Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                May 1, 2012



"Yer Durn Tootin'"

by Thomas A. Droleskey

George Francis Hayes was born on May 7, 1885, in Stannards, New York. He retired to Baldwin, Long Island, New York, at the age of forty-three in 1928 after having made a great deal of money in vaudeville. His wife, Olive Ireland Hayes, convinced him to return to acting in 1929 after he lost his fortune as a result of the stock market crash on October 29, 1929. The couple, who were married on March 4, 1914, moved to Los Angeles, California, whereupon George Francis Hayes was cast in a number of motion pictures, most of them Westerns, a genre he did not particularly like, something that he would do very steadily for the next twenty-one years.

Although George Francis Hayes came to be associated as a grizzled Western sidekick who was made up to look much older than his years (until those years caught up with him when he was the host of a "wrap around" television show between 1950 and 1954 and then again in 1956), he was a stately, well-spoken Catholic gentleman. Most people knew him by the nickname he adopted after one he had used in nineteen Hopalong Cassidy motion pictures between 1935 and 1939 (he also appeared as three other characters early in the series). As Paramount Pictures, which owned the rights to the "Windy Halliday" character he played alongside William Boyd's Hopalong Cassidy, George Francis Hayes, who went on to make a number of motion pictures with Roy Rogers and Gene Autry and others after he left Paramount in a contract dispute following the production of The Renegade Trail in 1939, adopted the name of a new character: "Gabby Whitaker." In time, of course, he became known as "Gabby" Hayes.

Gabby Hayes, who died on February 9, 1969, had a number of stock phrases that he popularized. One of them was "Yer durn tootin'!" when he wanted to emphasize a particular point. It is with this in mind that I chose the title for this article, which reprises a lot of material readers (there are some of you still reading these articles, right?--some, maybe), as the following report, found on the Rorate Caeli blogspot, contains an interesting statement by a priest in the Society of Saint Pius X:


From the May 2012 issue of Le Seignadou - a text written by Father Michel Simoulin, FSSPX, chaplain of the schools of the Traditional Dominican Sisters of Fanjeaux (France) and former  (1988-1996) director of the International Seminary of St. Pius X in Écône, Switzerland:


Following our Jubilee [pilgrimage] in the year 2000, Rome took the initiative of establishing new relations. Today, the same Cardinal, having become Pope, has told us that the Tridentine Mass has never been abrogated (July 7, 2007: "It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated"); he rehabilitated our four Bishops (January 21, 2009); he accepted that we pursue doctrinal discussions for two years... all things that Abp. Lefebvre did not demand in 1988. It is not an exaggeration to say that Bp. Fellay achieved more than what Abp. Lefebvre asked for, without having the latter's prestige or moral authority. Should we then be even more demanding than Abp. Lefebvre or Bp. Fellay?

Whatever the state of Rome may be, of all that still remains that is disturbing in Rome, plain common sense and honesty should lead us to consider the current situation with different eyes than those of 1988! Recalling the saying of one of our bishops, we cannot be "eighty-eighters"! We are neither in 1975 with Paul VI nor in 1988 with John Paul II, but in 2012 with Benedict XVI. It can be said as much as one may wish to that the state of the Church is still of great concern, that our Pope has a theology that is at times strange, etc... we have said it enough, it seems to me; but let it not be said that the state of things is the same as in 1988, or worse. This is contrary to the reality and to the truth, and it cannot but be the effect of a more or less secret refusal of any reconciliation with Rome, perhaps of a lack of faith in the holiness of the Church, composed of poor sinners but always governed by her head, Jesus Christ, and sanctified by the Holy Ghost. The Society of Saint Pius X is not the Church, and it can only "respect its founder's heritage" by preserving his spirit, his love for the Church and his desire of serving her as a loving son, with faithfulness to her founding blessings.

Nobody still knows the conclusion that Benedict XVI will wish to give to these twelve years of slow work, of seeking a better understanding, of amassed prayers and rosaries. The time is come for prayer, as Bp. Fellay has called us to do, and for trust in the Church. The Immaculate Virgin, whom we will particularly honor in this month of May, will find out how to obtain for us all graces necessary, if we wish for nothing else than the victory of her Son and of the Church.
( "We cannot be 88ers".)

"We can't be eighty-eighters"? Well, to this I say, invoking the memory of the late George Francis "Gabby" Hayes, "Yer durn tootin'!" we can be "eighty-eights. I mean this, however, to express agreement with Father Michel Simoulin. Not at all. I mean this, you see, to state that the exact opposite of what Father Simoulin contended is the case.

That is, things are worse now in 2012 than in 1988.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is worse than Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. He means to neutralize the "integrists" once and for all.

Why is there such a refusal to take the false pontiff at his word? He has told us precisely what he desires to do, which is nothing other than that which has happened to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter and the Society of John Mary Vianney and the Institute of the Good Shepherd and, even though they have not been officially "recognized" by the conciliar authorities as of yet despite their desire for such approval from them, the Transalpine Monks of Papa Stronsay Island off of the northern coast of Scotland on the island of Great Britain.

Once again, my good and few readers, here is a reminder of precisely what Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has said concerning his plans for in seeking a "reconciliation" with the Society of Saint Pius X, whose officials give every signal that such a rapprochement will take place despite all of the disbelief some of those who assist at the Society's chapels express about it:




Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith - ecumenism - is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light - this is inter-religious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love 'to the end' has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity - this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical 'Deus caritas est'.

"So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who 'has something against you' and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009.)

Fr Federico Lombardi, S.J., Director of the Holy See Press Office: What do you say to those who, in France, fear that the "Motu proprio' Summorum Pontificum signals a step backwards from the great insights of the Second Vatican Council? How can you reassure them?

Benedict XVI: Their fear is unfounded, for this "Motu Proprio' is merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar with it and want to live with this liturgy. They form a small group, because this presupposes a schooling in Latin, a training in a certain culture. Yet for these people, to have the love and tolerance to let them live with this liturgy seems to me a normal requirement of the faith and pastoral concern of any Bishop of our Church. There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and this liturgy.

On each day [of the Council], the Council Fathers celebrated Mass in accordance with the ancient rite and, at the same time, they conceived of a natural development for the liturgy within the whole of this century, for the liturgy is a living reality that develops but, in its development, retains its identity. Thus, there are certainly different accents, but nevertheless [there remains] a fundamental identity that excludes a contradiction, an opposition between the renewed liturgy and the previous liturgy. In any case, I believe that there is an opportunity for the enrichment of both parties. On the one hand the friends of the old liturgy can and must know the new saints, the new prefaces of the liturgy, etc.... On the other, the new liturgy places greater emphasis on common participation, but it is not merely an assembly of a certain community, but rather always an act of the universal Church in communion with all believers of all times, and an act of worship. In this sense, it seems to me that there is a mutual enrichment, and it is clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our time. (Interview of the Holy Father during the flight to France, September 12, 2008.)

Liturgical worship is the supreme expression of priestly and episcopal life, just as it is of catechetical teaching. Your duty to sanctify the faithful people, dear Brothers, is indispensable for the growth of the Church. In the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum”, I was led to set out the conditions in which this duty is to be exercised, with regard to the possibility of using the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962) in addition to that of Pope Paul VI (1970). Some fruits of these new arrangements have already been seen, and I hope that, thanks be to God, the necessary pacification of spirits is already taking place. I am aware of your difficulties, but I do not doubt that, within a reasonable time, you can find solutions satisfactory for all, lest the seamless tunic of Christ be further torn. Everyone has a place in the Church. Every person, without exception, should be able to feel at home, and never rejected. God, who loves all men and women and wishes none to be lost, entrusts us with this mission by appointing us shepherds of his sheep. We can only thank him for the honour and the trust that he has placed in us. Let us therefore strive always to be servants of unity! (Meeting with the French Bishops in the Hemicycle Sainte-Bernadette, Lourdes, 14 September 2008.)


What part of this is unclear, Father Michel Simoulin? Explain what part of this is difficult to understand? Your "pope" was asking his conciliar "bishops" in your own country, France, Father Simoulin, to have "patience" with the Society of Saint Pius X as the process of "pacification of spirits" takes place. Why is this so difficult to understand? How is this any different that the attitude exhibited by Bishop Fernando Rifan that was criticized by Bishop Bernard Fellay, your own Superior General, in 2004 as follows:




I may say that there is even a step before. Before that, he goes with the diocesan Corpus Christi procession, and he says to those who oppose it, "If we would not have done that, we would have jeopardized the agreement with Rome." It shows you the direction.

The next step will be the jubilee of the diocese of Campos. For that occasion, of course, the local bishop is having a great ceremony, and Rome invites Bishop Rifan to go to that New Mass, to be there. And Bishop Rifan goes there. He does not participate in the sense of concelebrating the Mass, but he is there present with all his ecclesiastical ornaments, with a surplice and so on. He is really there at this New Mass.

The next step will be the Requiem [i.e., the Novus Ordo "Resurrection"] Mass for the bishop who had kicked them out, Bishop Navarro. At that Requiem Mass, you have Bishop Rifan there, and also the nuncio. The nuncio invites Bishop Rifan to go to Communion, and Bishop Rifan receives Communion at this New Mass.

The next step will be the Mass of Thanksgiving of the new cardinal of Sao Paolo. This time, Bishop Rifan is there again present at that New Mass; he is in the choir. He is not in his surplice; nevertheless, at the time of consecration, with the other priests and bishops celebrating, he raises his hands and says the words of consecration. A seminarian saw him.

And now, the 8th of September this year, we have photos and even a video of the Mass concelebrated by Bishop Rifan on the occasion of the centennial of the coronation of Our Lady of the Aparecida, who is the patroness of Brazil. He is concelebrating the New Mass, a New Mass where you have really scandalous happenings: ladies giving Communion in the hand, a ceremony of coronation where, among all the cardinals and bishops, there is a lady who is crowning our Lady, and so on. Trying to defend himself, he said "But I did not say the words of consecration." I may say, that makes it even worse, because that means he is cheating.

That’s the evolution: now he is two years a bishop, and he is already concelebrating the New Mass. You see, and that is the natural development which was announced from the start by the officials in Rome, Cottier, now Cardinal Cottier and Msgr. Perl. At the time of the agreement between Campos and Rome, Cottier said: "Now they have recognized the Council. The next step will be the new Mass." He even said, "There is a natural, psychological dynamic." And you see in Bishop Rifan a real, natural, clear demonstration of this phrase. (EXTRACT from Bishop Fellay's November 10, 2004 conference in Kansas City, MO regarding Bishop Rifan's actions.)


Father Michel Simoulin was dishonest, perhaps first of all to himself, by quoting Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict  XVI's explanatory letter that accompanied the issuance of Summorum Pontificum on July 7, 2007, as the man who wrote as "Pope" Benedict XVI that there had been no "rupture" in the liturgy had written precisely the opposite as Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger:




What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it--as in a manufacturing process--with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, oppose this falsification, and thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a true liturgy. As a man who knew and loved history, he showed us the multiple forms and paths of liturgical development; as a man who looked at history form the inside, he saw in this development and its fruit the intangible reflection of the eternal liturgy, that which is not the object of our action but which can continue marvelously to mature and blossom if we unite ourselves intimately with its mystery. (Joseph Ratzinger, Preface to the French language edition of Monsignor Klaus Gamber's The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.)

The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic. It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.

But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth. thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer living development but the produce of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused an enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something "made", not something given in advance but something lying without our own power of decision. (Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones.)

Even though Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, the apostle of the "new theology" that is wrapped in enigmas and contradictions and paradoxes because of its contemptuous rejection of Scholasticism, contradicted himself in his Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum by stating that "In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture," he did take the opposite view before issuing Summorum Pontificum on July 7, 2007, which has the likes of Bishop Fellay and Father Michel Simoulin and others in the Society of Saint Pius X and others who were longtime critics--in their own published words on numerous occasions--of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes" and the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service doing their own handstands and spin-doctoring in behalf of concilairism ever since.

No rupture?

What about a frontal lobotomy?

Has Ratzinger/Benedict's lifelong warfare against the nature of dogmatic truth robbed such men of their own ability to reason properly and to accept the evidence that this Modernist has put before their very eyes?

Things are better now than in 1988?

Has Ratzinger/Benedict abjured any of his defections from the Holy Faith on such matters as the nature of dogmatic truth, false ecumenism, the new ecclesiology, episcopal collegiality, religious liberty, separation of Church and State or Modernist Scriptural exegesis? Has he abjured a single one of the errors contained in his "private" books that have been issued in the past seven years since his election to succeed Karol Wojtyla/John Paul as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism?

Has not "Pope" Benedict XVI continued giving great offense to God by entering into places of false worship and treating them as though they are "sacred" in the eyes of God?

Has not "Pope" Benedict XVI offended God and misled souls repeatedly by esteeming the symbols of false religions with his own priestly hands by giving "joint blessings" with the non-ordained "clergy" of various Protestant sects and with the heretical and schismatic Orthodox?

Has not "Pope" Benedict XVI offended God and thus harmed the good of souls, both eternally and temporally, by rejecting what he calls disparagingly "the ecumenism of the return" and insisting that adherents of false religions can use the "tenets" of their sects to help "build" a better world and to provide for world peace?

Do not these--and many other--things offend God and harm souls, Father Simoulin?

Well, we await your answer.

Still waiting, Father. Still waiting.

Where is there any precedent for this at any time in the history of the Catholic Church. Where? Not even the Arians who were fought by Saint Athanasius dared to touch the Sacred Liturgy, which Ratzinger/Benedict himself wants to transform into the late Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's "cosmic liturgy."

Not so?

Once again, Father Simoulin, we have been told that it is so:




This is precisely the content of the first part of the prayer that follows: "Let Your Church offer herself to You as a living and holy sacrifice". This request, addressed to God, is made also to ourselves. It is a reference to two passages from the Letter to the Romans. We ourselves, with our whole being, must be adoration and sacrifice, and by transforming our world, give it back to God. The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host. And let us pray the Lord to help us become priests in this sense, to aid in the transformation of the world, in adoration of God, beginning with ourselves. That our lives may speak of God, that our lives may be a true liturgy, an announcement of God, a door through which the distant God may become the present God, and a true giving of ourselves to God. (Celebration of Vespers with the faithful of Aosta, Italy - 24 July 2009.)

Anyone, Father Simoulin, who believes that "Pope" Benedict XVI did not mean these words is permitting himself to be fooled very badly, and that is to put things as charitably as possible.

Has Kurt "Cardinal" Koch, the President of the "Pontifical" Council for Promoting Christian Unity, received any kind of "papal" rebuke for uttering these words on May 17, 2011, at a conference on Summorum Pontificum in Rome?




VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI's easing of restrictions on use of the 1962 Roman Missal, known as the Tridentine rite, is just the first step in a "reform of the reform" in liturgy, the Vatican's top ecumenist said.

The pope's long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist, but to move toward a "common rite" that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said May 14.

In effect, the pope is launching a new liturgical reform movement, the cardinal said. Those who resist it, including "rigid" progressives, mistakenly view the Second Vatican Council as a rupture with the church's liturgical tradition, he said.

Cardinal Koch made the remarks at a Rome conference on "Summorum Pontificum," Pope Benedict's 2007 apostolic letter that offered wider latitude for use of the Tridentine rite. The cardinal's text was published the same day by L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper.

Cardinal Koch said Pope Benedict thinks the post-Vatican II liturgical changes have brought "many positive fruits" but also problems, including a focus on purely practical matters and a neglect of the paschal mystery in the Eucharistic celebration. The cardinal said it was legitimate to ask whether liturgical innovators had intentionally gone beyond the council's stated intentions.

He said this explains why Pope Benedict has introduced a new reform movement, beginning with "Summorum Pontificum." The aim, he said, is to revisit Vatican II's teachings in liturgy and strengthen certain elements, including the Christological and sacrificial dimensions of the Mass.

Cardinal Koch said "Summorum Pontificum" is "only the beginning of this new liturgical movement."

"In fact, Pope Benedict knows well that, in the long term, we cannot stop at a coexistence between the ordinary form and the extraordinary form of the Roman rite, but that in the future the church naturally will once again need a common rite," he said.

"However, because a new liturgical reform cannot be decided theoretically, but requires a process of growth and purification, the pope for the moment is underlining above all that the two forms of the Roman rite can and should enrich each other," he said.

Cardinal Koch said those who oppose this new reform movement and see it as a step back from Vatican II lack a proper understanding of the post-Vatican II liturgical changes. As the pope has emphasized, Vatican II was not a break or rupture with tradition but part of an organic process of growth, he said.

On the final day of the conference, participants attended a Mass celebrated according to the Tridentine rite at the Altar of the Chair in St. Peter's Basilica. Cardinal Walter Brandmuller presided over the liturgy. It was the first time in several decades that the old rite was celebrated at the altar. (Benedict's 'reform of the reform' in liturgy to continue, cardinal says.)

The "1962 Missal" to which the Society of Saint Pius X is so attached, Father Simoulin, was only in effect worldwide in the Roman Rite of the conciliar church from 1961, when the changes made in 1960 by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, who abolished feasts such as the one that fully traditional Catholics celebrate today, the Feast of the Finding of the Holy Cross (the upcoming feast of Saint John before the Latin Gate, to be celebrated this year on Monday, May 6, and the Apparition of Saint Michael the Archangel, which is is celebrated two days later, Wednesday, May 8), went into effect (the change made in 1962 was the insertion of the name of Saint Joseph into the Canon of the Mass, thus breaking the Canon that had been by Pope Saint Gregory the Great after he arranged sixteen words in the Hanc Igitur at the end of the Sixth Century, until its being replaced by the Ordo Missae of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI on the First Sunday of Advent, November 30, 1964. The supposed "gold standard" of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition represented by the modernized "1962 Missal" was only in place for all of three years before it was supplanted. It was chosen as the "approved" missal for use by groups that desire the approbation of conciliar authorities precisely because there had been enough changes and enough "simplifications" made to the true Roman Rite of the Catholic Church as to render it "safe" in the eyes of the conciliar revolutionaries. Even this "gold standard," however, is going to go "bye-bye on the choo-choo" that is the 'cosmic liturgy" express. (Readers with a sense of humor will appreciate the fact that the phrase "he went bye-bye on the choo-choo" comes from the Hopalong Cassidy motion picture North of the Rio Grande, which was released in 1937. See Memorable quotes from North of the Rio Grande and scroll down to the very last quote.)

What about adherents of the Talmud, Father Simoulin? Is the Society of Saint Pius X going to completely "sanitize" or, to use a phrase coined by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and used repeatedly by Ratzinger/Benedict, or "purify" its "memory" by removing those expressions of the immutable Catholic teaching concerning the Jews that offend the tender, Christophobic sensibilities of the likes of the director of governmental affairs for the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Mark Weitzman? Here's a link to his article, which will be the subject of a commentary tomorrow, Friday, May 4, 2012, the Feast of Saint Monica and the First Friday of the Month of May, the month of Our Lady: Benedict and the Society of St. Pius X.

Well, this is quite enough, I believe.

Things are worse than in 1988. The current conciliar "pontiff" has been unapologetic in his support of things that many millions of Catholics gave up their lives rather than give even the appearance of approving.

Yer durn tootin' things are worse now than in 1988. Far worse.

Summorum Pontificum has been a trap from its outset nearly five years ago, something that has been pointed out consistently on this site, including on the very day of its issuance. Statements such as Father Michel Simoulin's are simply proof that this is so.

Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., provided us with a reflection on the life of Saint Athanasius, whose feast was commemorated yesterday, May 2, 2012, on the Octave Day of the Solemnity of Saint Joseph in Paschaltide, that should inspire us to reject the revolutionaries of Modernity and Modernism just as Saint Athanasius reject the Arians, making no compromise in the slightest to those who are enemies of Christ the King and thus of the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of Holy Cross:




The Court of our divine King, during his grandest of seasons, is brilliant beyond measure; and to-day, it is gladdened by the arrival of one of the most glorious champions of the world of truth for his holy cause. Among the guardians of the word of truth, confided by Jesus to the earth, is there one more faithful than Athanasius? Does not his very name remind us of dauntless courage in the defense of the sacred deposit, of heroic firmness and patience in suffering, of learning, of talent, of eloquence--in a word, of everything that goes to from a Saint, a Bishop, and a Doctor of the Church? Athanasius lived for the Son of god; the cause of the Son of God was that of Athanasius; he who blessed Athanasius, blessed the eternal Word; and he who insulted Athanasius insulted the eternal Word.

Never did our holy faith go through a greater ordeal than in the sad times immediately following the peace of the Church, when the bark of Peter had to pass through the most furious storm that hell has, so far, let loose against her. Satan had vainly sought to drown the Christian race in a sea of blood; the sword of persecution had grown blunt in the hands of Diocletian and Galerius; and the Cross appeared in the heavens, proclaiming the triumph of Christianity. Scarcely had the Church become aware of her victory when she felt herself shaken to her very foundation. Hell sent upon the earth a heresy which threatened to blight the fruit of three hundred years of martyrdom. Arius began his impious doctrine, that he who had hitherto been adored as the Son of God was only a creature, though the most perfect of all creatures. Immense was the number, even of the clergy, that fell into this new error; the Emperors became its abettors; and had not God himself interposed, men would soon have set up the cry throughout the world that the only result of the victory gained by the Christian religion was to change the object of idolatry, and put a new idol, called Jesus, in place of the old ones.

But he who had promised that the gates of hell should never prevail against his Church, faithfully fulfilled his promise. The primitive faith triumphed; the Council of Nicaea proclaimed the Son to be consubstantial with the Father; but the Church stood in need of a man in whom the cause of the consubstantial Word should be, so to speak, incarnated--a man with learning enough to foil the artifices of heresy, and with courage enough to bear every persecution without flinching. This man was Athanasius; and everyone that adores and loves the Son of God, should love and honour Athanasius. Five times banished from his See of Alexandria, he fled for protection to the West, which justly appreciated the glorious confessor of Jesus' divinity. In return for the hospitality accorded him by Rome, Athanasius gave her of his treasures. Being the admirer and friend of the great St. Antony, he was a fervent admirer of the monastic life, which, by the grace of the Holy Ghost, had flourished so wonderfully in the deserts of his vast patriarchate. He brought the precious seed to Rome, and the first monks seen there were the ones introduced by Athanasius. The heavenly plant became naturalized in its new soil; and though its growth was slow at first, it afterwards produced fruit more abundantly than it had ever done in the East.

Inspiring words for our own day. May Saint Athanasius help us to persevere in our unswerving fealty to the Holy Faith without any concessions made to conciliarism whatsoever.

Today, May 3, 2011, is quite indeed the Feast of the Finding of the Holy Cross by Saint Helena, the mother of Emperor Constantine, who saw the Sign of the Cross in the sky along with the words "in this sign, you shall conquer" (In hoc signo vinces):




It was most just that our divine King should show himself to us with the sceptre of his power, to the end that nothing might be wanting to the majesty of his empire. This sceptre is the Cross; and Paschal Time was to be the season for its being offered to him in glad homage. A few weeks back, and the Cross was shown to us to be the instrument of our Emmanuel's humiliation and as the bed of suffering whereon he died; but has he not since then conquered Death? and what is his cross now but a trophy of his victory? Let it then be brought forth to our gaze and let every knee bend before this sacred Wood, whereby our Jesus won the honour and praise we now give him!

On the day of his birth at Bethlehem we sang these words of the Prophet Isaias: A child is born unto us, and a son is given unto us, and his government is upon his shoulder. We have seen him carrying this Cross upon his shoulder; as Isaac carried the wood for his own immolation; but now it is no longer a heavy burden. It is shining with a brightness that ravishes the eyes of the angels; and after having received the veneration of man as long as the world lasts, it will suddenly appear in the clouds of heaven, near the Judge of the living and the dead--a consolation to them that have loved it, but a reproach to such as have treated it with contempt or forgetfulness.

Our Saviour did not think the time between his Resurrection and Ascension a fitting one for glorying the instrument of his victory. The Cross was not to be brought into notice until it had subjected the world to him whose glory it so eloquently proclaimed. Jesus was three days in the tomb; his Cross is to lie buried, unknown to men, for three centuries: but it is to have its resurrection, and the Church celebrates this resurrection to-day. Jesus would, in his own good time, add to the joy of Easter by miraculously revealing to us this sacred monument of his love for mankind. He entrusts it to our keeping--it is to be our consolation--as long as the world lasts: is it not just that we should love and venerate it?

Never had Satan's pride with such a humiliation as when he saw the instrument of our perdition made the instrument of our salvation. As the Church expresses it in her Preface for Passiontide: 'He that overcame mankind by a Tree, was overcome by a Tree." Thus foiled, he vented his fury upon this saving Wood, which so bitterly reminded him both of the irresistible power of his conqueror and of the dignity of man who had been redeemed at so great a price. He would fain have annihilated the Cross; but knowing that this was beyond his power, he endeavoured to profane it, and hide it from view. He therefore instigated the Jews to bury it. At the foot of Calvary, not far from the sepulchre, was a deep hole. Into this was the Cross thrown, together with those of the two thieves, the Nails, the Crown of Thorns, and the Inscription or Title written by Pilate. The hole was then filled up with rubbish and earth, and the Sanhedrin exulted in the thought its having effaced the memory of the Nazarene. who could not save himself from the ignominious death of the Cross.

Forty years after this, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, the instruments of God's vengeance. The Holy Places were desecrated by idolaters. A small temple to Venus was erected on Calvary, and another to Jupiter over the Holy Sepulchre. By this, the pagans intended derision; whereas, they were perpetuating the knowledge of two spots of most sacred interest. When peace was restored under Constantine, the Christians had but to remove these pagan monuments, and their eyes behold the holy ground that had been bedewed with the Blood of Jesus, and the glorious Sepulchre. As to the Cross, it was not so easily found. The sceptre of our divine King was to be raised up from its tomb by a royal hand. The saintly Empress Helen, Constantine's mother, was chosen by heaven to pay to Jesus--and that, too, on the very spot where he had received his greatest humiliations--the honours which are due to him as the King of the world. Before laying the foundations of the Basilica of the Resurrection, this worthy follower of Magdalen and the other holy women of the sepulchre was anxious to discover the instrument of our salvation. The Jews had kept up the tradition of the site where it had been buried: the Empress had the excavations made accordingly. With what holy impatience she must have watched the works! and with what ecstasy of joy did she behold the redeeming Wood, which, though not at first distinguishable, was certainly one of the three Crosses that were found! She addressed a fervent prayer to the Saviour, who alone could reveal to her which was the trophy of his victory; the bishop, Macarinus, united his prayers with hers; and their faith was rewarded by a miracle that left them no doubt as to which was the true Cross.

This glorious work was accomplished and the Church was put in possession of the instrument of the world's Redemption. Both East and West were filled with joy at the news of this precious discovery, which heaven had set on foot, and which gave the last finish to the triumph of Christianity. Christ completed his victory over the pagan world by raising thus his standard--not a figurative one, but his own real standard--the Cross, which, up to that time, had been a stumbling-block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Gentiles; but before which every Christian is henceforth to bend his knee. . .

How dear, then, to us should this day be, which blends together the recollection of the Holy Cross and the joys of the Resurrection of that Jesus who by the Cross has won the throne to which we shall soon see him ascend! Let us thank our Heavenly Father for his having restored to mankind a treasure so immensely precious as is the Cross. Until the day comes for it to appear with himself in the clouds of heaven, Jesus has entrusted it to his Spouse, as a pledge of his second coming. On that day, he will collect together all the fragments by his divine power; and the tree of Life will then gladden the elect with its dazzling beauty, and invite them to eternal rest beneath its refreshing shade.

May we cling to the Cross of Our Divine Redeemer, praying as many Rosaries each day in this month of May as our state-in-life permits. The sufferings of this present life will pass. Christ the King will triumph over His enemies in our world of naturalism and in the the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Every extra moment we spend in prayer before Our King in the Most Blessed Sacrament and every extra set of mysteries of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary that we pray will help us to be more and more conformed to the likeness of Our Divine Redeemer, Who endured the Cross, heedless of Its shame, to redeem us and to make us members of His Catholic Church.

We must always remember that this is the time that God has appointed from all eternity for us to live and thus to sanctify and to save our immortal souls as members of the Catholic Church. The graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Lord's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flows into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces, are sufficient for us to handle whatever crosses--personal, social and ecclesiastical--that we are asked to carry. We must give thanks to God at all times for each of our crosses as we seek to serve Him through Our Lady in this time of apostasy and betrayal, remember the words in the sky that were seen by the son of Saint Helena, the Emperor Constantine: In hoc signo vinces, in this sign, you shall conquer.

Yes, in the Sign of the Cross we shall conquer as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, the Queen of Heaven and of Earth.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us now and the hour of our deaths. Amen.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Helena, pray for us.

Pope Saint Alexander and Companions, pray for us.

Saint Juvenal, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints




© Copyright 2012, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.