned for Christ the King, becoming once again the faithful elder daughter of the Church, presaging the return of all people everywhere to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Our Lord Himself upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.

Saint Louis IX, pray for us.

Saint Tarcisius, pray for us.

Saint Athanasius, pray for us.

An Afterword on "The Real Scandal is Being Given by Father Devillers"

A bit more research was done late last night, August 23, 2005, concerning the case of Father Andrew Szymakowski, who was ordained as a priest for the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, but left shortly thereafter to consider affiliating with the Archdiocese of Anchorage, Alaska.

One of the points that remains unclear is exactly when Father Szymakowski was exclaustrated, that is, canonically separated, from the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter to be released into the care of the Archbishop of Anchorage, the Most Reverend Roger Schweitz. Father Szymakowski was described in The Catholic Anchor story as being a "member of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter." There was no mention of exclaustration at all.

Thus, to try to nail down this bit of information, I telephoned the Archdiocese of Anchorage, being referred to the Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Anchorage, Sister Charlotte Davenport.

Sister Charlotte was most helpful, although it appears her understanding of Canon Law  in this matter is not accurate. She informed me that Father Szymakowski remains a member of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter even after a decree of exclaustration (which is issued by a the superior of a religious institute or a society of apostolic life after consultation with his council pending assurance that the priest to be separated from his community or society has a bishop to receive him). She said that Father Szymakowski would not even begin the process of incardination into the Archdiocese of Anchorage until he completes a period of "discernment" to see whether he is called to serve in as a diocesan priest.

I turned to my favorite canon lawyer, Father Stephen P. Zigrang, who said that this exact question was one that was posed to him during the defense of his dissertation for his degree in Canon Law. He said that once a decree of exclaustration has been issue a priest "is out" of the community from which he has been separated, stating furthermore that the five year process of incardination begins immediately upon his being received by a bishop. The process winds up in automatic incardination after five years unless there is a decision not to accept him.

The Archdiocese of Anchorage considers Father Szymakowski a member of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter while he undergoes a process of "discernment." Canon law, according to Father Zigrang, says that he has already begun the process of incardination into the Archdiocese of Anchorage. In other words, Father Szymakowksi is skating on thin ice in Alaska. 'Tis the price for abandoning a precious jewel in favor of the fruit of the spirit of Taize!

Finally, a reader wrote to defend Father Dennis Duvelius's offering of the Novus Ordo Missae, saying that he did so as "reverently as possible," and that the omission of the Prayers after Low Mass was "probably" a minor thing.

Well, the inherent harm of the Novus Ordo Missae is impossible to see only for those who do not want to see it. Much time was spent in the body of the article above to discuss some of that harm, which produced the outrages that took place in Taize on August 23. I do so in G.I.R.M. Warfare. While I do urge all diocesan priests to stop offering the Novus Ordo Missae immediately and forever, I recognize that making a step that is out of the ordinary is not easy and involves much self-sacrifice, especially of their priestly reputations. It is quite another thing, though, for a priest ordained to offer the Traditional Latin Mass to become, in effect, bi-ritual and to offer a Mass that is offensive to God (see Father Ronald Ringrose's comments above).

It is sad that the Prayers after Low Mass have to be defended at all. What priest allegedly devoted to Tradition would want to omit the public recitation of the Angelic salutation to Our Lady for the conversion of Russia? What priest allegedly devoted to Tradition would want to omit a public invocation of Saint Michael the Archangel against the devil and all of his minions? These prayers were made optional by Pope John XXIII at the behest of Annibale Bugnini. Does any priest ordained for a community to offer the Traditional Latin Mass want to contend that Annibable Bugnini, who desired to change the Rosary as well as the Mass, knew more than Pope Leo XIII or Pope Pius XI? No priest who exercises the "option" in the 1962 Missale Romanum to omit the Prayers after Low Mass is doing the Church or himself any favor at all. Who do you think wants these prayers suppressed? It's not Our Lady or Saint Michael, that's for sure.

Alas, this is all the rotten fruit of the unjust and illicit nature of the 1984 and 1988 indults that fly in the face of the perpetually binding nature of Quo Primum.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

Pope Saint Pius V, pray for us.

Pope Saint Pius X, pray for us.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's Personal Reminiscences of Dealing with Annibale Bugnini and Pope John Paul II

Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1982



The most serious of the consequences was the liturgical reform. It was accomplished, as everybody knows, by a well-known priest, Bugnini, who had prepared it long in advance. Already in 1955 Fr. Bugnini had asked Msgr. Pintonello, general Chaplain of the Italian army, who had spent much time in Germany during the occupation, to translate Protestant liturgical texts. For Fr. Bugnini did not know German.

It was Msgr. Pintonello himself who told me that he had translated the Protestant liturgical books for Fr. Bugnini, who at that time was but an insignificant member of a liturgical commission. He was nothing. Afterwards he became professor of liturgy at the Lateran. Pope John XXIII made him leave on account of his modernism and his progressivism. Hence surprise, surprise, and he is found again as President of the Commission for, Liturgical Reform. This is all the same, unbelievable.

I had the occasion to see for myself what influence Fr. Bugnini had. One wonders how such a thing as this could have happened at Rome. At that time immediately after the Council, I was Superior General of the Congregation of the Fathers of the Holy Ghost and we had a meeting of the Superiors General at Rome. We had asked Fr. Bugnini explain to us what his New Mass was, for this was not at all a small event. Immediately after the Council was heard of the Normative Mass, the New Mass, the Novus Ordo. What did all this mean?

It had not been spoken of at the Council. What had happened? And so we asked Fr. Bugnini to come and explain himself to the 84 Superiors General who were united together, amongst whom I consequently was.

Fr. Bugnini, with much confidence, explained what the Normative Mass would be; this will be changed, that will be changed and we will put in place another Offertory. We will be able to reduce the communion prayers. We will be able to have several different formats for the beginning of Mass. We will be able to say the Mass in the vernacular tongue. We looked at one another saying to ourselves: “But it's not possible!"

He spoke absolutely, as if there had never been a Mass in the Church before him. He spoke of his Normative Mass as of a new invention.

Personally I was myself so stunned that I remained mute, although I generally speak freely when it is a question of opposing those with whom I am not in agreement. I could not utter a word. How could it be possible for this man before me to be entrusted with the entire reform of the Catholic Liturgy, the entire reform of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, of the sacraments, of the Breviary, and of all our prayers? Where are we going? Where is the Church going?

Two Superiors General had the courage to speak out. One of them asked Fr. Bugnini: “Is this an active participation, that is a bodily participation, that is to say with vocal prayers, or is it a spiritual participation? In any case you have so much spoken of the participation of the faithful that it seems you can no longer justify Mass celebrated without the faithful. Your entire Mass has been fabricated around the participation of the faithful. We Benedictines celebrate our Masses without the assistance of the faithful. Does this mean that we must discontinue our private Masses, since we do not have faithful to participate in them?"

I repeat to you exactly that which Fr. Bugnini said. I have it still in my ears, so much did it strike me: “To speak truthfully we didn't think of that," he said!

Afterwards another arose and said: "Reverend Father, you have said that we will suppress this and we will suppress that, that we will replace this thing by that and always by shorter prayers. I have the impression that your new Mass could be said in ten or twelve minutes or at the most a quarter of an hour. This is not reasonable. This is not respectful towards such an act of the Church."  Well, this is what he replied: "We can always add something." Is this for real? I heard it myself. If somebody had told me the story I would perhaps have doubted it, new I heard it myself.

Afterwards, at the time at which this Normative Mass began to be put into practice, I was so disgusted that we met with some priests and theologians in a small meeting. From it came the “Brief Critical Study,” which was taken to Cardinal Ottaviani. I presided that small meeting. We said to ourselves: “We must go and find the Cardinals. We cannot allow this to happen without reacting."

So I myself went to find the Secretary of State, Cardinal Cicognani, and I said to him: “Your Eminence, you are not going to allow this to get through, are you? It's not possible. What is this New Mass? It is a revolution in the Church, a revolution in the Liturgy."

Cardinal Cicognani, who was the Secretary of State of Pope Paul VI, placed his head between his hands and said to me: "Oh Monseigneur, I know well. I am in full agreement with you; but what can I do? Fr. Bugnini goes in to the office of the Holy Father and makes him sign what he wants." It was the Cardinal Secretary of State who told me this! Therefore the Secretary of State, the number two person in the Church after the Pope himself, was placed in a position of inferiority with respect to Fr. Bugnini. He could enter into the Pope's office when he wanted and make him sign what he wanted.

This can explain why Pope Paul VI signed texts that he had not read. He told Cardinal Journet that he had done this. Cardinal Journet was a deep thinker, Professor at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland, and a great theologian. When Cardinal Journet saw the definition of the Mass in the instruction, which precedes the Novus Ordo, he said: ”This definition of the Mass is unacceptable; I must go to Rome to see the Pope." He went and he said: “Holy Father you cannot allow this definition. It is heretical. You cannot leave your signature on a document like this." The Holy Father replied to him (Cardinal Journet did not tell me himself but he told someone who repeated it to me): ”Well, to speak truthfully I did not read it. I signed it without reading it."  Evidently, if Fr. Bugnini had such an influence on him it's quite possible. He must have said to the Holy Father: ”You can sign it". "But did you look it over carefully". ”Yes, you can go ahead and sign it." And he signed.

But this document did not go through the Holy Office. I know this because Cardinal Seper himself told me that he was absent when the Novus Ordo was edited and that it did not pass by the Holy Office. Hence it is indeed Fr. Bugnini who obtained the Pope's signature and who perhaps constrained him. We do not know, but he had without a doubt an extraordinary influence over the Holy Father.

A third fact, of which I was myself the witness, with respect to Fr. Bugnini is also astonishing. When permission was about to be give for Communion in the hand (what a horrible thing!), I said to myself that I could not sit by without saying anything. I must go and see Cardinal Gut -a Swiss -who was Prefect of the Congregation for Worship. I therefore went to Rome, where Cardinal Gut received me in a very friendly way and immediately said to me: "I'm going to make my second-in- charge, Archbishop Antonini, come that he also might hear what you have to say."

As we spoke I said: "Listen, you who are responsible for the Congregation for Worship, are you going to approve this decree which authorizes Communion in the hand? Just think of all the sacrileges, which it is going to cause. Just think of the lack of respect for the Holy Eucharist, which is going to spread throughout the entire Church. You cannot possibly allow such a thing to happen. Already priests are beginning to give Communion in this manner. It must be stopped immediately. And with this New Mass they always take the shortest canon, that is the second one, which is very brief"

At this, Cardinal Gut said to Archbishop Antonini, "See, I told you this would happen and that priests would take the shortest canon so as to go more quickly and finish the Mass more quickly."

Afterwards Cardinal Gut said to me: "Monseigneur, if one were to ask my opinion (when he said "one" he was speaking of the Pope, since nobody was over him except the Pope), but I'm not certain it is asked of me (don't forget that he was Prefect for the Congregation for Worship and was responsible for everything which was related to Worship and to the Liturgy!), but if the Pope were to ask for it, I would place myself on my knees, Monseigneur, before the Pope and I would say to him: 'Holy Father do not do this; do not sign this decree.' I would cast myself on my knees, Monseigneur. But I do not know that I will be asked. For it is not I who command here."

This I heard with my own ears. He was making allusion to Bugnini, who was the third in the Congregation for Worship. There was first of all Cardinal Gut, then Archbishop Antonini and then Fr. Bugnini, President of the Liturgical Commission. You ought to have heard that! Alas, you can now understand my attitude when I am told; you are a dissident and disobedient rebel.


Yes, I am a rebel. Yes, I am a dissident. Yes, I am disobedient to people like those Bugninis. For they have infiltrated themselves into the Church in order to destroy it. There is no other explanation.

Are we then going to contribute to the destruction of the Church? Will we say: "Yes, yes, amen'; even if it is the enemy who has penetrated right to the Holy Father and who is ableot; make the Holy Father sign what he wants? We don't really know under what pressure he did it. There are hidden things, which clearly escape us. Some say that it is Freemasonry. It's possible. I do not know. In any case, there is a mystery.

How can a priest who is not a Cardinal, who is not even a Bishop, who was still very young at the time and who was elevated against the will of Pope John XXIII (who had chased him from the Lateran University), how can such a priest go to the very top without taking any account of the Cardinal Secretary of State, nor of the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Worship? How can he go directly to the Holy Father and make him sign what he wants? Such a thing has never before been seen in the Holy Church. Everything should go through the authorities. That is why there are Commissions. Files are studied. But this man was all powerful!

It was he who brought in Protestant pastors to change our Mass. It was not Cardinal Gut. It was not the Cardinal Secretary of State. It was perhaps not even the Pope. It was him. Who is this man Bugnini? One day the former Abbot of St. Paul Outside the Walls, a Benedictine who had preceded Fr. Bugnini as head of the Liturgical Commission, said to me: "Monseigneur, do not speak to me of Fr. Bugnini. I know too much about him. Do not ask me about him." I replied: "But tell me. I must know it. The truth must be uncovered." It is probably he who asked John XXIII to send him away from the Lateran University.

All of these things show us that the enemy has penetrated right within the Church, as St. Pius X already said. He is in the highest places, as Our Lady of La Salette announced, and as without a doubt the third secret of Fatima tells us.

Well, if the enemy is truly within the Church, must we obey him? "Yes, for he represents the Pope," is a frequent answer. First of all we do not know this at all, for we do not know exactly what the Pope thinks.

I have, all the same, some personal proofs that Pope Paul VI was very much influenced by Cardinal Villot. It has been said that Cardinal Villot was a Freemason. I do not know. There are some strange facts. Letters of Freemasons addressed to Cardinal Villot have been photocopied. I do not have the proof of it. In any case, Cardinal Villot had a considerable influence over the Pope. He concentrated all power at Rome within his own hands. He became the master much more than the Pope. I do know that everything had to go through him.

One day I went to see Cardinal Wright with respect to the Canadian Catechism. I said to him: "Look at this catechism. Are you aware of those little books, which are entitled 'Purture'? It's abominable that children are taught to break away. They must break with their family, with society, with tradition. ..this is the catechism, which is taught to the children of Canada with the Imprimatur of Monseigneur Couderc. It's you who are responsible for catechism in the entire world. Are you in agreement with this catechism?" "No, no," he said to me: "This catechism is not Catholic" -"It is not Catholic! Then immediately tell the Canadian Bishops' Conference. Tell them to stop and to throw this catechism in the fire and to take up the true catechism." His answer was: "How can I oppose myself to a Bishops' Conference?"

I then said: "It's over and done with. There is no more authority in the Church. It's over and done with. If Rome can no longer say anything to a Bishops' Conference, even if it is in the process of destroying children's Faith, then it's the end of the Church."

That is where we are now. Rome is afraid of the Bishops' Conferences. These conferences are abominable. In France the Bishops' Conference has been involved in a campaign in favor of contraception. The Socialist Government, which is constantly advertising on the television the slogan: "Take the pill so as to prevent abortions," got them involved, I think. They had nothing better to do than push crazy propaganda in favor of the pill. The cost of the pill is reimbursed for girls of only twelve years, so as to avoid abortion! And the bishops approve! Official documents in favor of contraception can be found in the Tulle diocese bulletin, which is my former diocese, and which bulletin I continue to receive This came from Bishop Bruneau, a former Superior General of the Sulpicians. He is supposedly one of the best Bishops of France. It's like that!


What should I do? I am told: "You must obey. You are disobedient. You do not have the right to continue doing what you are doing, for you divide the Church."

What is a law? What is a decree? What obliges to obedience? A law, Leo XIII says, is the ordering of reason to the common good, but not towards the common evil. This is so obvious that if a rule is ordered towards an evil, then it is no longer a law. Leo XIII said this explicitly in his encyclical "Libertas." A law, which is not for the common good, is not a law. Consequently one is not obliged to obey it.

Many canon lawyers at Rome say that Bugnini's Mass is not a law. There was no law for the New Mass. It is simply an authorization, or a permit. Let us accept, for argument's sake, that there was a law, which came from Rome, an ordering of reason to the common good and not to the common evil. But the New Mass is in the process of destroying the Church, of destroying the Faith. It's obvious. The Archbishop of Montreal, Archbishop Grgoire, in a letter, which was published, was very courageous. He is one of the rare bishops who dared write a letter in which he denounced the evils of which the Church of Montreal is suffering. "We are greatly saddened to see parishes abandoned by a great number of the faithful. We attribute this, in great part, to the liturgical reform." He had the courage to say it.

We are in the presence of a true plot within the church on the part of the Cardinals themselves, such as Cardinal Knox, who made that famous inquiry concerning the Tridentine Latin Mass throughout the entire world. It was a clear and obvious lie, so as to influence Pope John Paul II that he might say: "If there are such a small number who want Tradition, it will fall away by itself. His investigation was worth nothing." Yet the Pope, at the time that he received me in audience in November of 1978, was ready to sign an agreement according to which priests could celebrate the mass they choose. He was ready to sign that.

But there is at Rome a group of Cardinals bitterly opposed to Tradition. Cardinal Casaroli the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Religious and Cardinal Baggio, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops who has the very important responsibility of nominating bishops, are amongst them. Then there is the infamous Virgilio Noe who is the second-in- charge for the Congregation for Worship and who is perhaps worse even than Bugnini. And then there is Cardinal Hamer, the Belgian Archbishop who is second in charge of the Holy Office, who comes from the region of Loops and is imbued with all the modern ideas of Louvain. They were bitterly opposed to Tradition. They did not want to hear us speak about it. I believe that they would have strangled me if they could.





© Copyright 2004, Christ or Ch"os, Inc. All rights reserved.