His Holiness Pius X - Addressing his remarks to the Bishops of the world, gravely calling their attention to the spreading apostacy even then evident, His Holiness Pius X made this remarkable prophecy in 1903: "All who consider these matters have a right to fear that such a perversion of mind may be the beginning of the evils predicted for the end of Time...and that in very truth the son of perdition, of whom the Apostle speaks, may have already appeared in our midst." February 1977 TO REGULAR READERS: This Introduction is, of course, new. And I have added several paragraphs, following "this of Paul 6 does not," of the last sentence in "Upon This Rock," which was mailed as Letter 18 in the first two weeks of January 1977; the time of this addition being several weeks later. All the other parts of this booklet are reprints of past papers. It is hoped that the additions will dispel some of the confusion I seem to have caused in the minds of those who read Letter 18 as it was published. CONTENTS Introduction The Enemy Within the Catholic Church The Case Against Pope Paul VI

Notes on the Vatican II Council The Case Against Pope Paul VI - Part Two The Mass of Paul VI (Why We Must Reject It) The New Religion The Holy Year and the Jews Paul VI Before the U.N.O. The First Vatican Council On the Antichrist Econe Upon This Rock Concluding Personal Note INTRODUCTION To arrive at a fairly complete understanding of the post Vatican II upheaval in the Catholic Church we must see working in it that "mystery of iniquity" of which St. Paul spoke in his time, and which Pope St. Pius X warned against from the beginning of his pontificate in 1903. In no other way can we reason to a doctrinally sound and complete explanation of the present state of the Church. The Church One, Holy, Apostolic and indestructable according to Christ's promise, has apparently become in our time a Church divided, unholy and nearly demolished, if we are to judge by the works of Paul VI and the recent Vatican Council. Such a phenomenon must have a place in Holy Scripture, and indeed we find predicted a Great Apostasy and a time of general spiritual blindness (St. Paul), an Antichrist, one "perfectly," totally opposed to Christ, and a time when Satan must be loosed for a time (St. John). In writing various papers on this general subject these past six years or so, I have attempted to place the main features of the current rebellion, to warn Catholics inclined to follow their natural leaders, the reverend Clergy, into apostasy. To this end the following chapters, selections from paper's of the present writer, have been assembled for convenient reading and possibly wider distribution. Can anyone be unaware today, as I mention in chapter one, that the Revolution in the Church and in the world go hand in hand...and this after a promise of a Great Renewal, an "opening to the world," from the Vatican II Council? What went wrong? The answer is that nothing went wrong, so far as the plans of the chief instigators behind the Council are concerned. Their plans are working out well indeed, surely beyond their expectations. The mistake of most Catholics was in taking this Great Renewal to mean an increase and heightening of Catholic religious faith, a reform of morals, an uplifting of minds and hearts to God. This is perhaps what the majority of the Council fathers had in mind. But the Council was seized at the beginning in all its important offices by a block of Northern European Bishops ("The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber," Wiltgen), organized in advance for this purpose, and who evidently were of the secret lodges of Europe whose avowed intention had been, down through the past century or so, to infiltrate the Vatican and the Chair of Peter itself. It is not necessary to explain to Catholic readers that men of this stamp do not intend a renewal of the Catholic spirit and practice. In the world at large was taking place, impeded mainly by the Catholic Church, a renewal of the old forms of paganism and tyranny (Communist), a re-emergence of the Beast, the secret world power put down upon the coming of Christ. It is this secret world power which, corrupting religion, family life, politics, education, and entertainment, is bringing about a return of the lowest forms of paganism. During the 16th Century a religious revolt broke off large sections of the population from the unity of the Catholic Christendom. The 20th Century Vatican II revolt apparently takes in most of those Catholic families and nations which had remained faithful until recently. (My father's family went with the 16th Century "Reform," my mother's will mostly go with the 20th Century "reforming mania" of Vatican II.) It is well

that we know something of the broad outlines of how this came about, so that earnest Catholics do not despair of the Faith, or, on the other hand, allow their hopes to be raised by false leaders who offer a substitute Church. Politically I see the situation as beyond salvaging without a great moral and religious true reform: "Without Me you can do nothing." The world's leaders with their Godless United Nations Organization can only compound the evil, which they do insanely, without compunction or fear of effective opposition. The secret world power long ago promised to penetrate the Vatican and never come out of it. We shall perhaps yet see about their never coming out; but that they have got in cannot be doubted by those who have eyes to see. The writer and publisher of these pages is an ordinary Catholic layman who when he saw nearly all those publishers who call themselves conservative, seemed mainly concerned to sweep certain facts of the Vatican II revolution, especially those pertaining to the responsibility of Pope Paul VI under the rug, began distributing his own papers. However, since nearly all the Clergy have gone along with the Revolution it is very difficult to get a hearing. The Catholic truths we once accepted without question are now rejected by the teachers of a New Orthodoxy. Taking no account of the strange accents of the New Clergy and teachers, the usual thing for Catholics today is to go along...the blind following the blind, right into the Synagogue, if need be, so as to be with the Majority. The so-called Catholic publishers show various faces, moderate to reform, but whatever mask one may wear for today may be changed tomorrow. All exclude the hard straight line of Catholic orthodoxy. Much of the truth may be found in small "Traditionalist" publications but here too it is well to remain skeptical for either wayward zeal or deliberate deception may lead the inquirer off the track, quite likely into schism at least. A few of the more attractive and seemingly orthodox "traditionalist" publications have hidden flaws: "The devil destroys the spiritual with the spiritual," says St. John of the Cross. During the years I have been observing the political scene I have learned to heed the advice of St. John of the Cross to test the spirits so as to be sure they are not of the devil. I am most careful about those who come along offering a Sacramental Solution to the current upheaval in the Church. It is with a recent offer of one of these Solutions that I end this collection of my papers. I end as I have always believed, and what nearly 2000 years of continued existence testifies to, that the Catholic Church by divine promise is indestructible, this regardless of what kind of man sits in the Papal Chair at any given time. To prepare the reader for some hard criticisms which follow, I think I ought to mention that for fifty or so years of my life until the Vatican II Council ended, I never once criticized or made an unkind remark about any priest, and certainly never about a bishop or pope. Such thoughts never entered my mind. Born in the time of Pope St. Pius X, I am grateful for all I have received. I do not complain now about what has happened since, but only warn that the chief promoters of the Reform are of the devil. THE ENEMY WITHIN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH From St. Peter's, Rome, September 1907, Pope Pius X sent to the Catholic bishop of the world his Encyclical Letter on the Doctrines of the Modernists, called "Pascendi." This masterly study is a key to the doctrinal omissions, distortions, ambiguities, and contradictions of the Vatican II New Church. More, even the methods of the present day Modernist hierarchy are indicated in this thorough work, so that seeming confusion between Pope and bishops is seen to be not confusion at all, but as consistent with or deriving from Modernist principles.

The Holy Father, Pius X, warned in 1907 that "the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuously they appear..." Pius X accounted them "the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For they put their designs for her ruin into operations not from without but from within." Defining their philosophy Pius X notes that the Modernists teach that all religion, the Catholic no exception, must be sought for in man, that it begins with a "special sentiment." According to their teaching on the Evolution of Dogma the Modernists believe that dogmas do not express absolute truth, but must be adapted to the religious sentiment in its relation to man. Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and as clearly flows from their principles, wrote Pius X. The Church itself, the Modernists say, derives from a concensus of the faithful, a "common conscience,' which gives authority to the Church to formulate doctrine. Authority, they say, is to be stimulated but not dethroned. Pope Pius X speaks of the Modernist as reformer: "From all that has proceeded (section on Subjective Arguments) some idea may be gained of the reforming mania which possesses them: in all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten." Surely Pius X speaks prophetically of Vatican II and its frenzied reform. Probably the identification of Modernism with Vatican II can most readily be seen in the current Ecumenism. On this subject the following from "Pascendi": "It is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that other doctrine of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held true...In the conflict between different religions, the most that the Modernists maintain is that the Catholic religion has more of truth because it is the more living..." By the usual half-truth, double-speak method, the Vatican II decrees maintain no more than this "more of the truth" doctrine of the Modernists. The Vatican II articles on Ecumenism mean what the old Modernists meant, that there exists something broader than the institutional Church for salvation. This hardly needs saying; the evidence of it is seen everywhere in practice. Concerning Vatican II, then, one should keep in mind these basic Modernist principles: (1) All religion originates in man, in human experience, (2) Dogma is subject to change, (3) Dogmas are only images, symbols of the truth, (4) Dogma is derived from a concensus, to be then imposed by the authorities, and (5) Doctrine and practice must be adapted to times and circumstances. These principles are a key to the Modernist Vatican II operation. They resolve the seeming confusions and contradictions of the Vatican II "New Church." Contradictions did I say? Modernist doctrine? Yes. "But when they justify even contradictions, what is it they will refuse to justify?" inquired Pius X. Thus Paul VI gives a traditional definition of the Mass in his CREDO, then a different, heretical definition in his New Ordo. He issues his Humanae Vitae, then accepts as satisfactory the autonomy-of-the-individual conscience statements from national councils of the bishops. Did those bishops present Paul with a consensus? No need to, really. Both an Ecumenical liturgy and the complete freedom-of-conscience thing follow from more basic Modernist principles, namely, that religion derives from and must be adapted to the varieties of human experience. What had to be avoided was an open, abrupt change from Catholic teaching. For while it is a Modernist principle that all things, including doctrine,

must change, most Modernists realize the folly of being too abrupt about it. To be abrupt, to go too fast is to leave behind that human experience which we call conservative or traditionalist. And it is likely to shock too many people, as Cardinal Heenan admitted publicly. Yes, the New Religion has something for everybody. It is intent on roping in all hands in good time, using the new liturgy as the chief instrument of propaganda. Something for everybody. Does Pope Paul not frequently cite orthodox Catholic teaching? He has even condemned Modernism in one of his weekly audiences. Does he not thereby depart from Modernist principles? In his "Pascendi," Pius X has the following concerning the dual character of the Modernists: "In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate now one doctrine, now another, so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful. But there is a reason for this, and it is to be found in their ideas as to the mutual separation of science and faith...When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they write history they pay no heed to the fathers and the Councils, but when they catechise the people, they cite them respectfully." But perhaps the reader is not yet convinced that the program of Vatican II derives from Modernist doctrines. I quote here from a Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911: "Modernism," the encyclopedia says, "is a remodeling, a renewal according to the ideas of the twentieth century---such is the longing that possesses the Modernist." And further one: "Modernism is a spirit of movement and change, with an inclination to a sweeping form of evolution such as abhors anything fixed and stationary." Could any description apply more aptly to the Vatican II program of change and "updating"? But let us get it from the horse's mouth, still quoting from the encyclopedia of 1911: "M. Loisy, one of the original leading Modernists, says: 'The avowed Modernists form a fairly definite group of thinking men united in the common desire to adapt Catholicism to the intellectual, moral and social needs of today'," which is the repeatedly stated program of Vatican II. I think enough testimony has been provided to show the origin of the Vatican II "New Church" in the Modernism which existed about a century ago, when both Pius IX and Pius X condemned it. Of the familiar features of the Vatican II Church the first, of course, is the emphasis on change, which is generally expressed as updating or renewal. And there is reform --the "reforming mania" Pius X spoke about: reform of the Liturgy, of canon law, of the Church's administration, and, in fact, of everything. We have too what they call collegiality, a sort of democratic give and take between Pope and bishops, the Modernist consensus. And adopting the religion of the modern secular Liberals, the social gospel is "In," to say nothing of constant agitation and what they call "confrontation." And, of course, World Brotherhood. (Everybody loves everybody else, or if he doesn't, he will soon be forced to.) The genuflection is out, the handshake in. Most notable is Ecumenism, that "understanding between the different Christian religions...even between religion and a species of atheism," to repeat from Pius X. The Ecumenist barters away supernatural truth for general agreement. + + + + + + + + + Before Vatican II, many ask how it is that the changes came so suddenly? If the program of Vatican II is all wrong, they inquire, how is it that seemingly all the bishops and most certainly the Pope, support it? The Modernist reform (for that is what it is) didn't happen suddenly, it only surfaced suddenly, so far as the average Catholic could see. Modernism worked slowly, from within, and did not come into the open until Vatican II, which was a Modernist fraud arranged to oppose the authentic de fide Councils, especially that of Trent. Prior to Vatican II the Modernists, or liberals as they were generally known, worked incessantly but with no outward show to get their men into key positions and finally to capture the Papacy itself.

"What efforts they make to win recruits!" Pius X exclaims. "They seize upon chairs in the seminaries and universities, and gradually make of them chairs of pestilence. From these sacred chairs they scatter, though not always openly, the seeds of their doctrines....They publish numbers of books, newspapers, reviews....they leave nothing untried in action, discourses, writing, as though there were a frenzy of propaganda upon them. We have to lament at the sight of so many young men, once full of promise and capable of rendering great service to the Church, now gone astray." Today this frenzy of propaganda, and of the Modernist promotion of a consensus, is out in the open. It can be seen in the post Vatican II multiplication of parish committees, study clubs, adult instruction classes; in diocesan commissions and councils. It began with the Vatican II so-called Dialogue. With it every Catholic teaching was put up for discussion, to be reformulated according to Modernist New catechisms. There is scarcely a Catholic doctrine which since Vatican II has not been distorted, or omitted from the "New Church" instruction manuals. Double-talk has become the standard method. "Can anybody who takes a survey of the whole system be surprised that We should define it as the synthesis of all heresies?" Pius X inquired. Surely this judgment applies today as it did in 1907, but now on a vast scale. In fact, its very size and completeness is what helps to render it incredible to the average Catholic. General agreement between Paul VI and his Modernist majority of bishops is helped along, surely by the Modernist principles of adaptation, evolution, consensus, etc. If dogmas are only symbols of the truth, necessarily changing in accordance with the times, then it follows there need not be any concern about unchanging Catholic truth, and therefore easy agreement. "What is truth?" asked Pilate. It is evident from the foregoing that I consider the Pope to be a Modernist. Speaking of the travesty of the Catholic Liturgy this man has foisted on the Church, a group of eminently qualified Catholic theologians say that "it teems with insinuations and manifest errors against the purity of the Catholic religion, and dismantles all defenses of the deposit of the Faith." In accordance with Modernist principles six non-Catholics (pall bearers of the Catholic Mass?) were called upon to collaborate in concocting Pope Paul's New Ordo, the Ecumenical Liturgy of Man. Paul VI is, quite plainly, a pope opposed to the Popes. That he sits today in the Chair of Peter is an ominous sign for the whole world. It is the chief exterior sign, aside from the general corruption of doctrine and morals that the Vatican II Church is dominated by the Enemy within. This is not to question Papal infallibility, which by definition is restricted to ex cathedra pronouncements on faith and morals. Speaking of the Modernist doctrine of evolution, of necessary change, I here quote the present Pope when Archbishop of Milan. "The order to which Christianity tends is not static but an order in continual evolution toward a higher form." That is heresy; Modernist heresy. The Church cannot have a higher form than that given to it by her divine Founder. The above quotation is from "Dialogues, Reflections on God and Man by Paul VI," by Msgr. John G. Clancy. The same author quotes Montini as saying, "The Church is seeking self knowledge," and that the Church "seeks to come into new contact with a world which appropriated to itself the principles of Christianity..." Isn't that absurd? Yet it is this kind of mentality that now occupies the Papal Office. Obviously we have here not a case of simple ignorance but of revolutionary purpose. Another Modernist quotation is from Paul VI as Pope. He spoke as follows on June 19, 1970 from the Vatican Palace. "The rapport of the Faithful with Christ has in Peter its minister, its interpreter, its guarantor. All must obey him (the Pope) in whatever he orders, if they wish to be associated with him in the new economy of the Gospel."

More plain heresy. There is not and cannot be a new economy of the Gospel. Only Modernists and liberal Protestants could dream up such a thing. This preachment of Paul's accords with the Modernist Vatican II principle of doctrinal evolution, or updating. Nor are we as Catholics bound to do whatever the Pope orders but only those things which are in conformity with Catholic traditional teaching. It is evident that a Modernist in the Papal Chair, bound only by a phony consensus, can by a tyrant. Consider how the fake new "mass" was deceptively imposed as a law (which it is not), on Pope Paul's simple "wish" that it be accepted, in disregard of the solemn decrees of former Popes and dogmatic Councils. But most close observers have an opposite opinion of Paul VI, that far from being a tyrant Paul is the soul of gentleness, inclined to leniency to the point of indecision. Does such an estimate fit in with my opinion of Paul VI was a man determined to change our religion? Pius X wrote that the Modernist is not doubtful but only appears so, such is his method of scattering the seeds of Modernist doctrine. A leading Progressivist spokesman wrote that Paul VI speaks for the right but acts for the left, and that actions are what count. Actually Paul VI seldom speaks unequivocally for the right, for Catholic orthodoxy; but he does always act for the left, that is, for the Progressives, the Liberals, the socialist revolution, as in his "Populorum Progressio" and foreign travel speeches. While Paul VI frequently cites Catholic teachings, he never acts against those who distort them. During his pontificate the notorious "Dutch Church" has spread like a pestilence over the whole world. In any event the radicals got the message, that the Pope is theirs, whereas most of the orthodox "right" refused to hear it. An instance of Paul's speaking for the right and acting for the left occurred recently, in connection with the controversy over the mutilated Consecration form---the "for all men" change. When silence on that subject ceased to be the best defense, Paul VI instructed that the traditional form must be used, but then proceeded to use the mutilated vernacular form himself in public "masses" in Italy and elsewhere. This mutilated form which Paul VI ostensibly condemned is everywhere in use today. When spreading the seeds of Modernist doctrine as Paul VI is wont to do, he could not fail to speak often of Man. He does so in the book, already quoted from by Msgr. Clancy. "Are you looking for God? You will find him in man." And, "Sin is an offense against man before it is an offense against God." And so this heresy is being taught today, that in confession the priest gives the forgiveness of the community. In L'Osservatore Romano (the official Vatican newspaper), 8 May 1969, appeared the following in boldface type: "There are no true riches but MAN!" --- Pope Paul VI." So much for Paul VI, Modernist. But do you say that good old Father John of St. Teilhard's is not a Modernist, nor is that impressive bishop of yours? By whatever name, if they are saying the phony new 'mass' and permitting the New heretical catechisms in the parish and diocese, they are doing the works of the Modernists. Pius X spoke of those who do not hold the full Modernist doctrines, and he said that even among those who did were men "of a certain merit." So the man needn't have horns to be doing the work of the devil. The revolution in the Church goes hand-in-hand with the revolution in the world. Modernism in the Church, Fabian socialism in England and the U.S. where it is deeply entrenched in the national governments, Communism in Russia and elsewhere, all developed through underground promotions, working from within, during the past century or so. All three are based on the same philosophy. Man,

they say, is sufficient to himself, he can and must make his heaven here on earth. This is the social gospel many Catholics have been persuaded to accept as essential Christianity. About the new church of Man, His Excellency A. De Castro Mayer, Bishop of Campos, Brazil, in his Pastoral Letter "Aggiornamento and Tradition," wrote that "The deep crisis of the Faith lies in the bosom of the Church and springs from a real conspiracy to destroy the Church, to form in its place a 'new Church,' which can only be a false religion....As modern philosophy over-estimates man, entitling him to everything, the 'new Church' establishes the Religion of Man. It embraces a natural religion based on psychological and sociological experiences..." Thus does Bishop Mayer speak of the essential Modernism of Man and experience, condemned by Pope St. Pius X but propagated by Paul VI. Bishop Mayer warns us in these unprecedented times, to beware of blind obedience to false Shepherds. "Such is the value of Tradition," he says, "that even the Encyclicals and other documents of the ordinary teaching of the Sovereign Pontiff are only infallible in the teachings confirmed by Tradition, or else by a continuous indoctrination, under various popes for a long time. If, therefore, an act of the ordinary teaching of a Pope disagrees with the teaching guaranteed by the Magisterial Tradition of several popes, for a considerable length of time, it should not be accepted." The Religion of Man is propagated by all modern means. One of its popular appeals is to Peace, but there is no peace, only agitation. "Peace" as constantly shouted today by every half-educated fool, simply means surrender--surrender to the forces striving to bring all mankind to a condition of state slavery. The Church's most persistent enemies have always contended that it was only religion, particularly the Catholic religion, by insisting on divinely revealed absolute truths, which obstructs a peace based on secular good fellowship. Presumably peace and the good life would follow from a worldwide brotherhood in which all men would be equal. And so it is that such words as "discrimination" and "prejudice" have taken on a special meaning. They are the capital sins of the Religion of Man. "Love" is another "relevant" word. As it is now commonly noised about literally no one takes it to mean or even to include the love of God. Man is now to be the sole object of love, which as conceived now is only sentiment and emotion. Quite certainly those who will openly oppose this new religion in the future will reap the hatred of the Love shouters, as they do even now in some degree. Pope Benedict XV warned in his time that "all the worst and most disoriented elements of society ardently desires the revolution." Long before Pope Benedict's time, the French revolutionaries set up the guillotine in the name of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. I have not had to search diligently through the Encyclical "Pascendi" of Pope Pius X to build up my case--that the Church today is in the grip of the evil thing Pius X condemned under the name of Modernism. The difficulty was what to leave out of so many significant paragraphs, and even whole sections, and to choose only a representative sampling from that key document of about 20,000 words. It is, as I have said, a document that can explain not only the present confused and corrupt state of the Church; it is a guide to current ecclesiastical double-speak. Should any young Modernist be perplexed and perhaps irritated by an apparently orthodox pronouncement by the Pope, or his Modernist majority of bishops, let him consult the Modernist principles as stated by Pope Pius X. There, doubtless, he will find the adaptation the situation demands. I will leave the reader with two more thoughts from Pius X on Modernism: "folly" and "universal apostasy." Pius X called their philosophy "folly" and said that these men were to be pitied. Surely the "New Church" is foolish enough for anyone's taste. And he forewarned against a universal apostasy, which would result should the Modernist doctrines spread unimpeded. That apostasy is upon us. ---------------------------------------------

"In our time more than ever before, the chief strength of the wicked lies in the cowardice and weakness of good men....All the strength of Satan's reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics. Oh! If I might ask the Divine Redeemer, as the prophet Zachary did in spirit: 'What are those wounds in the midst of thy hands?' The answer would not be doubtful: 'With these was I wounded in the house of them that loved me.' I was wounded by my friends who did nothing to defend me, and who, on every occasion, made themselves the accomplices of my adversaries. And this reproach can be leveled at the weak and timid Catholics of all countries." Pope St. Pius X, Discourse he pronounced on December 13, 1908 at the Beatification of Joan of Arc. THE CASE AGAINST POPE PAUL VI These pages are addressed to those Catholics who are going along reluctantly with the changes in the Church, to those who like the changes, and to those who detest them. They are intended especially for those who want to keep the Faith but who are being intimidated into gradually giving it up in the name of Vatican II changes and updating. Considering the fruits of Vatican II reform---nearly empty seminaries, priests and nuns leaving by the thousands, revolutionary catechisms and strange 'liturgies' --why does the Church continue to impose these changes on Her gradually dwindling number of active members? We were promised through Vatican II a Great Renewal. What happened to that? Pope Paul has hinted that the present "autodemolition," as he calls it, is the work of the Devil. But we were assured that Vatican II was a kind of New Pentecost, under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Is the Devil then more powerful than the Holy Spirit? Or did the Council Fathers mistake the kind of spirit that really moved the Council? It is apparent that the fruits of this Council are not of a kind one readily attributes to the Holy Spirit. Possibly the reader has been assured by his parish priest that nothing is amiss, that we are only experiencing technical difficulties, as the TV stations say, or that there are no difficulties at all--for, after all, doesn't everybody like the new things? The new liturgy is so much more fun, and all that. But Catholics should know that more fun or not, between 1964 and 1969 more than 13,450 have left the priesthood. So everything considered, it would seem that one could do better than to listen to the soothing assurances of a parish priest who really has no answers. It is better to look at the reality, what is being done and taught contrary to Catholic teaching, and by whom. In judging the works of Vatican II we have twenty centuries of Catholic truth as our guide. Contrary to what is being preached there is no "new economy of the gospel" --the words are Pope Paul's --which we must learn from Vatican II. The Vatican II "Pilgrim Church" seeking the world and its own identity is not a part of that truth, even if the present Pope did imply that it is in his pre-election writings. The Church "evolving into a higher form," which is another bit of Pope Paul's personal theology, is not a part of Catholic doctrine either, nor are the Vatican II doctrines on ecumenism, common worship, Church membership and religious liberty. Those who know the truths contained in their older pre-Vatican II catechisms know all they need to know for salvation. Change, Development, and the New Mass Unquestionably the dominant theme of Vatican II is that of change, which is put forth in a vague way by some apologists as development. But change should not be confused with doctrinal development, which is bringing to light new aspects of older known truths. That Mary was conceived without sin is one such truth. Another is that Christ, being God, truly and substantially present upon the altar after a valid

Consecration, is entitled to a central place of honor and special forms of adoration, not only during Mass and Communion but in His continuing Presence in the tabernacle. Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament, processions and specially composed prayers are a part of the worship called latria , due to the Triune God and the Sacred Humanity of Christ. But because they believed only in a temporary spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the protestant Reformers substituted a table for the altar and abolished the forms of adoration of Christ's Real Presence. The same thing is being done today by the Vatican II reformers, with this difference: these reformers, the Modernists and their fellow travelers, refuse to leave the Church but work unceasingly from within to change it. Anyway the special form of homage paid to Christ in the Blessed Sacrament outside of Mass is according to a truth derived from doctrinal development. From this example it should be apparent that not only are change and development of doctrine not the same, but also "how intimate is the bond which unites faith with worship," as Pope Leo XIII said in his Apostolicae Curae. Lex credendi, lex orandi, the law of belief is the law of prayer, is the well known formula, a truth of our Faith. How utterly out of accord with this law then is what today passes for Catholic Liturgy, Pope Paul's New Ordo which prominent Protestant ministers have said they can perform without deviating from their Protestant beliefs. This is not surprising since six Protestant ministers helped to piece together this strange new 'mass.' A group of Catholic theologians, including Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, have, as a result of their thorough analysis, concluded that "the New Ordo does not present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent to which the Catholic conscience is bound forever." They say too that it contains "countless errors and insinuations against the purity of Catholic doctrine, and removes all defenses of the Catholic Faith." This analysis accompanied by a letter was given to Pope Paul VI, who did not attempt to explain or deny specific heresies and ambiguities, the theologians pointed out, but passed it off with a few general remarks. But note this carefully: the Protestant ministers and the Cardinal Ottaviani group of theologians agreed that the New Ordo, the so called New Mass, is not in accordance with the Catholic doctrine. L'Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, had said in its issue of Oct. 1967 that "We are moving toward Lutheran liturgical reforms." Acting as the Pope's legate at Lutheran congresses, Cardinal Willebrands affirmed an affinity between the train of Luther's ideas and those of the Second Vatican Council. Besides the Lutheran "spiritual presence" or transignification doctrine, mutilation of the Form of the Consecration of the Wine, and many other heresies as shown by competent theologians, the innovators have substituted a narration for the Act of Consecration, which surely destroys its validity. (See "The New Mass Invalid Because of Defect of Intention," by W.F. Strojie) Like all so called reformers the Vatican II "updaters" contradict themselves by demanding a return to primitive purity. But this radical rejection of centuries of liturgical development is a heresy in itself, attributing, as the reformers do, centuries of error to the Teaching Church, and in particular to the great Council of Trent which condemned the very errors now being imposed by Pope Paul VI. Dom Prosper Gueranger in his institutions Liturgiques , called this the "anti-liturgical heresy." There is much more I could write on this subject of the new liturgy---about how the "updater"--back-to-antiquity crowd only managed to get back to Luther's and Cranmer's 16th Century, and how many others of that crowd have only gone back to the kindergarten stage of their childhood. But since I intend here only a summary of the main heresies of Vatican II, I think it about time to move on to that other of Pope Paul's two chief acts, his Humanae Vitae.

Operation Humanae Vitae Everyone knows that Pope Paul's encyclical Humanae Vitae was put forward as an affirmation of the Church's teaching against contraceptive practices. Yet whole assemblies of bishops expressed their disagreement with this doctrine as being opposed to freedom of conscience. The Pope accepted this judgment as "satisfactory," thus refusing to uphold the teaching of the Church on the natural law. But this should not have been surprising, since in Populorum Progressio Paul VI encouraged the public authorities to adopt birth control measures in a context that can only be understood as artificial birth control practices. But we needn't go so far along in the Humanae Vitae action of the Pope and bishops to judge it to be a betrayal of the natural moral law. Why did the Pope set up a commission to study the matter in the first place? Why did he question the truth of a Catholic doctrine strongly affirmed by popes as recent as Leo XIII and Pius XI? We are supposed to believe that new developments, in particular the Pill, made such a study an urgent and acceptable papal act. But according to Pope Leo XIII: "to circumscribe the principle ends of marriage laid down in the beginning by God Himself in the words 'increase and multiply,' is beyond the powers of any human law'." And as Pius XI taught in Casti Connubi: "But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature can become conformable to nature and morally good." So much for the specious argument that the Pill or anything else could justify Pope Paul's birth control commission and his questioning of Catholic doctrine. Paul VI, Modernist Catholic teaching does not change, or evolve but serves as a measure or test of the orthodoxy of any Catholic, be he layman, priest, bishop or pope. Aside from Paul's doubting, to say the least, in a matter of the Faith, and his tacit consent to contraceptive practices, we have in "Operation Humanae Vitae" an example of the new "collegiality" as a Rule of Faith, based on the Modernist proposition that "the Church itself derives its existence from a consensus of the faithful, a common conscience, which gives to the Church authority to formulate doctrine" - from "Pascendi" by Pope Pius X. Does anyone doubt the truth of this statement that Pope Paul VI practices the Modernist heresy of the consensus? Speaking of his "New Mass," here is what the Pope said in a General Audience addess of 19 Nov. 1968: "How could such a change be made? Answer: It is due to the will expressed by the Ecumenical Council held not long ago....The reform which is about to be brought into being is therefore a response to an authoritative mandate from the Church. It is an act of obedience." Well, true popes do not act on authoritative mandates from anyone. Paul VI has shown by his own admission that he holds the heresy of the Modernist consensus. Not that evidence of this is not abundant. The Second Vatican Council itself presumed to contradict, by vote, the Church's teaching against worship in common with Protestants, and it teaches that all who have been baptized are members of the Church, omitting any mention of the additional essential requirements of Catholic belief and practice. It was Paul VI who signed the Vatican II articles. The pontificate of Pope Paul VI has been characterized by a spirit---the real Spirit of Vatican II---destructive of the Faith. Returning to the century of Luther and Cranmer in the name of Vatican II Renewal, Pope Paul takes off on the road to the Religion of Man. "There are no true riches but MAN---Pope Paul VI" appeared in boldface type in L'Osservatore Romano, 8 May 1969, which is a condensation of many of his writings and speeches both before and after his election to the papal office. As a modernist he promotes that "synthesis of all the heresies" denounced by St. Pius X. Of particular heresies the following can easily be substantiated:

1. The anti-Tradition heresy which includes Paul's rejection of the Council of Trent, and which is an implicit denial of an Article of the Faith, that of its immutability. 2. The heresy of the Modernist consensus, by means of which Pope Paul gradually modifies or destroys traditional doctrine and practice. 3. What might be called for brevity the Ecumenist heresy, which teaches that something higher and broader than the Catholic Church exists for salvation. 4. The heresy of Pope Paul's New Mass, which Protestant ministers say is doctrinally acceptable to them as Protestants, and which Catholic theologians say is unacceptable to Catholics. I say to any student of evidence who will make a careful study of Pope Paul's words and works these errors will become manifest. The strange new Church of Paul VI has left nothing untouched - the Sacraments, the Mass, liturgical language and calendar, discipline, catechetical instruction, Canon law (which they are now working on), the religious life and dress. In his encyclical "Pascendi" St. Pius X wrote of the "reforming mania" of the Modernists---"in all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten," which is surely an accurate description of Vatican II and its frenzied program of change. The Problem of Pope Paul VI When I call this section of my paper "The Problem of Pope Paul VI" I do not mean that Paul is an enigma, at least not to those of us who have without self-deception closely observed his works. Those works consistently tend toward total change of the Catholic Faith and discipline, which means eventually, if not rejected, total destruction of the Catholic Church. As I have indicated, this destruction has for its operating procedure the system Pope Pius X condemned as Modernism, of change and updating, an implicit denial that Catholic doctrine is revealed and immutable by seeking for it in majority opinions, and so on. Of course I do not mean that the Pope should not consult the bishops and theologians about what is not established doctrine, or what is not quite clear in its application, or that a consensus of the faithful should not be taken into account. There is a recognized place for a consensus in Catholic Tradition. But this is not the Modernist consensus which is an apparatus or playback method of the Modernists' own distorted doctrines, the seeds of which they have carefully planted among the people, especially in the minds of impressionable students, including seminarians. As Pope Pius X remarked in his Encyclical on the Errors of the Modernists: "They seize upon chairs in the seminaries and universities, and gradually make of them chairs of pestilence." When I write of the problem of Paul VI, I mean the problem of the faithful Catholic with regard to Paul as Pope. How ought the uncompromising Catholic think, speak, act, and, above all, how also, if possible, defend the Faith while caught between the Church's enemies within and those confused Catholics who defend the Pope rather than their Catholic Faith? More often than not any words about the Pope's responsibility for the current apostasy is met with indignation. Most Catholics today have assured themselves that Divine Revelation must adjust itself to the mind of Paul VI, because he is the Pope. Set aside the objective truth and the Popes of the past. To direct some light on this matter, I shall quote here briefly a few eminent Catholic authorities. First Bishop de Castro Mayer of Campos, Brazil: "...let no one say it is not for the faithful to pass judgment on what is happening in the Church; that it is for them only to follow docilely the orientation

given by the Ministers of the Lord. It is not true. The History of the Church eulogizes the attitude of the faithful of Constantinople who opposed the heresy of their Patriarch, Nestorious." And: "Such is the value of tradition," says Bishop Mayer, "that even the Encyclicals and other documents of the ordinary teachings of the Sovereign Pontiff are only infallible in the teachings confirmed by Tradition, or else by a continuous indoctrination, under various popes for a long time. If, therefore, an act of the ordinary teaching of a pope disagrees with the teaching guaranteed by the Magisterial Tradition of several popes for a considerable length of time, it should not be accepted..." Suarez: "If (the Pope) lays down an order contrary to right customs one does not have to obey him; if he tries to do something manifestly opposed to justice and to the common good, it would be licit to resist him..." Saint Robert Bellarmine: "...just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also it is licit to resist him who attacks souls or who disturbs the civil order, or, above all, him who tried to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish or depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior." I think these quotations from eminent theologians, soundly based on Scripture and reason, ought to assure any reasonable Catholic that we are permitted to question those actions of a pope which deviate from Catholic doctrine. Certainly we laymen are in no position to punish or depose of Pope Paul VI. As to judging him, we need not concern ourselves with Paul's inner dispositions, although obviously grave guilt cannot be denied. To deny the Pope's guilt while citing his heresies is to deny his humanity. It is also to fall in with the Vatican II error which minimizes the idea of personal guilt. In any case Pope Paul's words and actions are public knowledge. It is urgent that informed Catholics speak out, for it is the complete trust that we have always had in the Pope and clergy which is leading to total success of the Vatican II new religion. Speaking of the possibility of a pope who even privately defended heresy, the eminent XVIII century theologian Pietro Ballerini wrote the following: "A peril for the Faith so imminent and among all the most grave, as this of a Pontiff who, even only privately, defended heresy, would not be able to be supported for long. Why, then, expect the remedy to come from a General Council, whose convocation is not easy? It is not true that, confronted with such a danger for the Faith, any of his subjects can refute him?" And further: "So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, as that all might be equally on guard in relation to him." This is not an isolated opinion that I happened to dig up, but one that few of the outstanding students of the papal question will disagree with. Another such opinion is that of Dom Prosper Gueranger, Abbot of Solesmes, who writes: "When the pastor becomes a wolf, it is the flock in the first place which has the duty to defend itself. Normally, undoubtedly, doctrine comes down from the Bishops to the faithful, and subjects, in the domain of faith, must not judge their chiefs. But there are, in the treasury of Revelation, essential points of which every Christian by virtue of his very title of Christian, necessarily knows and has an obligation to defend." Certainly in these post Vatican II years there are an endless number of truths that need defending, what with false doctrine coming from the Vatican itself. Is Pope Paul then a false teacher and therefore a false pope? It is necessary to distinguish. I am not saying that Paul's election was not valid, or that it was. But if words and acts contrary to the Faith are not to be put aside as meaningless, then Pope Paul VI is being false to his office, as I have already shown. That is really as much as we laymen need to know.

Theologians have studied the question of a doubtful pope, schismatic pope (strange as this might seem), heretical pope, whether guilty of formal or material heresy, occult or manifest, and, while the intricacies of the matter are many and sometimes difficult to resolve, a careful reading of such studies should make us grateful for God's marvelous providence...for, according to St. Robert Bellarmine and other theologians of the first rank, God will sustain the jurisdiction of even a heretical pope until the time his heresy becomes "notorious and divulged," even though by his heresy the pope is cut off from the Church. Incidentally, I have written in this paper about those who are working "from within" the Church to destroy it. This is not strictly true for, of all sins, only heresy and schism cut us off from the body of the Church, so that the Vatican II heretics are not, strictly speaking, "within the Church," as I have said. It is a matter of convenience in writing. Another doctrine that perhaps should be stressed today is that Christ founded a visible Church, and He made Peter its head to be followed by a long line of successors. The idea of an invisible Church, which one occasionally hears from Catholics today who are resisting the new heresies, is a Protestant one, the same which has been taken up by the Vatican II ecumenists, who profess a belief in something greater and more inclusive than the institutional Church, which they delight in degrading and are systematically trying to destroy. I speak here of the leaders, those in the know, but their unwitting followers are many. Another truth is, of course, that no one is bound by the heretical or unlawful acts of any prelate, not even of a pope. But I think it safe to say that none of the learned theologians of the past ever envisioned the present total anti-Catholic assault which, using a "pastoral council" as a front, is now approaching its final phase of attempted destruction. After many years of preparation, it has deceived by far the great majority of Catholics. The very size and completeness of the deception is what makes it incredible to most Catholics. I just said that none of the theologians foresaw this, but I forgot Pope Pius X who had forewarned against a "universal apostasy" to result from the very system of errors, which, like a cancer, has grown almost imperceptibly within the body of the Church. I have called Modernism a "system" -- a system of destruction rather than a heresy, and I think Pope Pius X saw it in the same way, and that he saw beyond Modernism the growing evil influence of the "this world" Powers. I do not concern myself about whether Pope Paul VI was an eligible candidate for the Papacy - although it is difficult to see how he could have been. But that such a man occupies the papal chair in any way is a great mystery. To a lesser degree by far in most instances, there is something mysterious in the choices Christ permits of His vicars on earth. It seems that not seldom are the apparently superior candidates passed over by the electors. Popes ambitious, worldly and immoral are not unknown. Our Lord Himself chose Judas as one of His Apostles. I have heard people talk as though Christ required someone to betray Him to the Jews, as if most of us don't betray Him often enough. But we may be sure Judas had a true vocation, that Christ loved Judas and provided all the graces he needed to deter him from his crime. In any case, it is not the Church's teaching that no one is confirmed in grace, not even those who are to become, or have become, Christ's vicars on earth. And there is general agreement among Catholic theologians that a Pope can fall into heresy. What about Christ's promise to be with His Church until the end of the world? I have mentioned the theological opinion that Our Lord does sustain the papacy in times when the Chair of Peter is empty or is occupied by a heretic pope. Many who quote the Scriptural promise that "the gates of Hell will not prevail" really mean something like "it can't happen here," or "you must be mistaken about all this heresy, especially the Pope's." But Holy Scripture predicts a Great Apostasy. I am not saying that Apostasy is

here now, or that it is not. The point is, a general apostasy would not take place without a great loss of faith among the majority of the clergy, probably including the Pope. About Pope Paul's infallibility: the theory that Christ sustains the jurisdiction of a heretic pope until the time his heresy becomes "notorious and divulged" applies to all his legitimate acts, according to theologians I have quoted. For example, to Pope Paul's canonization of the Forty Martyrs of Uganda. It is certain that Paul VI has not pretended to teach any error infallibly; that is, solemnly, ex cathedra. His heretical actions are performed by sleight-of-hand, as was his imposition of his New Ordo by a simple "wish" that it be accepted. It is not juridically binding, as Pope Paul indicated later himself. With regard to the doctrine of infallibility, it was the First Vatican Council which solemnly defined it--providentially for our time, it would seem. The de fide definition ruled out an extreme opinion held by some of the Council Fathers and other influential Catholics, that the pope is infallible in all his official words and acts. But it would appear from the head-in-sand indiscriminate defense of Paul VI today by many who ought to know better, that this heresy of an always infallible pope is very much alive. I think it never did die out in some conservative publishing offices---most opportunely for those who are now preaching "get behind the Pope" with the objective of getting the New Religion of Vatican II universally accepted. What if a pope were to attempt to impose a heresy by an apparently solemn infallible pronouncement? then we would know infallibly that we had on our hands a false pope. His heresy would thereby be notorious without a doubt. There is a principle which requires a "respectful silence" about the errors of the Magisterium, and out of concern for the grave necessity of unity---and we may hope that at least some bishops are acting on this principle now. But to be silent in the present situation is to acquiesce to heresy. It is to preserve not true and proper unity, but to refuse to act against the present union in heresy. It is to give freely to the Church's enemies that advantage they planned on having from our habitual docile acceptance of the guidance of the bishops and, above all, the Pope. Is Pope Paul a prisoner, as some are saying? The idea is absurd, a product of wishful thinking and mental contortions. The program of Paul VI is the same as the one he agitated for as Archbishop Montini of Milan. So is his "New Mass." Prisoner notions are a waste of time and distract from what really matters, the present worldwide attack on the Catholic Faith. Concluding Remarks Certain conclusions follow from the foregoing facts, and theological opinions, which I shall sum up as follows: (1) Christ will keep His promise to remain with His Church; (2) the Church does not err in its doctrine, and truth does not change or contradict itself; (3) we are entirely dependent on the Apostolic Succession -- on those bishops who have remained faithful, however few they may be; and (4) if a pope encourages false doctrine or fails to act publicly against it, then we have a false pope or one false to his office; in either case we must resist him and not cover up his treason. We must remember that if Our Lord permits unworthy successors to Peter, He gave the power of electing them to men. If a pope withholds or scatters what was given to his charge, there is nothing we laymen can do directly about it. We must depend on the action of those orthodox members of the Hierarchy to set things right. To this end we have the right and duty, in accordance with the theological opinions previously quoted, to make the works of Pope Paul VI "notorious" ---that is, according to Webster's

Collegiate Dictionary, "well-known; publicly discussed...2: widely but unfavorably known or talked about." Believe me, there is nothing the Vatican II apostates fear so much as this. Of course, ordinarily we would hasten to cover up a fault of any of our priests and bishops, and it does not follow that because these are extraordinary times that we are permitted all kinds of extraordinary measures. Canon Law remains the law no matter how much it may be tampered with by those who are building the Strange New Church. We Catholics are bound by the law. There are many who think that the essential requirements of the law are to take part in the new liturgy, support the new clergy, and not refuse to hear their new doctrines. Others go farther and think the law forbids that they listen to any defense of the Catholic Faith, believing now that there is no salvation outside Vatican II. They are mistaken for even as an elementary catechism - - an orthodox one - - will inform us, we must continue to hold all the Traditional truths, not neglecting to pray daily for deliverance from present and future evils, as Our Lord directed us to do. The Words "Strange New Church" used above, are taken from the report of a vision of Anne Catherine Emmerich, 22 April 1823, which is as follows: I saw that many pastors allowed themselves to be taken up with ideas that were dangerous to the Church. They were building a great, strange and extravagant Church. Everyone was to be admitted in it in order to be united and have equal rights; Evangelicals, Catholics, sects of every description. Such was to be the new Church...But God had other designs. NOTES ON THE COUNCIL Did the Holy Spirit suddenly inspire Pope John XXIII to call a Council, as John said? Sixteen years before the opening of Vatican II a Canadian priest spoke to me of an expected Council which would do away with all the disciplines and much else, but would keep the Sunday obligation as a source of revenue, which has come to pass. Were the enactments of the Council inspired by the Holy Spirit? I pass over the obvious fruits of Vatican II reforms, and the absence of any sign whatever of the much promised Renewal, and set down here a few quotations from Mr. Anson's "Bishops at Large": "....The Catholic Faith --most satisfactorily suited to deal with present-day problems, and in the development of this, the restatement of that faith in terms of its relation to modern thought"...must be made. We have "no wish to proselytize, in an aggressive sense, from among the adherents of any other Church." Concerning saints' days: "The whole system of such commemorations is an anachronism, which might be allowed to drop into abeyance without impairing our belief in the communion of saints. The Roman Calendar is overladen with saints, of whom few excite any real devotion at this distance of time." "With the spread of education, the growth of intelligence, and the advantage of a vernacular liturgy, there is no reason at all why the laity should 'assist' at the Holy Eucharist in the capacity of spectators only, or be debarred from following step by step what is taking place at the Altar. Liturgy means 'public work or service'...." The Creed of the Sanctuary is 'I believe in God,' and it reduces all ethics to one of non-injury." End of quotations for lack of space. Does this sound like Vatican II? If so, and it was inspired by the Holy Spirit, then Bishops Wedgewood and Leadbetter of the Liberal Church (Old Roman Catholic), schismatic bishops and also Theosophists, can lay prior claim to Pope John's "inspiration." The Vatican II church has dropped many saints formerly

honored, stopped trying to make converts, and of course there's the vernacular liturgy with its emphasis on service, or the social gospel. The ethics of non-injury can be found in the New Catechisms, and in the "community pardon" of the new so-called Penitential rite. Is the "Spirit of Vatican II" and the favor Pope Paul shows toward Communism a betrayal of the aims of the Council and Pope John, as some say? From another book (which I shall name), Page 34: Cardinal Bea to Pope John: "Why not a commission to study Christian unity?" Page 39, Bea: "I was preformed for this job." Page 40: "Bea began to organize his staff. He retained the services of an alter ego named Stefan Schmidt, Jesuit biblical scholar exiled from Yugoslavia, and the two of them discovered what a store of Catholic ecumenists were available to help....Bea had little difficulty finding an auxiliary team of 15 theologians-consultors. Among them: Jesuit Gustave Weigel, Jewish convert John Oesterreicher, Dominicans Jerome Hamer and Christian Dumont, Augustinian Gregory Baum...None of these men needed training in John's new approach, because they had been using it for years, although without Rome's enthusiastic approval...." The author omits to mention that Gregory Baum is also a Jewish 'convert,' and that quite certainly Cardinal Bea was descended from Jews. However that may be, he had just returned from New York where, for some reason, he had gone to placate, or reassure powerful Jewish organizations of the Vatican's intentions. As to Communism, on Page 45 we find this: "The Church is not a dam against communism. The Church cannot be against anything...A crusade against communism is pointless." Thus was Pope John quoted by one of his aides. "This new policy of Pope John," wrote the editor of Il Borghese, "means the end of the Roman Church." "In 1961, John revealed his attitude toward the oldest tension--that between Christians and Jews. Privately he gave the sacrament of Confirmation to a Jewish lad who had been secretly baptized, told him to continue being a good Jew in his own community, go to the synagogue, support the Jewish school, because by being a Catholic, you do not become any less a Jew." This on page 49 by our author friendly to the Council, and to whom Pope John went out of his way to prime with information. Page 79: Monsignor Willebrands is sent to persuade Moscow Patriarchate to send representatives to the Council. Message: "Rome would be friends with Moscow. Moscow would discover that John's politique was not that of Pius." Page 96: "He (John) brought Russians to the Council, on their terms, and made sure the Council would exclude any irritating references to Church of Silence or Soviet atheism." Page 166: "Not the least popular among the theologians of Rome were the Jesuit Fathers of the Biblical Institute who scattered around the city, each of them a legate to the bishops of their own tongue." Page 234: Schema on Liturgical reform: "In the preface and first chapter are the seeds of all the other reforms," this according to a member of the Liturgical Commission. And according to our author: "Cardinals Bea, Suenens and Leger, possibly the most inspired trio of the Council...." He also has this information: "Whatever pessimism Kung may have had before the Council, had now disappeared. 'Inspiration has gripped the Council,' said Kung." Page 249: "Said an Irish theologian in Rome: 'It is slowly sinking into the minds of the bishops that a great wind has blown through the city and the world. The Church is looking out through open windows over the walls of the Iron Curtain to the whole world. The bishops who come back next September will never know how much they've changed in the meantime....Only in a hundred years will historians see how pentecostal this first session was'."

End of quotations from Pope, Council and World by R. B. Kaiser. This book is loaded with joyful information on how the Church was taken at Vatican II---the author blissfully assuming that all the world would join in his satisfaction with the "new pentecost." The commissars of the Moscow-controlled church come to the Council on their terms, while many thousands of Catholics, including bishops and priests, remain in Russian prison camps because of their religion. The Jews call the Scriptural account of the Crucifixion a "myth" and are lovingly received and accommodated, along with the Russians. The Liturgy is made the starting point for total Revolution, and the Bishops rubber stamp the whole tragic fraud. Monsignor Antonio Romero of a Roman Congregation, called them "two thousand good-for-nothings, who do not believe in the Holy Trinity or the Virgin Birth." But good-for-nothings are good for destruction, as it is now evident. Catholics must realize that there does exist a thoroughly worked-out plot to destroy the Church. Of course this plot is not proclaimed as such. It operates under the sneaky mantle of Ecumenism, religious Renewal, Brotherhood and other labels. Vatican II has been its chief single accomplishment.

THE CASE AGAINST POPE PAUL VI - PART TWO In the first part of this paper (20 March 1973) I addressed some remarks to those Catholics who want to keep the Faith but who are gradually giving it up in the name of Vatican II "updating." In this second part I intend to put down a few more thoughts to round out what I already wrote about the developments leading to the present corruption of the Church, and about Paul VI as Pope. I summed up in Part 1 the Pope's heresies somewhat as follows: --that Paul had rejected the Popes and Catholic Tradition, the Council of Trent, and indirectly the teaching that Catholic doctrine is immutable; that he encourages and practices a "new theology," that of Vatican II Collegiality, which is the Modernist Consensus condemned as folly by Pope St. Pius X; that he actively promotes the "Ecumenist" heresy, which teaches that something broader than the Catholic Church exists for salvation; and that he has

deceptively imposed a new liturgy which is not Catholic, as both Protestant and Catholic theologians have said publicly. It is not possible that in imputing schism or heresy to Paul VI that I am guilty of rash judgment, contumacy or schism, for it is self-evident that Pope Paul completely tolerates a host of notorious heretics and every kind of error and abuse. The Pope's most grave obligations are to govern and teach in accordance with Catholic Tradition, duties Paul VI has consistently refused to perform. The scandal of the post-Vatican II Church is visible to all, even to those outside the Church. The Divine Promise I think it useful to add something to what I wrote about our Lord's promise to be with His Church until the end of the world. This has been and is now understood by most Catholics to mean that all the popes will be strictly orthodox Catholics. Even some theologians have held this opinion. But according to the First Vatican Council, which solemnly defined Papal infallibility, a pope teaches infallibly only when he defines solemnly, for the whole Church, with the evident intention of doing so, a doctrine of faith or morals. And, of course, the pronouncements of the "ordinary magisterium" consistent with traditional doctrines must also be accepted as infallible. But this definition leaves open the possibility of personal error or malice in a pope. Thus the popular opinion that the divine promise of protection against error means that no pope will ever personally be a heretic, or tolerate or encourage heresy, is condemned as erroneous, as it is disproved by the present state of the Papacy under Pope Paul VI. Many today read a great deal more into the definition of infallibility than the First Vatican Council intended. It is being misread by the unthinking majority who suppose that their religion consists in simply "following the Pope," and by some pamphleteers who are trying to convince us that Pope Paul could not possibly be responsible for the "New Mass" and all the other works of destruction coming from the Vatican. These people have put forth as a new article of the Faith that we must believe that Pope Paul is a prisoner, doped or controlled, or in some way being used against his will. But that is nonsense since the present Pope as priest, Archbishop and Cardinal was and is very well known to thousands in Rome, and in the Vatican under Pope Pius XII. Furthermore, as Archbishop and Cardinal Montini, Pope Paul was known to be a man of definite Modernist ideas and initiatives of his own. The divine promise of protection from error, then, means only what the First Vatican Council defined it to mean, that a pope will not err in a solemn definition of faith or morals. It might be objected that in our time this limited protection is proving insufficient. If so, the fault is outs. We have the deposit of the Faith to guide us; and if Catholics today were only half as Catholic as they ought to be, Vatican II, its works and Pope would have been immediately recognized as destructive. Were we sufficiently Catholic there would not have been a Second Vatican Council of the kind we have had, and no Montini Pope. I am not here promoting the modern collective soul sickness, "we are all guilty." All men are guilty of something, however much or little, but some Catholics are not guilty of compromise with the Vatican II new religion. On the Question of How the Apostasy Could Happen Objecting to what has been said above, many reply that it is quite impossible that the Pope and nearly all the bishops could be wrong. This is the common unquestioned assumption of most Catholics today. They accept a majority opinion as certain. But this is to accept the Modernist doctrine of Consensus, or Vatican II Collegiality, condemned as folly by Pope Pius X in his Encyclical on the Errors of the Modernists. This error of Consensus is being practiced today through the instrumentality of multiple

parish committees, diocesan commissions, priests' senates, etc., helped along by individual parish priests and the so-called Catholic Press. But that the majority can go wrong is affirmed by the Scriptural prediction of a Great Apostasy, and by the apparent world-wide apostasy of today. In other words, by the current facts of life. Most Catholics are gradually giving up their religion. What was Catholic worship is now Protestant and tending toward something altogether alien to Catholicism, as witness the new temples they build instead of churches. All this being so, it is of interest and possible instruction to consider how we arrived at our present position. How could the Catholic Church become so far corrupted that a heretic or malicious or craven pope could be elected, one who won't lift a finger to stop the present revolt? If Church history shows one thing to be certain, it is that bad choices of a pope have been made at various times. It is well known that unscrupulous plotters have in the past tried to grab the Papal Chair for their own selfish purposes, and that this has been the aim and ambition of the secret lodges bitterly opposed to the Church. God permits this as part of the freedom He has given men to choose His Vicars. This means that the majority vote of the Cardinals will sometimes reflect their spiritual state. It means that if most of the Cardinals are heretical Modernists, then a Modernist leader is likely to emerge as Pope. It has come to this in our time. Looking back a little farther to the events leading up to the Second Vatican Council, recall that the Encyclical of Pope Pius X against the errors of the Modernists was given to the world's bishops in 1907. In 1864 Pope Pius IX had promulgated Quanta Curae against the same errors, and the first impulse toward drawing up this Syllabus of Errors came from the Provincial Council of Spoleto in 1849 (1910 Catholic Encyclopedia). And so it is that long before the oldest priest living today was born, liberalism or Modernism had so far infected the Church that a great Pope had warned against it. We had this thing going, then, over a century ago, so that by 1907, writing against the Modernists, the gentle Pope Pius X exclaims: "What efforts they make to win recruits! They seize upon chairs in the seminaries and universities, and gradually make of them chairs of pestilence. From these sacred chairs they scatter, though not always openly, the seeds of their doctrines. They publish numbers of books, newspapers, reviews...they leave nothing untried in action, discourses, writing, as though there were a frenzy of propaganda upon them." This being so, is it surprising that in time many or most of the offices of bishop will be filled with men so influenced, and that eventually even the College of Cardinals will contain a majority of such men, who will choose one of their own way of thinking for the papal office. Pope Paul has carried on this kind of selection for the whole of his pontificate, and has even gone so far as to exclude the older conservative Cardinals from their privilege of electing or being elected Pope. Looking back over forty or so years of Catholic reading, I now realize what a considerable proportion of it deviated in subtle ways from Catholic doctrine. The seeds of Modernist doctrine were scattered as liberalism and sociological activism. These seeds have produced weeds of a great permissiveness, which naturally spring from a loosening of doctrinal authority. The permissive insanity increases by leaps when man and his earthly well-being become the primary object of religion, rather than God's law and true worship, as has recently happened in the Church, most markedly since Vatican II. Modernism, which leads to insanity through its denial of the immutability of doctrine, has taken into its fold many related 'theologies' destructive of reason and right order. Years before Vatican II, the ideas of such men as Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Bonhoffer, Buber, Marcel and de Chardin were gradually replacing Catholic theology in many seminaries. So it is not surprising that we have thousands of anti-Catholic

young priests wasting space in the rectories today. Worse by far, these young priests are the most active in the mission of "updating" the Catholic religion. To speak correctly, they are robbing both old and young of their Catholic heritage of Faith and Culture. An account of the Church's decline ought to include some mention of the Church's outside enemies---internationalist and Zionist Jews, the anti-clerical lodges and governments, secret world power groups of international finance, socialist promoters of a World State; communists everywhere, especially in the universities, in government high places and low, in publishing and television, and in the Church itself, all working toward destruction of the Church's influence. The influence of the Jews on Vatican II is well documented in a book by Leon de Poncins, called "Judaism and The Vatican," Briton's Publishing Co., London. Also see "The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber" by Fr. Wiltgen, Hawthorne Books, New York. When speaking of the Church's enemies, including world financial powers, I do not mean that these are enemies of the present Vatican set-up and Pope. Paul VI publicly surrendered to those enemies, or showed his alliance with them when he journeyed to New York to call the United Nations Organization "the last hope of mankind," and when he went to Geneva to kneel with Protestant leaders in that center of anti-Catholicism. Whatever sentimentalist Catholics may have thought, the symbolism of those acts was not missed by the Powers of This World. The Pope had publicly renounced the Catholic Church's ancient claim to spiritual supremacy. I mention all this only in passing, by way of completion. Pope Paul's refusal to act against the doctrinal deviants within the Church is of far greater consequence than are all the activities of the Church's outside enemies, no matter how great their wealth and power. It is for this reason that I generally refrain from directing the reader's attention elsewhere while Paul fiddles at Rome. A Pope In Schism I mentioned some heresies of Vatican II and Pope Paul VI. But let us suppose that Paul could not be convicted of any overt heresy. Well, he need not be. The heresies that a pope tolerates can destroy the Church. It can easily be demonstrated that Paul VI is a schismatic Pope, having many times rejected Papal Authority, including his own. In this matter, as in others, I rely on recognized authorities to provide the basis for my conclusions. I shall quote a few of those authorities here: 1. Cardinal Journet writes: "The ancient theologians (Torquemada, Cajetan, Banez) who thought that the Pope, infallible Doctor of the Church, could however personally sin against Faith and fall into heresy, admitted with greater reason that the Pope could sin against charity, even in the measure that this latter constitutes the unity of the ecclesiastical communion, and thus fall into schism." 2. Regarding schism, Suarez says that a Pope could be in schism "if he wanted to subvert all the ecclesiastical ceremonies founded on apostolic tradition, as was observed by Cajetan and, with greater amplitude, Torquemada." 3. Cardinal John of Torquemada says that "the Pope could fall into schism by separating himself from Christ, who is the principal head of the Church...by ordering something which is contrary to natural or divine law...or if he did not observe that which was universally ordained by the Universal Councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See in relation to Divine Worship." Note in connection with 2 and 3 above that Paul VI has subverted the apostolic tradition in relation to Divine Worship, by unlawfully imposing his Protestantized new liturgy with its many innovations condemned by the Council of Trent. With reference to 3 again, Paul VI refused to uphold the natural law

teaching of the Church when he failed to act against the 'rebellion' of the bishops against his Humanae Vitae. I shall emphasize these things so as to dispel all reasonable objections. Even before his election to the Papal Office, as Archbishop of Milan, Paul had agitated publicly, in disregard of the reigning Pope Pius XII and the decrees of the de fide Council of Trent, for abolition of Latin in the Mass, for the loudly-spoken Consecration Form; in fact, for all the Vatican II innovations in the Liturgy. In one of his Pastoral Letters Archbishop Montini said that Latin is a "liturgical obstacle," and that "the ear must hear," contrary to the Canons of the 22nd Session of the Council of Trent. As Pope he violated these same decrees by substituting for the Canon of the Mass a variety of "Eucharistic Prayers," number 2 of which Protestant ministers say they can recite as Protestants without deviating from their own beliefs. Stop and reflect on this. It was a group headed by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci who made public charges of multiple doctrinal errors and ambiguity in the "New Mass." Cardinal Ottaviani had been head of the Church's office charged with the safe-guarding of Catholic doctrine. Cardinal Bacci was the Vatican Latinist whose responsibility it had been for many years to insure precise expression of papal documents. Theirs was not just another opinion, something that, taken as a whole, could be debated by orthodox Catholics. The least then that Pope Paul should have done was to have replied to these most serious charges, that the "New Mass" contains "multiple errors and insinuations against the purity of Catholic doctrine, and dismantles all defenses of the Faith." For no one was better qualified to judge this than those who had spent the best years of their lives studying just such matters. Pope Paul did not reply because he could not. Several other highly qualified groups and individuals have made the same careful examination of the "New Mass," and have come to the same conclusions as did Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci. I have one containing about 140 pages on the New Mass, which I have been privileged to read, and which contains this conclusion:

In view of the considerations which have been presented, one is forced to the conclusion that the New Mass cannot be accepted either in its text of 1969 or in that of 1970.

We make this observation with the greatest regret, knowing full well the consequences that flow therefrom; but we make it also with full conviction. It is not necessary to expound once again here all the reasons which have led us to this conclusion; we wish however to emphasize one, which in our opinion has not been duly enfocused in previous debates about the "Ordo" of Paul VI. That is, the principle that a formal break with the customs founded on Apostolic Tradition, above all in matters of worship, involves schism. Now, a liturgy tended to "desacralization" has no basis in Tradition; on the contrary, it constitutes a formal and violent break with all the rules which have oriented Catholic worship up to now.

Contrary to what we are led to believe, the New Ordo of Paul VI is far from being an authoritative act of Paul as Pope. For not only has he not legally abrogated the decrees of Pope Pius V and the Council of Trent, as he would be required to do before imposing a radically changed liturgy; he has palmed off his "New Mass" deviously, by a personal "wish" that it be accepted. Paul himself has said that his new liturgy admits of varying interpretations (which it certainly does), and has indicated that it is not juridically binding. However, this will not keep Paul's Vatican and "liturgy men" from saying that it is binding on us. It is by such double-dealing that our religion is changed. Paul VI rejected his own papal authority to institute his new liturgy. He said at a public audience that his "New Mass" was a mandate from the Second Vatican Council, thus rejecting his own complete responsibility as Pope for the Liturgy. The Liturgy is the Pope's own responsibility because it is a doctrinal matter of the first importance. The Liturgy is doctrine.

As already mentioned, another grave instance of Pope Paul's rejection of his own papal authority was his passive acceptance of the publicly stated disagreements of the national councils of the bishops with Humanae Vitae. Paul said nothing as the Presidents of the Bishops' Councils made statements contrary to the constant teaching of the Church on the natural law, which no Pope can modify. And so, as Cardinal John of Torquemada says, "the Pope can separate himself from Christ, who is the principal head of the Church...by disobeying the law of Christ, or ordering something which is contrary to natural or divine law." Pope Paul's silence in the face of the 'rebellion' of the bishops is certainly equivalent to ordering contrary to natural law, for it is the Pope's most grave obligation to govern in accordance with divine and natural law. Another schismatic act: As Pope, Paul VI signed the Articles of Vatican II which state, among many other heresies and ambiguities, that the Church is simply a "useful means" for attaining salvation. To say that is to reject the idea of a necessary Church, therefore of a supreme authority and teacher, which a true Pope is. If the Church is only a "useful means" for attaining salvation -- another Modernist principle, by the way -- one is free to take it or leave it, which is to say the Church has no authority, papal or other kind. Paul VI has also given expression to his refusal to govern, and of his disbelief in the papal authority by such public words of his as, "I will wait for Christ to calm the storm; " and by saying not to expect "direct interventions," "dramatic gestures" from him. By this he surely meant no forthright action from him against the leading heretics. These men are, after all, well known to be of Pope Paul's own progressive party, of which he was a recognized leader long before Vatican II. It is evident that Paul VI does not believe in, as he neglects to use, the authority of his papal office. This is shown conclusively by his tolerance of every error. Furthermore, the Vatican II Constitution on the Church, which Paul signed along with other Vatican II articles, suppresses the truth that the Pope exercises full and independent authority over each and all of the faithful, including the bishops. Vatican II substituted for the true papal doctrine the Modernist false doctrine of Consensus, or Vatican II Collegiality. If anyone should object that it was not the intention of Pope Paul and the Council to deny the Pope's supreme and independent authority over the bishops, why has Paul not put down a single one of the notorious heretic bishops in many countries? Why did he sign the ambiguous articles of Vatican II, unless ambiguity was to his purpose? If Paul was concerned about the clarity and force of the Vatican II articles he signed, why did he immediately disregard articles 36, 54 and 116 requiring retention of Latin in the Liturgy? It is evident that Paul VI never intended to act authoritatively as Pope in support of Catholic doctrine. This is shown by the enactments of Vatican II to which he is constantly referring to the exclusion of Tradition and the dogmatic Councils and Popes. It is shown by his own new liturgy which cleverly evades any definite expression of Catholic doctrine. No atheist dressed as Pope could have done less to uphold the papal authority and preserve the Catholic Faith than has Paul VI. The lie is being circulated--one of the many of the kind--that Pope Paul inherited a tottering Church from Pius XII and John XXIII, and therefore he can do nothing but pray, weep and appease his erring children, so as not to drive them away. True, the Modernist doctrine had far advanced in the pre-Vatican II Church, as I have pointed out, but the discipline and faith of most Catholics had not been seriously impaired, and could have been rapidly strengthened by firm papal leadership. Instead, following Pope Paul's election, every kind of vicious attack has been made on the Church's doctrines, Sacraments, and discipline. In view of these and other anti-Catholic policies of Paul VI, it is impossible that he believes as a Catholic. His actions belie his orthodox-sounding public speeches, so reverently reported by the conservative Catholic press.

The notion of a pope is justified in appeasing a crowd of heretics so as not to drive great numbers of them from the Church, shows a total lack of understanding of Catholic teaching, or a lack of normal awareness of what goes on. In the first place, these heretics are already ipso facto out of the Church because of their heresies. It is the Pope's obligation to declare them so. It is a deliberate lie, under the sneaky mantle of Ecumenism, that the Catholic Church, now or ever, can put unity or union above Truth. It is one of the many incongruities of the Vatican II Church that its clergy insist on unquestioning obedience of the Pope while they preach a new liberty in respect of natural and divine law. A well known priest has written a book called "The Bishops Versus the Pope." But what we really have is the Pope and most of the clergy and people against the Catholic doctrines of past Popes. What we are seeing is a gradual mass rejection of the Catholic Faith, taking place this time, "within" the Church. Whatever else it may be besides, it is most certainly a schismatic movement. Catholics are rejecting Tradition and the Popes to follow Vatican II and the personal theology of Paul VI. The office of the Pope is to govern and teach in accord with Tradition, not only doctrinal but ecclesiastical as well. The Second Council of Nicae solemnly anathematizes anyone who rejects any ecclesiastical tradition. This has been the commonly received doctrine of the Church, which has been totally rejected by Pope Paul VI. I have taken some trouble to show that Paul VI is a schismatic Pope -- because that much can be shown with certainty. My purpose in doing this is not to prove what Paul is -- cowardly, agent of conspiracy, usurper of the Papal Chair, or what, but to help those Catholics who cannot see beyond Pope Paul's papal robes to the destructive acts of his pontificate, and so are gradually losing the Faith. Such people think to play it safe by "following the Pope," and they do not concern themselves about Catholic doctrine. But it is sound Catholic theology that "the obligation of the Faith is prior to that of obedience." It was another Paul who said, "Even if an angel from Heaven preach to you a gospel other than that I have preached to you, hear him not." Paul VI is not the first pope to personally hold, tolerate or encourage heresy. This fact was amplified before the First Vatican Council by at least one of its member bishops, and it led to the precise definition of infallibility by that Council, for which we should be most grateful today. For never in the long centuries of the Church has a pope encouraged or permitted an attack on the very structure of the Church as Paul has. No greater mass deception has ever been attempted. It is plain that Paul VI oversees the building of that strange, new and extravagant Church the Ven. Catherine Emmerich saw in her vision of April 1823. This opinion receives confirmation in many ways, the latest of which is an 18 April 1973 public overture from the Vatican for a "dialogue" with Peking --"on the basis of Roman Catholic recognition that the thoughts of Chairman Mao Tse-Tung also reflect Christian values." (N.Y. Times, 19 April). What are "Christian values" according to the mind of Pope Paul VI? That is the question. Apparently Mao-tung has the answer. Or perhaps it is Fidel Castro who has just prohibited the celebration of Christmas in Cuba, and who Paul VI once called an "exemplary Christian." The pattern and consistency of Pope Paul's works and words shows a revolutionary purpose. As Fr. Yves Congar, O.P., a radical Progressive said about five years ago, "The Pope speaks for the right but acts for the left and actions are what count." This statement of duplicity has been confirmed by events, as the Strange Church goes from month to month destroying the Sacraments and all that is Catholic.

The Papal Bull of Pope Paul IV, 1555-1559 In part one of this section I mentioned a theological opinion that a heretic pope could be sustained in his jurisdiction by Christ the invisible head of the Church. Against this opinion, my attention has been called to the Bull of Pope Paul IV (1559) which reads in part: "Prelates and popes who turn out to have deviated from the Catholic Faith before their promotion are automatically deprived of any authority and office and their promotion is null and void and can by no means be validated." This Bull is a papal decree of the first order and must not be disregarded. For that matter, it is the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas and other eminent authorities that a heretic cannot exercise jurisdiction. That question was pretty well settled long ago. But what remains is the question of whether and for how long and under what circumstances the jurisdiction of a heretic could be sustained by someone else. Thus it is that a pope can sustain for the good of souls and as a safeguard of the juridical order of the Church, the jurisdiction of a heretic bishop not yet deposed. So by logical extension of this and certain theological opinions, including those of St. Robert Bellarmine, what seems to me a most probable opinion has been put forward, that Christ Himself, the invisible head of the Church, sustains the Papacy in times when the Chair of Peter is vacant, or is occupied by a heretic. St. Robert Bellarmine is one of the great authorities who studied and wrote on the question of the papal authority. And Bellarmine entered the Jesuit novitiate in the year 1560, one year after the 1559 date of the Bull of Paul IV on this general subject. It is also certain that he did not reject the papal teaching contained in this Bull. So we may safely conclude that its application to a given situation remains open to study. There are questions of internal and external heresy, occult or manifest, or when any person assenting to heresy internally becomes separated from the body of the Church, and of just when jurisdiction ceases in a particular case. This is for the good of the Church, which is certainly according to the will of Christ.

THE MASS OF PAUL VI The Mass of Pope Paul VI is heretically ambiguous and lacks a positive right intention. That much is certain.

Concerning heretical ambiguity I shall quote from a paper by Fr. Raymond Dulac, a highly respected priest theologian. This first appeared in the January 1971 issue of Itineraries, and reads in part as follows concerning Pope Paul's "New Mass:" "Alas, it is worse than heretical! It was and is ambiguous. It is flexible in every way; it is adjustable and can be adapted to anyone's pleasure: Individual will (or taste) thus becomes Rule and Measure of things. "Formal and clear heresy, in contrast, is like a stab of a dagger, but ambiguity works like a slow poison. Heresy attacks a special and precise dogma, but ambiguity, violating the Constitution of Faith, damages all dogmas. "One becomes a heretic in full consent of his knowledge, but ambiguity can ruin a person's Faith without his even knowing it." This, then, is why we must reject the "New Mass" -- because it is heretical, it lacks a right intention and, lex orandi - lex credendi, it erodes the Faith of those who take part in it. It is an act of heresy and rebellion. Again, quoting Fr. Dulac: "A minute examination of the 'New Rite' discloses numerous verbal tricks, mental reservations, intentional omissions, etc. --tricks that are part of the equipment of experts; not at all theological experts but those psychological experts who excel in group-psychology and public relations." Fr. Dulac is saying much the same thing as others have said who have carefully studied the "New Mass" --that it is not merely an unfortunate experiment, a mistake, but is a carefully thought-out imitation of the true Catholic Liturgy. Protestant ministers --six of whom helped put it together --have said that they can perform it without departing from their Protestant beliefs. One of them, M. Thurian, expressed it this way: "This new Ordo Missae is so profoundly ecumenical that it is theologically possible for Protestants to celebrate the Lord's Supper in the same words. The new simplified Offertory does not anticipate a sacrificial act and therefore does away with the difficulty that the old Offertory presented to ecumenical efforts." Actually what they did was to do away with the true Offertory and substitute what they call a "Preparation of the Gifts." And M. Thurian is proved entirely correct in saying that the new "Offertory" does not anticipate a sacrificial act --for no longer does the Celebrant act in the Person of Christ at the Consecration, but merely narrates the Lord's Supper as president of an assembly. This narrative substitute for the Act of Consecration certainly invalidates Pope Paul's New Ordo as a Mass. Consistent with this ecumenical objective is the change of Christ's own words at the Consecration - "for many" changed to "for all men." Evidence of the Protestantization of our religion is the table now in front or in place of the old altars, and the removing of the Tabernacle from its former central place of worship. And if Pope Paul had intended to make a lawful and orthodox change in the Mass, why did he call on men who don't believe in the Mass to collaborate in making the changes, while he ignored the criticisms of grave doctrinal errors by eminent Catholic theologians? It was the group of Roman theologians associated with Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci who wrote that the New Ordo of Paul VI "teems with errors and insinuations against Catholic doctrine, and dismantles all defenses of the Faith." The Mass is not merely a liturgical rite but is a deposit of defined dogmas. The rite itself is changeable in minor details. But if the rite is changed to conceal or eliminate dogmas, the new rite becomes illicit and

invalid even for Popes. In this sense Pope Pius V was binding all future popes by his Quo Primum decree. A few facts about existing law: In decreeing the so-called Trent Mass Pope Pius V did not invent a new Mass but fixed the manner -- "in perpetuity" -- of offering the traditional Mass, which had been given its form by the Popes many centuries before. Pope Paul VI has taken none of the actions required to legally abrogate the Quo Primum decree, but has imposed his New Ordo by a mere "wish" that it be accepted. He has said that this new so-called Mass of his was "an act of obedience" to Vatican II, which of course had no authority to compel a Pope to do anything. Obedience or Disobedience? We are being told that we must be obedient--that what is bound on earth is bound also in heaven, implying that even a heretical liturgy will be bound in heaven by Pope Paul's mere "wish." Those who intend to destroy the Church from within use "obedience" in a perverted and deceptive sense. For the "New Mass" is the great Act of Disobedience of the Catholic clergy. Those priests who preside at it violate directly their Tridentine Profession of the Faith and their Oath Against Modernism---for the ecumenical character of the new so-called Mass is basically Modernist and masonic. It is Man or Humanity which is the theme and object of the New Ordo, not God. The "New Mass" is intended to be social, not sacrificial. It therefore lacks, as I have said, a right intention to do what the Church has always intended. It is foolish to suppose that the personal intention of the celebrant can overcome all heresy and mutilation of the Form -- all the more so since the celebrant's own orthodoxy is compromised by his performance of a perverted rite. Anyway Pope Leo XIII in his Apostolicae Curae taught that a rite would be invalidated by the wrong intention of its originators. Many confused Catholics reassure themselves that the "New Mass" is an acceptable rite because the good Msgr. X presides at it, but the goodness of Msgr. X cannot much change the heretical liturgy he now performs. It is possible for a priest to correct the words of institution, the "for all men" mutilation; he might have the proper intention, pause and perform the Sacrificial Act as required, but according to Catholic teaching, a rite must signify, as a whole, what it contains. And for how long can a good priest sustain this kind of dissimulation? Will he not, before long, come to accept the whole bag? Pope St. Pius X in his great encyclical "Pascendi" wrote of those who do not hold the full Modernist doctrines, and he said that even among those who did were "men of a certain merit." Will you risk your soul on "a certain merit"? Our priests have compromised step-by-step, always telling themselves they were being obedient. And so they were but not to God, not to the Laws of the Church, not observing the oaths they had taken to always uphold those Laws, particularly those of the Mass as decreed by the Council of Trent. Since Vatican II they have gone along with every modernist attack on the Mass, the Sacraments, on doctrine and discipline, all the time telling us about obedience. To reject an heretical liturgy is not to be disobedient, to leave the Church, as we are told, but to remain faithful. It is to do what our priests were morally bound to do when they were directed to turn toward the people and recite a narrative of the Lord's Supper, rather than perform the Sacrificial Act for which they were ordained.

I deeply sympathize with good priests caught in the trap of Vatican II reforms. Unlike the laity, their whole life is in their profession. But for this same reason they should have acted against those whose intention right along has been to destroy the priesthood. ------------------------------- On page [67 in Strojie's original text] is a photo showing Paul VI before St. Peter's, Rome, in which place he displays the jewel of the old Jewish high priests, attached to stole near the waistline. This is a square containing dark and light squares which symbolize the twelve tribes of Israel. Montini began wearing this after his U.N.O. appearance in New York. Jews and most informed occultists, high placed members of secret societies, will get the message -- that the Pope is theirs. These are the approximate words of Msgr. Bugnini to Jean Madiran publisher of Itinaires, "We have the pope." It is now in the open that Bugnini (and many others high in the Montini regime) has been right along a Mason. It was he who put the Mass of Archbishop Montini of Milan in its present form. THE NEW RELIGION The Protestant Reformation, it its open revolt against the authority of the Catholic Church, had inaugurated a slow revolution, in which all religious doctrines would be questioned. Central to the Protestant attack was the denial of a sacrificing priesthood. Under Protestantism the minister of religion became merely leader of the worship service, a preacher, or president of the assembly. Protestantism was thus conceived as a lay religion which excluded the real substantial presence of God from its worship. As God became thus diminished in the minds of men, Man became greater in his own estimation. It was inevitable then that two further steps would eventually be taken. First, many will deny that God exists - become atheists. Secondly, some will say that if God does not exist, then Man is the supreme being, and therefore that Man himself should be honored as God. Only a few men will actually say this explicitly, but many will act on the notion. This, in the main, is what has happened. In the 18th Century, the Goddess of Reason was enthroned during the French Revolution, and the guillotine was set up in the name of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. It was half-crazy existentialists of the 19th Century who propagated the budding religion of Man. They wrote dozens of books loaded with foggy theories to arrive at their God-becoming-man philosophy. They contradicted each other and themselves in many ways. And since they mostly hated other men it became generally agreed among their kind that it is Humanity, rather than any individual human being or beings, which should be worshipped. But the blight of early industrialism and two world wars made humanity-as-God a dubious proposition, to say the least, and there came a gradual switch to the notion of humanity becoming God, which in any event is more in keeping with evolutionist theory. This is the Marxist religion and by Humanity is meant the Jews. Chief propagators of the religion of Humanity-as-God were Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Comte. Others who contributed to their "God is dead," "God is evolving," "God is the world or existence," to be discovered within man himself, were Feuerbach, Heidegger, Bultman, Kierkegaard. Following these men and their ideas came Fr. Teilhard de Chardin whose writings were censured by the Popes preceding Paul VI. What follows is a brief listing of the notions peculiar to these individuals. Hegel insisted that God be a God of This World....a "World Spirit" (the "Spirit of Vatican II" certainly). Feuerbach reduced God to the being of Man...the essence of men. Marx applied these notions to economics, denying God and worshipping social and economic change. "The philosophers" wrote Marx, "have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it." It is Marx above all others who is responsible

for present turmoil and unrest while his followers hypocritically cry for peace. This double standard of speech and action is especially Marxist. The Spirit of Change is also that of Vatican II. Nietzsche's thing was mainly search, evolution. God-is-dead, and God as Superman. Comte after bitterly doing away with God, dreamed up his "Positivist" worship of Humanity, even going so far as to adopt a sacramental system and a virgin mother. For Kierkegaard Christian life has nothing to do with a church structure but consists of soul searching and anguish. Bultman was a chief de-mythologizer of the Gospels, arbitrary and unstable always. Fr. Teilhard de Chardin peddled a brand of pantheism under a "Soul of the World" label of his own. There were and are others of this "school" but the ideas of these men are typical of it. Catholics who have been exposed to some of the new theology in catechisms, sermons and books, and in many of Pope Paul's speeches, will have noted the recurrence of words and ideas not formerly prominent in Catholic doctrinal works. "Change and updating" are of course the big thing, following Hegel and Marx and other evolutionists. "Authentic and unauthentic" are from Heidegger and Bultman. Bultman also dragged in "meaningful and relevant," that is, to modern man. The "mature Christian" bit if derived from the notion of evolving man who is said to be throwing off Christian "myths." The "myths" were held by some of the rationalists philosophers to have once served a useful purpose in the course of man's development. What the more-or-less religious existentialists are saying, is that to live "authentically" means not to live fully in relation to God, but to the world and others. God is to be studied in things as they exist, within man, rather than in His essence, or through His Church. Yes, some of them say, a Church of some kind can be useful. Comte thought so and Fr. de Chardin wrote in one of his private letters that the "Roman stem," by which he meant the Catholic Church, could be useful as a start for his "Soul of the World" new religion. This "Soul of the World" is a poetic touch given by Fr. de Chardin to the lunacies of his atheistic forerunners. It is essentially Hegel's "World Spirit." It was Comte who would have his new religion of Positivism, that is, of a positive worship of Humanity, installed in Notre Dame Cathedral. But that would only be a start. The dream to be realized at last would be the substitution of Man in place of God in all Catholic Churches. This has been done following the institution of Pope Paul's New Order of Worship, still called the Mass. They still call it the Mass and they were careful to retain some of the appearances of the Mass. Revolutionists, especially those steeped in evolutionist philosophy, know better than to change abruptly all outward appearances. It is the inner core on which they concentrate, and only gradually does the New Thing emerge. By that time the people are conditioned to accept it. Until the final phase of destruction many will defend the changes because of their desire for novelties. In the words of G.K. Chesterton, "They have wickedly wearied of the best." In this they will be encouraged by priests they have trusted but who themselves have compromised and become blind guides. Thus does the step-by-step overthrow of the Catholic religion proceed, following the lead of the atheistic philosophers. Paul VI and the Existentialists Is anyone today surprised at my linking Pope Paul VI with atheist and semi-religious philosophers and "theologians"? Recall the definition, that to live "authentically" means not to live fully in relation to God, but to the world and others. This theme like a dark thread runs more or less visibly through nearly all the addresses of Paul VI, as it does the articles of Vatican II, which he signed.

Remember the "God-evolving," the "search and anguish" thing, and the "God-as-Humanity" idea. As long ago as 1967 a respected layman quoted the following writings of J. B. Montini, Archbishop and Cardinal, now Paul VI; "Are you looking for God? You will find him in man!...Man is like to God." This is the gospel according to Feuerbach. "Sin is an offense against man before it is an offense against God." Here is the community pardon in Pope Paul's penitential rite. "Man becomes my brother and the object of religious seeking." This is in accord with the Humanist gospel, as also the following: "It is the very soul of the modern conception that seeks the unity of the world, the equality of peoples and the fraternity of man." Again man and the world as the object of our religious seeking---Hegel's "World Spirit," Teilhard de Chardin's "Soul of the World." And, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, as the anti-God French Revolutionists shouted it, and which Paul VI approved before the U.N. Assembly, which he called the "last hope of mankind." Montini again: "The Christian life under one aspect is wholly led by a memory of the first coming of Christ and by the memory of the gospel and the virtue drawn from it." In this "memory" bit we have the de-mythologization, and evolutionism of those atheistic philosophers who thought that Christianity had served a useful purpose at one time in history, but is no longer "relevant." I have at hand the book from which these quotations were taken -- "Paul VI Dialogues," by John G. Clancy. The atheistic crowd generally agreed that man was maturing, that philosophy is always a search, that truth is never discovered in a final form, that it is relative. J. B. Montini contributes these items to that madness: "The Church is seeking self knowledge....The knowledge the Church has of itself is progressive...There is a maturity in the Church today... The Church is seeking itself" and so on. The "mature Christian" thing has been tossed around as a self-evident truth since the second Vatican Council, but never has infantilism been so rampant as it is today. The heretical words and works of J. B. Montini, later Paul VI, have been suppressed as news or as subject for comments by Catholic publishers -- or rather I should say the New Religionist publishers, editors and writers. This is especially true of the so-called conservative press. But even these deceivers by omission and silence must allow some part of the real Montini to slip in. His very speech betrays him, for the difference in his whole manner of expression from that of former popes has been remarked by many who have studied it. Here is a sample from Pope Paul's 1969 Christmas midnight "mass," taken from The Wanderer:

This celebration in the night has a symbolic character. Symbolic of what? Of man walking [sic] in the night and searching; searching for light, searching for a point of orientation, searching for an encounter with a Man who is necessary, a Man whom it is imperative to find. There would be cause for weeping and despair if we were not supported by a wonderful interior force, that of seeking...the hope of finding. Finding whom? Finding, as I have said, the Man who is necessary, the Man who knows all about us, the Man who can save us.

Here is Paul VI celebrating the occasion when God became man, at a place known to all Christians, Bethlehem; celebrating the birth of Christ whose public life is known in great detail. Yet Paul is searching for a light, searching for a point of orientation, searching for a man, even as the mad existentialists did and do. It is the great Feast Day of the Word made Flesh and the calendar Paul used to mark it dates from that Event. But Paul VI says "there would be cause for weeping and despair if we were not supported from within by a wonderful interior force, that of seeking...the hope of finding." Poor Nietzsche died insane, seeking his Superman. Comte in his later years knelt before the empty chair of his Clotilde, his personification of Humanity, with a bouquet of flowers in his hand. And here we have Paul VI on the anniversary of God-become-Man searching "for a man whom it is imperative to find."

In his General Audience address of Jan. 23, 1973 Paul VI said this: "...the search and expectation of further revelations are not complete; on the contrary they are still at the beginning." And in the pre-election writings of Paul VI we find this: "The order to which Christianity tends is not static but an order in continual evolution toward a higher form..." It is hardly possible that he could speak his evolution more plainly than that. In other papers I have quoted several of Pope Paul's "new economy of the gospel" heresies, and could fill three or four pages with items on hand. The Abbe Georges de Nantes has compiled a book of Paul's heretical statements. Of these I shall quote one here. It is from the speech of Paul VI on 7 Dec. 1965 promulgating the Second Vatican Council's Declaration of Human Liberty, where Paul VI spoke of "the glory of man who makes himself God." Thus does Paul VI go farther than Satan himself, who had suggested to Eve that she and Adam might "become as gods." This is the New Religion, Man in place of God. This is the New Order of what they still call the Mass, ritual of the New Religion. This New Order of worship is Man-centered and through defects of Form and intention the continual Sacrifice has been "taken away" as the Prophet Daniel foretold. The "New Mass" is not merely an imitation of the true Mass but has been carefully contrived to put Man in place of God in the Sanctuary. Not merely natural, indifferent man, but God-defying Man. It is in this sense that we now see a New Religion, never before attempted on a universal scale. It should not be supposed that because the "New Mass" is innocuous in appearance, or because the "good" Father So-and-So presides at it, that it cannot be the evil thing I say it is. Outward appearances haven't much to do with it, just as the outward form of the true Mass cannot show forth its full significance. To demand a visible or other physical proof of evil is to fall into the error of Comte and his Positivism...for Comte and his atheist pals accepted only such truths as can be physically demonstrated. Leading up to atheistic Marxist infiltration of the world and the Church was Jewish rationalism and messianism, the pharisaical demand for a kingdom of this world and the rejection of God as its Creator and Lord. This was echoed by Nietzsche in the following words: "But we have no wish to enter the kingdom of heaven; we have become men...that is why we want the kingdom of earth." Corrupting a hymn to Christ, Paul VI expresses this same sentiment: "Honor to Man, honor to thought and science, Honor to Man, King of the Earth, all honor to his dignity, to his spirit, to his life." This is the New Religion, the religion of Paul VI. How They Do It How do Paul VI and his revolutionary atheists get away with it? I mentioned the double standard of speech and action of the Marxists. When Montini became Paul VI he began by making sounds of orthodoxy, and he has right along been generally careful not to speak any overt heresy. It is mainly during off-moments and on special occasions that he reveals quite plainly his revolutionary intent. Of course what he intended from the beginning has become apparent on a common sense, by their fruits you shall know them, basis of evaluation. All Catholics and most non-Catholics can see the signs of rapid disintegration of Catholic teaching, discipline and general practice since Vatican II. To quiet restive Catholics the Vatican will occasionally take off after one of its own "bad boys," usually Fr. Hans Kueng. It was expected that something of the kind would be done following publication of the Abbe de Nantes' book of Pope Paul's heretical speeches. So, according to a N. Y. Times dispatch of 6-7 July, the Vatican protested to Fr. Kueng about his book against papal infallibility. Kueng's book was published three years ago, and he had been a notorious heretic long before that. But the Vatican won't touch with a ten foot pole....literally...the Abbe de Nantes' book of accusations against Paul VI for heresy.

The Pope, who had it in his hands, and Vatican officials to whom it had been delivered, went to ridiculous lengths to return it pronto to Fr. de Nantes. Of such incidents is made up the continuing hypocritical charade of Vatican II. Fr. Kueng is of course out of step with the revolution in openly opposing papal infallibility at this time. For it is mainly through a falsely exaggerated and perverted notion of papal infallibility that the Revolution has advanced so rapidly. This constant deceit, the devil's own specialty, has advanced the Vatican II Revolution far beyond what anyone could have imagined ten years ago: - "And his power shall be strengthened, but not by his own force; and he shall lay all things waste, and shall prosper, and do more than can be believed." (Daniel 8:24) About eight years ago, Fr. Pedro Arrupe, S. J., General of the Society of Jesus, told the Vatican Council Fathers that the forces of militant atheism had virtually seized control over international affairs and that a "fifth column" is actually at work within the Church towards the same end. It is obvious that the basic tenets of Modernism---that all religion derives from human experience, that dogmas not only can but ought to be changed---are atheistic in their consequences. I wrote elsewhere that Modernism is only a method of destruction, and that I thought Pope Pius X saw beyond it the evil of "this World" powers. In other words there is no such thing as a heresy of Modernism, which is merely a method, a frame of reference for double-speak and deceitful action. What about the bishops? It is evident from their works that most of them belong to the party of apostasy. But there must surely be a dozen or so orthodox bishops and an orthodox cardinal or two around. What are they waiting for? Why are they silent? Have they, like Pilate, washed their hands of the affair? How will they answer for their silence at Death and the Judgment? How account for their subservience to Paul VI, master deceiver, while he destroys the Church? And what happened to Fr. Arrupe and his Jesuits once famous for their defence [sic] of the Faith? It is incomprehensible to me how a supernatural prudence could justify their silence. To say that they have all gone over to the Apostasy is to say that Satan has indeed prevailed. This cannot be and we must pray that very soon a few of these men will speak out plainly, as Catholic bishops, against the atheistic fifth column. ---------------------- On pages 49-50 [original book text] I quote Paul VI speaking of his search for a Man -- "a Man who is necessary, whom it is imperative to find," etc. etc. That was at Christmas 1969. On Christmas 1976 we get more of the same Man, Man thing: "Brethren, let us honor in the Birth of Christ the incipient life of Man...Let us honor MAN, let us honor MAN, whomever he may be...This is our humanism." Yes, the Jew and Gentile Gnostics, Theosophists and Atheists can honor Christ as Man and perhaps even admit Him to the Brotherhood. If one can't get rid of Christmas right away, all at once, at least make use of the occasion. Thus the Revolution. THE HOLY YEAR AND THE JEWS THE HOLY YEAR -- What is it all about? What is the significance of Pope Paul's Holy Year and the talk about reconciliation? The 20 June 1974 English edition of the Osservatore Romano, Vatican newspaper, contains a full page spread by Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum explaining the significance of this Holy Year. Other signs of the times: Cardinal Bea visits New York (early during the Council) to confer with rich New York Jews, then later receives a gold medal from them. The Jews influence changes in what had been the Catholic Liturgy. Pope Paul occasionally displays a jewel worn by the Jewish high priests.

Catholic churches are stripped of images -- images are offensive to Jews. The new "liturgy" may now be performed on Saturday. Bishops and priests take part in services of the Synagogue. The following is from the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews: Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing the Conciliar Declaration "Nostra Aetate," parts of which I give here with a few comments. The date of this document "Given at Rome" 1 December 1974. It is undoubtedly the official word on Reconciliation, as follows (all quotations inset):

The Declaration Nostra Aetate, issued by the Second Vatican Council on 28 October 1965, 'on the relationship of the Church to non-Catholic religions,' marks an important milestone in the history of Jewish-Christian relations. Moreover, the step taken by the Council finds its historical setting in circumstances deeply affected by the memory of the persecution and massacre of Jews which took place just before and during the Second World War.

So says the Commission. The massacre of Christians before, during and since the War does not appear to matter. The so-called massacre of the Jews has been outrageously exaggerated by the Jews.

...the spiritual bonds and historical links binding the Church to Judaism condemn (as opposed to the very spirit of Christianity) all forms of anti-semitism and discrimination....Christians must therefore strive to acquire a better knowledge of the basic components of the religious tradition of Judaism; they must strive to learn by what essential traits the Jews define themselves in the lights of their own religious experience.

What is this great concern of the Vatican about Jewish religious tradition at a time when Catholic traditions are being systematically rejected? Why are Catholics being urged to study Judaism at a time of increasing confusion among Catholics about Catholic doctrine? More from the Commission:

In addition to friendly talks, competent people will be encouraged to meet and study together the many problems deriving from the fundamental convictions of Judaism and Christianity. In order not to hurt (even involuntarily) those taking part, it will be vital to guarantee, not only tact, but a great openness of spirit and diffidence with respect to one's own prejudices.

Prejudices? Diffidence! And who are these "competent people" the Commission members have in mind? What is this "great openness of spirit" we are being urged to exercise? What is this "common meeting in prayer and meditation" the Commission advises in their next paragraph, and which is contrary to Catholic moral teaching against religious indifferentism?

The existing links between the Christian liturgy and the Jewish liturgy will be borne in mind. The idea of a living community in the service of God, and in the service of man for the love of God, such as it is realized in the liturgy, is just that characteristic of the Jewish liturgy as it is of the Christian one. To improve Jewish-Christian relations, it is important to take cognizance of liturgical life (formulas, feasts, rites, etc.) in which the Bible holds an essential place.

In other words, let us continue to Judaize Catholicism. Comments later on this "Bible-in-common."

When commenting on biblical texts, emphasis will be laid on the continuity of our faith with that of the earlier Covenant, in the perspective of the promises. We believe that those promises were fulfilled with the first coming of Christ. But it is none the less true that we still await their perfect fulfillment in his glorious return at the end of time.

This is plain heresy. I have reliable information from Rome that this "real coming," according to the Jews, is being taught to students for the priesthood at the Gregorian University in Rome.

With regard to the trial and death of Jesus, the Council recalled that "what happened in his passion cannot be blamed upon all the Jews then living, without distinction, nor upon the Jews of today." (Nostra Aetate, 4). The Second Vatican Council has pointed out the path to follow in promoting deep fellowship between the Jews and Christians. But there is still a long road ahead.

Yes, this document is only a first step. It is signed by Cardinal Willebrands and ends with the information that it was Pope Paul VI who instituted the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, 22 October 1974. The Jews have never relented in their opposition to Christ and all things Christian. The Commission states or at least implies three current notions concerning the Jews: (1) modern Jews are Old Testament people, thus sharing a continuity with Catholics; (2) the Jews are a generally persecuted people, simply as Jews; (3) Jews were not in any way responsible for the death of Christ on the Cross; the responsibility for that belongs solely to the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate. Having in mind then at least the general impressions now being spread about on this subject, the reader may wish to consider what follows from Fr. Hilarin Felder, O.M. Cap, his Christ and The Critics, Vol. 1

The Judaism of the Synagogue could acknowledge as the Messiah only a thorough-going Rabbi, whose words, works, conduct and interpretation of the truth adhered strictly to the narrow Talmudic system of ordinances and whose kingdom was a world power with a purely Jewish provincial policy. The pharasaical and rabbinical theology developed after the return from exile, reached its climax about the time of Jesus, and was thereupon edited in the writings of the Synagogue, and especially in the literature of the Talmud.... At first glance it seems strange that the rabbinical theology, and with it later Judaism, was not able to maintain itself at the height of that notion of the Messiah, entertained by the prophets....It laid, on the whole, little stress any longer on the prophetic writings. In order to strength practical Jewish life as opposed to the influences of their pagan environment, the Law -- that is, the 613 Torah commandments (for such was the number that the Scribes found in the Pentateuch) -- became more and more exaggerated at the expense of the real meaning of the prophetical Messianic revelation. The Rabbis not only caused the religious private life of the people to be entirely absorbed in devotion to the Law, in comparison with which prayers and sacrifices were much less important, and not only made the reading of the Torah the central point of public worship and the whole religious consciousness of the community, but, according to them, the books of the Law contain the whole of religion, and the Torah is the revelation, in which God has included everything that he in any way can reveal through all eternity. The Law existed even before the world, and, accordingly, God already circumcised Adam before he breathed into him the breath of life, while the prophetical and doctrinal books of Holy Scripture came only later and, as it were, by chance.

Thus does Fr. Felder sum up Jewish theology at the time of Christ. So what are the "existing links between the Christian liturgy and Jewish liturgy" the Vatican Commission has in mind? What are the "common elements...in which the Bible holds an essential place?" Have the Jews taken up the New Testament? Is it perhaps that the rich New York Jews who gave a gold medal to Cardinal Bea are now

leaning toward Catholicism? If so, why are Catholics being urged to study Judaism? Why did the Vatican announce about a year ago that all attempts at conversion will cease? And why has Paul VI "outlawed" the traditional Catholic liturgy? How does this fit in with the "links" theory of the Commission? I have quoted Fr. Felder on the rabbis and pharisees at the time of Christ. What about the generality of the Jewish people? What did they think of the Messiah? What hopes of theirs reposed in his coming? On this Fr. Felder writes as follows:

The Messiah was longed for by all classes because he was to hasten and assure the advent of their national dominion through the enforcement of the Law. And even Jehovah, who was to assume the government of Israel, must for this purpose place himself exclusively at the service of the Jewish aspirations. He must become (excuse the expression, since it is absolutely correct) a thorough-going Jew of the Law, must take upon himself in every way both Law and yoke, and put himself, with his heavenly royal court, entirely under the orders of the Jewish Sanhedrin.

As J.P. Arendzen writes in his Prophets, Priests and Publicans (which I shall be quoting), it is the Rabbi who rules Israel. It is the rabbi or teacher who takes precedence over the child's own father. This notion is being revived in modern schools, as many parents well know. From Fr. Felder again:

Running parallel with the official Messianic notion of rabbinical theology, and of the great mass of the Jewish people was the eschatological and apocalyptic conception. Modern writers on the subject are wont to call the apocalyptic Messianic ideas eschatological because in them everything is concentrated on the last things....(but) fundamentally the same piece is played, whether in one place or another -- namely, that of putting Israel, in a strongly materialistic sense, into a position of national world supremacy.

I'm full of questions. The foregoing excerpt suggests one more. From where do the political conservatives who are fuming about One World government think this insane idea comes from, and how account for its persistence, its international organization and the wealth behind it? Why are their leaders silent about its source? ---this fact of the greatest political significance. Those agnostics or Protestants who have put out of their minds the Catholic Church as the central fact of our civilization are blind guides. Electing Mr. Clean to the American Presidency may be better than electing Mr. Dirty. But it will not remove the moral corruption and doctrinal confusion that has put Mr. Dirty into a dominating position in the first place. So those who want to save the nation -- any nation -- had better pay some attention to what is happening within that institution, the Catholic Church, which has been the greatest bulwark against the spread of modern moral, theological and political confusion. Political leaders may talk of "religious neutralization" and be pleased to see the present troubles within the Catholic Church. But this attitude is in conflict with their avowed intention of restoring sanity and stability to western political institutions. In their antagonism or indifference to the Catholic Church they are at one with the Revolution - - the ages-old Revolution of Satan, the Prince of This World. Now a few paragraphs on item No. 2, the Jews as a persecuted people, from the Abbe Constant Fouard's Saint Peter and the First Years of Christianity.

Everywhere the Roman Governors evidenced the greatest care to consult the wishes of Judaism, so powerful did they feel it to be! If but one of them attempted to meddle with their property, or with the rights of some synagogue, the Israelites of all lands, particularly those of the capital, stirred up their countrymen to combine against the aggressor; thereupon followed nothing but tumults,

deputations, suppliant letters, and apologies; once the agitation had become general, it was prolonged with an obstinacy which overthrew all obstacles.

This from the Abbe Fouard has a familiar sound. I have read lately that during the first week of last November over 100,000 Jews came from a dozen cities to protest in front of the United Nations because a delegate of the Palestine Liberation Organization was scheduled to state his case before the U.N. According to the account I read, publicity was given to the Zionist-led demonstrations and the protests were reported in the major media, radio, television and newspapers, not only in the United States but throughout most of the world. To return to Abbe Fouard:

Formidable as the Jewish influence appeared to magistrates in the provinces, their power was no less dreaded by the merchants of the cities where they did business. In every branch of traffic the close union between members of their race, and their connections, bringing them into touch, commercially, with the whole world, gave them a notable advantage over their rivals. As soon as they appeared in any place they first managed to get the small tradesmen's business into their hands; after that they would begin quietly and by degrees to get control of the more considerable business interests.....

What the Abbe Fouard wrote about the business practices of the Jews of two thousand years ago is applicable today. Perhaps it won't be out of place to quote him on how the Jews at the time of Christ conducted their own "dialogues" -- a tradition not entirely abandoned as shown by the foregoing item on protests at the United Nations against the Arab speaker Yasser Arafat.

The Jews discussed any mooted point in their traditions with all their customary passions, --with a babel of words, cries, threatening gestures and dust thrown in the air. Sometimes the excitement would degenerate into such acts of violence that the Praetor would be obliged to intervene; generally, however, a majority of Jews would mass together, and by main force oblige the weaker party to give in to their opinion. This fashion of persuading opponents was well known. Horace alludes to it laughingly in his invective against the man who is a foe of satire...

So wrote Abbe Constant Fouard about 1892, as part of background information in his study of St. Peter and the first days of Christianity. This is not an anti semetic book. Nor is Fr. Hilarin Felder's CHRIST AND THE CRITICS. These volumes and one by Arendzen just happen to be three at hand which contain information on the time of Christ. Now to item No. 3, the currently propagated falsehood that Jews were in no way responsible for the sentence of death against our Lord Jesus Christ. Let me first forestall the possible objection that the Vatican Commission Declaration does not say explicitly that the Jews have always been persecuted, or that the Roman governor was solely responsible for Christ's death. Vatican II documents are noted for their ambiguities and vagaries. They are but the first steps taken in the Spirit of Vatican II. The evidence of this is abundant and we shall see much more of it throughout this "Holy Year." The main facts of the trial of our Lord Jesus Christ before Pilate were known to all Christians, and have never varied in Catholic doctrinal teachings. Pilate's "I find no fault in this man," his five attempts to turn the Jews from their demand that he condemn Christ to death, have been generally known from the Bible. The Bible account is supported by the writings of historians of the time, both Jewish and Roman. From these sources J.P. Arendzen in his PROPHETS, PRIESTS AND PUBLICANS gives a wealth of historical detail concerning the procedure of the Sanhedrin in the case, and of the Jew's own laws which they violated to get Christ condemned as a common criminal.

The arrest was made at night by Jewish police acting under instructions of the Sanhedrin, assisted by a cohort of Roman military. It was the chief priests who paid Judas the thirty pieces of silver. Christ was brought to the house of Caiaphas (before that to Annas) because the Temple gates were locked at night. "The whole council sought testimony against Jesus" -- illegal because Jewish law required that witnesses in favor had to be heard before witnesses against the accused. According to Mosaic law at least two witnesses had to give concordant testimony; they failed in this. The Jews held court on Christ at night, before the morning sacrifice, which was in violation of the law. The Sanhedrin condemned Christ because He claimed to be the Son of God --true God, more than just a man, which the Jews believed the Messiah would be --under the Law. But the accusation they bring before Pilate is that of sedition. Arendzen devotes four chapters to the matter. I will give here only a summary section, beginning with the question of the morning session of the Sanhedrin:

Towards six o'clock in the morning--early says St. Matthew and St. Mark, at daybreak says St. Luke -- Christ was again brought into the Council room. What was the motive of this second sitting? Some have maintained that the Jewish authorities intended to legalize the verdict of the night sitting, which was invalid because no sentence could be given except by daytime according to the Mishna. Possibly so, but then they would still have left the illegality of the trial and execution being on the same day, and this also was forbidden by the Mishna. According to Jewish reckoning the day runs from sunset to sunset. They would have introduced also a new illegality in dispensing with the hearing of witnesses in the supposedly only legal meeting in the morning. Some maintain that the morning sitting merely considered the ways and means to obtain Pilate's endorsement of the sentence of the previous night. But for such a petition for his sanction a meeting of the Sanhedrin was unnecessary. As Roman and Gentile, Pilate obviously could not inquire into a question of Jewish religious law. The permission to carry out the sentence for blasphemy, i.e., permission to stone the culprit, condemned in a legal sitting of the Sanhedrin, was a mere formal affair. Pilate could have no reason to refuse it. As a matter of fact, Pilate gave it at once, but the Jews would not have it. Finally, some maintain that the hearing of witnesses alone took place at night, and the legal verdict and sentence in the morning, but this seems directly two distinct meetings and the official sentence was already given at the one during the night. There remains the true interpretation. They met in the morning, not to obtain Pilate's sanction for the execution of their night sentence but to consider how to make Pilate condemn Jesus, not on religious, but on common criminal grounds. Before Pilate not a word is whispered about this religious condemnation for blasphemy and only towards the end, when in despair how to obtain Pilate's sentence, they mention the point of religion. They wished the trial before the Governor to be a purely secular one and in the morning they wanted to draw up a new set of accusations for Pilate. As St. Matthew puts it, it was only a question of how to kill Jesus.

Here ends my quotations from the three historical studies named. With regard to the Vatican Declaration which suggested to me these quotations, that Declaration has nothing to do with Christian charity but is a negation of that charity we owe "especially to those who are

of the household of the Faith." Charity does not require that we join in "quiet prayer and meditation...to find out how the Jews define themselves in the light of their religious experience," as this absurd Vatican Declaration puts it. We must look for another motive. The motive of this Declaration and the theme of the so-called Holy Year is reconciliation with the spiritual and racial descendents of those who rejected Christ in their demand for Jewish racial world supremacy. It is not reconciliation but Christian surrender that is intended. As usual in Vatican II statements we find the truth to be quite opposite of that expressed or implied. The Jewish Christian Declaration of the Vatican speaks tenderly of Jewish tradition, but its purpose is to help wipe out the continuity of that true Jewish tradition which Simeon represented, of the true Old Testament Jews at the time of Christ. It was Jews of this mind and heart who comprised the majority of the early Christians. "Now dost though [sic] dismiss thy servant, O Lord, according to thy word, in peace, for my eyes have seen thy salvation..." With these words Simeon gives testimony of his belief in the Divine nature of the Child as God and Savior. In this he differs from the Jewish majority following the Scribes and Pharisees, who expected and demanded a Messiah who would give to Israel material and political dominance of the nations. This hope and expectation of the Scribes and Pharisees , of the powerful and influential leaders of the Jews, survives today. It is the most significant fact politically and religiously of our time. It is the key to an understanding of Vatican II and of world politics since the time of the Reformation. They are blind defenders of Church and nation who ignore it. -------------------------- ADDITIONAL NOTES: "Any definition of contemporary Judaism that does not consider 'the inextricate bonds of God, People, Torah and Promised Land risks distortion of the essential nature of Judaism'." (Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum, TIME, 12 Jan. 75.) The new rabbi follows the old. Pilate: "Take him and judge him according to your law." But, the Sanhedrin wanted Christ killed as a common criminal, because they "feared the people" and so wanted to push the job off on the Roman governor; and because by having Christ killed as a criminal they would, they thought, put an end to His claim to be the Son of God, or the Messiah in any sense. This is why they are still today trying to blame Pilate. The Scribes, lawyers who comprised the majority in the Sanhedrin, owed their influence to the Law which, because of endless minutiae, had to be constantly interpreted. They saw that Christ would put an end to their power and prosperity. The Scribes were on good terms with the high Roman authorities, so that Pilate feared them the more. A concensus of rabbis on any particular point was law. In order to arrive at a consensus, exchange of views and public discussion were necessary (Arendzen). Here is the Vatican II Dialogue-Consensus. From "The Numismatist" coin collectors publication of March 1975. On page 555 is pictured the Holy Year coin, inscribed RENEWAL AND RECONCILIATION, across near the bottom. The left half shows Paul 6 opening the Door, a hammer in his right hand, his bent cross to the left. The right side of the coin depicts Russian, Patriarchal, and other crosses, the Star and Crescent, the Hammer and Sickle, and, sharply defined but only two-thirds revealed, the six-pointed star as intertwined triangles. The partial concealment is symbolically correct, since while the Jew presence is now in the open, the control remains hidden.

PAUL VI BEFORE THE U.N.O. October 4, 1965: The photo shows Paul 6 with outstretched arms bounding toward U Thant, he all reserve. They enter the U.N. Meditation room with its pagan black stone altar. Paul addresses the General Assembly: "Behold the day that we have awaited for centuries." Who are "we"? -- we who have waited "for centuries"? As a lifelong Catholic, I cannot imagine what this "we" is that he means. As to the U.N., it only recently came into existence. Perhaps there are clues, such as the occult symbolism of the U.N. Building, the Masonic character of Paul's address to the Assembly, in those Masonic "amens" -- so mote it be -- which appear twice in his speech, and which the interpreter emphasized both times with a deliberate slight pause. Paul 6: "I bring to your terrestrial city of Peace the greetings of our spiritual city of peace." Peace, peace, peace...this word constantly recurring throughout his speech. A friend recalls Paul's repetition of it -- sixteen times in succession -- seen on television that night; people in the audience were seen to look in puzzlement at each other. "Our mission has been one of peace. Our voyage has no other intention, no other motive. We went as a pilgrim of Peace." ("Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but the sword." Matt. 10. v. 34.) Paul 6 comes "as a friend to express desire and to beg a permission," that of "humbly, lovingly and disinterestedly serving" this assembly "as far as we are competent to do so."

This is a Pope speaking! Before a secularistic body composed largely of atheists, Jews, Communists? Impossible! This is a man in papal attire, J.B. Montini who has stolen into the Chair of Peter. It is he who will throw out all the severe censures of the Popes against the sect of Freemasonry. It is he who is praised in the Foreword of a book on Freemasonic ecumenism by top French Mason Yves Marsaudon.

J.B. Montini expresses his "gratitude and congratulations" in the name of the whole world. "Many thanks to you, glory to you" he says to this secularistic anti-God assembly. This was early in his "pontificate." Subsequent years would yield much more of such talk from Paul 6. Before leaving New York Paul will be photographed wearing the jewel of black and white squares worn by the Jewish high priest of old. Vatican II articles and later directives of his will lead Catholics into attendance at Jewish synagogues. It has come to this in 1976.

THE FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL THE VATICAN COUNCIL by Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, written about one hundred years ago, shortly after the close of the First Vatican Council. I know of no more profitable reading for most Catholics today than this book by Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster and leading petitioner for a Council definition of Papal Infallibility. I shall quote freely from the Cardinal's book, written originally as a Pastoral Letter, interjecting my own comments wherever they might seem helpful. To save space I shall string out related but unconnected sentences and paragraphs from the text. All underlinings will be mine. What was the mind of the world and the state of Catholic belief at that time, about one hundred years ago, and what precisely did the Council define concerning Papal Infallibility? In his first chapter, "The World and the Council," Cardinal Manning writes of the absurdities of the English language press: "Read carefully the correspondence from Rome published in England, believe the reverse, and you will not be far from the truth." And of the European press: "The journals of Catholic countries, perverse and hostile as they might be, rarely if ever made themselves ridiculous. They wrote with great bitterness and animosity: but with a point which showed that they understood what they were perverting." And in general: "A belief had also spread itself that the Council would explain away the doctrines of Trent, or give them some new or laxer meaning, or throw open some questions supposed to be closed, or come to a compromise or transaction with other religious systems; or at least that it would accommodate the dogmatic stiffness of its traditions to modern thought and modern theology." It is unnecessary to point out to the reader how these expectations were fulfilled at and since the Second Vatican Council, but not the First. Note the religious compromise, the relaxation of doctrine, the accommodation to modern thought -- the "updating," ecumenism, the new theology of Dialogue with other religions, and so on, of Vatican II.

What about sincere Catholics of a hundred years ago -- the Catholic mind, the state of Catholic belief then? "For three hundred years," writes Manning, "the Church dispersed throughout the world has been in contact with the corrupt civilization of old Catholic countries, and with the anti-Catholic civilization of countries in open schism. The intellectual traditions of nearly all nations have been departing steadily from the unity of the Faith and of the Church. In most countries, public opinion has become formally hostile to the Catholic religion. The minds of Catholics have been much affected by the atmosphere in which they live...While this impiety spreads on every side, it miserably comes to pass, that many even of the sons of the Catholic Church have wandered from the way of piety, and while truth in them has wasted away, the Catholic instinct has become feeble." Again I remind the reader that this was written one hundred years ago, before public lying had become a controlled science, and before public and most private schools had become schools of revolt and intellectual nihilism. Why a definition of infallibility at that time? The Cardinal writes of "the most dangerous error which for two centuries has disturbed and divided the faithful....a doctrine which for centuries had divided both Pastors and people, the defining of which was contested by a numerous and organized opposition." So much of an issue was this that "Not less than a hundred fathers in the general and special discussions had spoken, chiefly if not alone, of infallibility. Both sides were convinced that the matter was exhausted." As the reader will see, here was no smug and simplistic attitude of "I'm following the Pope," such as we hear today from those who close their eyes to the heretical works of Paul VI. This part on the exhaustive discussion of the Pope and his position also raises the question of why Vatican II opened up this matter, which was supposed to have been closed one hundred years ago; and this at what we were told was a Pastoral, not a doctrinal, Council. There were rumors in the press that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was to be carried by acclamation. Cardinal Manning writes of these rumors as follows: "The last men in the Council who would have desired or consented to an acclamation were those to whom it was imputed; and that for a reason as clear as day. They had no desire for acclamations, because acclamations define nothing, and leave the matter as before. They had already enough of acclamations in the Council of Chalcedon, which cried unanimously, 'Peter has spoken by Leo'...Experience proved, even if theology long ago had not, that an acclamation is not a definition." Here is more testimony of the bishops' concern for a precise understanding of Papal Infallibility. What then of the definition itself? "It declares the Primacy of Peter over the Apostles; and that this primacy was conferred on him by Our Lord, and consists not only in honor but also in jurisdiction....to be perpetual in the Church..." It defines the nature of the Pope's jurisdiction, namely, "the plenitude of power to feed, rule and govern the Universal Church. It is therefore jurisdiction episcopal, ordinary and immediate over the whole Church, both over pastors and people; that is, over the whole Episcopate, collectively and singly, and over every particular church and diocese...No power under God may come between the chief pastor of the Church and any, from the highest to the humblest, member of the flock of Christ on earth..." Again I ask why in consideration of this complete and exhaustively studied doctrine of a true Council, was it thought expedient to open up this matter at Vatican II? Why the Vatican II promotion of religious dialogue with non-Catholics, collegiality and concensus?[sic]--especially in view of what follows: "The definition then affirms that the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the discharge of his office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed

that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine, regarding faith or morals. And that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church'." So much again for concensus collegiality of Vatican II, explicitly condemned by Pope ST. Pius X in his momentous encyclical of 1907, against the errors of the Modernists. Speaking of the traditional use of the term ex cathedra -- for this is not a new doctrine, but one being defined --Cardinal Manning writes, "The value of this phrase is great, inasmuch as it excludes all cavil and equivocation as to the acts of the Pontiff in any other capacity than that of Supreme Doctor of all Christians, and in any other subject matter than the matters of faith and morals." According to this teaching, even the worst of Popes will not teach falsely to the whole Church a doctrine of faith or morals and Paul VI has not done so in his capacity of Supreme Doctor of the whole Church. On other hand --and we can be sure our enemies will have grasped this --the definition leaves open every other possibility for destroying the Church --Liturgy, tolerance and encouragement of heresy by the Pope, the distorting and omitting and watering-down of doctrine in general audience and occasional speeches; and by acts of a Pontiff which show contempt for the Papacy, Catholic doctrine and tradition, such as setting the Papal Tiara (last June, up for sale by a Jewish firm in Chicago), by kneeling with representative Protestants at Geneva, by traveling to New York to salute the United Nations as the "last hope of mankind," by wearing and displaying occasionally an emblem of the Jewish high priesthood; by promoting opportunists weak in the faith, or actual heretics, to offices of Bishop or Cardinal, and so on. Many questions can of course be raised concerning the validity of election of a man whose intention is to not act truly as a Pope, or who refuses to govern for any reason, or one who holds a heretical doctrine of the Church and Papacy. All that I am saying here is that the definition of Papal Infallibility does not, as we are today being told by nearly all unthinking or ill-informed Catholics -- and by some who intend to deceive -- mean that we can simply "follow the Pope" in all matters, all the time. Those who are implying that Paul VI is infallible in all his words and works are heretics, whether they know it or not. Concerning the privilege of infallibility; "it is personl," writes Cardinal Manning, "inasmuch as it attaches to the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, as a public person, distinct from, but inseparably united to, the Church; but it is not personal, in that it is attached, not to the private person, but to the primacy, which he alone possesses...It is absolute, inasmuch as it can be circumscribed by no human or ecclesiastical law; it is not absolute, in that it is circumscribed by the office of guarding, expounding, and defending the deposit of revelation." So much for what might be called the negative part of the doctrine of infallibility, about which we have heard almost nothing, for reasons I can think of but will pass over here. As the Vatican Council taught in the definition of infallibility, the Pope has a positive obligation to guard and defend the Faith and to govern the faithful. It is not enough that a pope refrains from openly teaching heresy. It is not necessary that heresy be openly and explicitly taught by others before the Pope is bound to take action -- although in our day heresy is being openly taught in the highest places and no action is being taken by the Pope. In this regard, Cardinal Manning quotes Pope Pius IX, "For the Church by its Divine Institution is bound with all diligence to guard whole and inviolate the deposit of the Divine faith, and constantly to watch with supreme zeal over the salvation of souls, driving away therefore, and eliminating with all exactness, all things which are contrary to faith or can in any way bring into peril the salvation of souls." In his Conclusion Cardinal Manning is prophetic, but like most prophets not correct in important details. He writes, "The Council has thus made provision for the Church in its time of trial, when it may be, not only Ecumenical Councils cannot be held, but even the ordinary administration of ecclesiastical government and consultation may be hardly possible." Although Manning may yet be proved entirely

correct, the present time of trial has come through endless councils and consultations. What the First Vatican Council did for us, was to show unerringly the precise limits of the Papal Authority. One of the Popes has written that the majority who are lost, are lost through their own fault, because they neglected to study the Catholic doctrine they should have known. With regard to the doctrine of papal infallibility, so vitally necessary for our faith today, Cardinal Manning has something in his book "The Vatican Council." I recommend it to those who worry themselves overly much about whether Paul VI was validly elected Pope. I recommend it even more to those who have put all their faith in "follow the Pope" phony visionaries. From Cardinal Manning:

I need hardly point out that between the charisma, or gratia gratis data of infallibility and the idea of impeccability there is no connection. I should not so much as notice it, if some had not strangely obscured the subject by introducing this confusion. I should have thought that the gift of prophecy in Balaam and Caiaphas, to say nothing of the powers of the priesthood, which are the same in good and bad alike, would have been enough to make such confusion impossible.

Our Lord Himself has said, "The scribes and Pharisees sit in the Chair of Moses." So there's nothing new under the sun. What has been, will be. As to the current crop of self-advertised "visionaries" -- well, I would much prefer Balaam's ass, or, for that matter, any other ass. This is not to say that God or our Lady might not again appear with a message to selected individuals, as at Lourdes and Fatima. It's just that I see the current crop of self-advertised "visionaries" as verbose frauds, giving out the lie that Paul VI is a holy and suffering pope. If he is suffering it is not from holiness. Certainly he is in no pain because of his strenuous efforts to root out heresy and heretics from the Church. Among many good but confused Catholics today there seems to be a vague feeling that Paul VI has some secret understanding, new insights into the designs of Providence, but it just isn't so. Such insights as Paul may have are from another source. Quoting Vatican One on infallibility Cardinal Manning says this: "The Pontiffs are witnesses, teachers and judges of the revelation already given to the Church." This is contrary to Vatican II pretensions to be a New Pentecost, to Pope Paul's "new economy of the gospel," to Paul's General Audience announcement that "revelation is only at the beginning," which announcements are far from any pretence of being infallible. They are doctrinal heresy and false in fact, but are within the limits of that protection from error promised to Peter, as it has been defined by the First Vatican Council. There are those who say or imply that the Promise means more, that the Vatican One definition of papal infallibility does not sufficiently uphold Christ's promise to Peter. This error was expressed at, and was rejected by the First Vatican Council. Anyway the Pope just does not have a mysterious insight into the designs of Providence, a new plan of salvation. The preface to the Definition of Infallibility carefully lays down that infallibility is not inspiration. "For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles." This from the First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, the First Vatican Council. ON THE ANTICHRIST JANUARY, 1971. Last year at this time I wrote a paper, "Dark Night of the Church," in which I noted some background influences behind the present corruption of Catholicism. In November 1974 the Synod of Bishops at Rome made an openly Communistic Declaration. This year, 1975, has been designated a Holy Year by Pope Paul. Obviously a new phase of deviltry is afoot, of which the openly Marxist manifesto of the Synod is an indication.

About three years ago I wrote that the Revolution in the Church and the world go hand in hand. I have held to this opinion, that what is planned is the destruction of every vestige of the old order of Christian civilization. The pattern and consistency of events since the beginning of this century substantiates this opinion. World Wars I and II, the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the Second Vatican Council were the main operations designed to destroy the last resistance of the Old Order, what was once a unified Christendom. In his first address as Pope, 1903, Pius X said this: "So extreme is the general perversion that there is room to fear that we are experiencing the foretaste and beginnings of the evils which are to come at the end of time, and that the Son of Perdition of whom the Apostle speaks has already arrived on earth." And in his last address Pope Pius X said, "The nations deprived as they are of the light of revelation, are no longer subject to the restraint imposed by the law of Christ, the nations, driven as they are by blind passion, are heading for universal disaster." Two world wars followed this warning, and now the "universal apostasy" Pius X foretold in his Encyclical "Pascendi" of September 1907. Is it credible that the enemies of the Church would wish to destroy all law and order? Are they not men like us, wanting that peace and stability necessary for even the good earthly life? Do not the enemies of Christianity intend a New Order which, however opposed to the Catholic Church, would at least be sane? Whatever most of those who are working for this New Order may intend, it is Satan the Father of Lies and Principle of Revolt who directs the show. It is Satan's will that they do. This is evident from the fact that they pursue their end through constant deceit. It is evident from what we know of the manipulation of the world economy by internationalist power groupings, by men who use wars, famine and planned economic disasters to further their ends. Yes, a New Order is intended, a Kabbalistic World Tyranny, at no matter what cost to the majority of men and of nations. To correctly estimate this New Order it is necessary to understand that it is totalitarian -- social, economic, and before all, diabolic. THE RETURN OF THE KING "Discourses on the Latter Days" by Rev. Henry James Coleridge, S. J. These Discourses were published in book form by Burns and Oates, London, 1883. THE RETURN OF THE KING contains chapters on the End of the World, the Decay of the Faith, The Man of Sin, Son of Perdition, Antichrist. While some generalized pre-figurements are given by the Sacred Writers, notably by St. John, it is Catholic traditional teaching that the Antichrist is a man. It is this Son of Perdition of whom Pope Pius X spoke in his first address, quoted above. Fr. Coleridge, following the Gospel accounts and Fathers of the Church, writes of "lying wonders" that will be performed by this Son of Perdition. How will this be possible? In one of his chapters, "The Decay of Faith," Coleridge emphasizes that in the Latter Days the people will have drifted into spiritual blindness. Writing ten years before Fr. Coleridge, Cardinal Manning spoke of the "feeble Catholic instinct" then prevailing (See my Letter No. 2). What we must expect, then is that the success of the LIE will be due not only, or not even mainly, to the skill of the Liar, but also to the readiness of the people to accept falsehood. Coleridge puts it this way:

For Antichrist will be what he is and be as successful as he is to be, mainly on account of the disposition of the generation to which he will address himself. He will be the child of the time, the man of the age, the personal expression and outcome and summary of the ruling characteristics and propensities and tastes and ideas of that generation. If we may so use the Divine words, he will come unto his own, and his own will gladly receive him.

All apostasy begins in the soul as a moral-psychological aberration, and normally drifts at some stage into sentimentalist religiosity, of which a person may not even be aware. There can be no doubt about it, most Catholics like the New Things including the happy-hour or kindergarten "liturgy." They do not want the old Catholic things. They have their reasons which they can't express. Only this do they know for sure, that they don't want the hard truths of the Catholic Faith, or those about present events affecting the

Church. They want to keep the New Religion as though it were the old. In this connection Fr. Coleridge points out another item that ought to interest us today. Writing of the early persecutions of the Church, he mentions that if these persecutions generated martyrs by the thousands, they did not the less generate apostates and compromisers by the tens of thousands. Of Scriptural references to a great blindness to truth in the latter days, the Discourses contain this:

You will observe, my brethren, that here we find no mention made of distinct heresies or false doctrines. There is rather to be a general decay or denial of all faith, and a sort of practical paganism. And thus we are prepared for what some old Christian writers tell us on this very subject of the future restoration of heathenism. There is a mysterious vision in the Apocalypse, of a beast that was wounded, and, it seemed, slain, but which was brought to life again by the power of the false prophet, and adored by all on earth whose names are not written in the Book of Life. This vision is interpreted, by the writers to whom I allude, of heathenism, which has been, as it were, put to death by the Christian religion, but which will hereafter revive and reign for a short time.

End of quotation. If any general characteristic can be ascribed to recent world developments, surely it is this one of revival of heathenism. Those who have promoted it intend that it shall reign. I have given it as my opinion that the Revolution in the Church and in the world are one. Writing of the Antichrist, Coleridge has something which I think most significant in this connection:

The power in the world which hinders and prevents his (Antichrist's) full manifestation, is said by the Fathers to mean the temporal government of the Roman empire. Their language sounds strange to us, but this is the case more from the words which they use than from the ideas they intend to convey. When they speak of the Roman Empire, they mean, as we should put it now, the principle which in those days was embodied and represented by that Government, the principle of law and order and right and obedience, the rule of conscience and of the natural law, as represented in the fabric of human society, which cannot stand for a moment without this principle of law and order and power and justice, to hold it together and to support it. Now, by this it seems to be meant that, as faith is founded on reason, and grace built on nature, so the supernatural society of the Church presupposes, and thus in a certain sense rests upon, the civil society. And if any power of evil can utterly subvert and undermine the latter, it will go far towards obtaining a momentary victory over the former.

So wrote Fr. Coleridge about ninety years ago, concerning what the Fathers of the Church taught about the temporal power in the Divine schema of things. What he says might seem to justify the "civic, not a religious organization" position of the TFP which I recently criticized, and the politics first, or only, of the John Birch Society. The error in this way of thinking is to suppose that we have yet in America, or anywhere else on earth today, governments firmly based on natural law principles. Given the present moral and intellectual nihilism, chief products of the controlling Money Power for corrupting Europe and America, it is not possible to establish good natural law governments. What we have now in the U.S., and have had for the past forty or more years, is misgovernment directed by a cabal of internationalists bent on total destruction of all that remains of Christianity. As indicated by Fr. Coleridge, following the Fathers of the Church, this is one of the marks of the latter times. It is the complete destruction of the temporal order that he sees as making way for the arrival of Antichrist. As we know, this destruction of legitimate governments was and is the main obsession of secret societies, quite openly carried out in Europe during the past two centuries. The latest of their works was accomplished in Portugal -- as usual, in the name of Democracy.

"Render unto Caesar, the things that are Caesar's, and to God, the things that are God's." As Catholics we know this principle well enough. But it is those who want a paganized theocracy of the Sanhedrin, or a Godless New World Order of Satan that we have to deal with. The promoters of this New Order have shouted loudly in favor of "separation of Church and state." But what they intend is a monolithic State which will decide just how much and what kind of religion will be permitted, as in Russia. The end result is not to be separation but the State and the ruling cabal as gods. In his RETURN OF THE KING discourses, Fr. Coleridge returns again and again to the Scriptural prediction of a spiritual blindness of the "later" days. In his chapter "The Loosing of Satan" he writes of "the last great seduction, apostasy and persecution." He quotes St. Paul as to the partial success of Antichrist, as follows:

His coming, says the Apostle, is "according to the working of Satan in all power and signs and lying wonders, and in all the seduction of iniquity to those who are lost, because they received not the love of truth that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send upon them the operation of error, to believe lying, that all may be judged who have not believed the truth but have consented unto iniquity."

The two great features of this prophecy, writes Coleridge, are, first, the truth that Antichrist is to be supported by all the power of the devil, "in all power, and signs, and lying wonders," and secondly, that this permission from God is judicial. Because men have not loved the truth, they shall be allowed to believe lies. We see by this of what vital importance it is to pass on where possible works of Catholic truth, warnings against the apathy of our time. It seems to me that Fr. Coleridge's "discourses" on the latter days in general, contain the best of Catholic traditional teachings on that subject. But like all Scriptural analysts I have read, he fails to give us anything definite about the probable office or worldly position of Antichrist. I notice the same lack regarding details of the Man of Sin teaching. To the best of my knowledge Holy Scripture is vague on these things, as are the Fathers of the Church. Therefore, not as prophet or theologian but as a common sense observer, having the great advantage of present events before me, I venture to suggest some lines of thought on this subject. Let us take first, Man of Sin. What sin, what multitude of the most enormous sins would a man need to commit to exceed the deeds of lust, murder and oppression of the poor by men who have already lived, or live today? What natural or unnatural vices, of lust, murder or torture, of child murders, of slavery, of general destruction, of unjust wars and of the planned moral corruption of nations, have not already been committed by some ruler, undercover operators, by master usurers, by politicians of great influence, on a grand scale? How in the secular sense of things will a man exceed in sin the murderous works of, say, Josef Stalin, and of those whose tool he was? How can it be that any man, no matter how powerful, will exceed the sins of past great sinners, so as to deserve, in a unique sense, the title, Man of Sin, or Son of Perdition, the title by which Pope Pius X spoke of him? It seems to me the only possible correct answer to this question is, that the Man of Sin can acquire that title only by reason of a unique office, one in which the greatest spiritual evil is possible. As the spiritual is far above the material, or secular order, so are sins against the Spirit of a greater evil than those against the flesh, against natural justice, against the temporal order. According to Catholic teaching, the loss of one soul is of far greater consequence than the destruction of the material universe. Similarly with the idea of Antichrist. This person cannot be simply another evil man, in the ordinary sense, no matter how far-reaching his evil influence may be in the secular order. Again, this person must

be unique by reason of his high and unique spiritual office. Who, then, in a theologically exact sense, can fill the office of Antichrist? I suggest that it can only be he who can effectively oppose himself to the past Vicars of Christ and their doctrines from the time of Peter, and who can effectively oppose himself to the true worship of God by taking away, for a time, the continual Sacrifice. In other words, it can only be he who might Judicially oppose himself to Christ who is the invisible head of the Church. It can only be he who by the power of his office, or by the power of the Office he has usurped, is capable of setting up the Abomination in the Holy Place. Who is it who could seat himself in the Holy Place, and change all laws, as if he were God? Remember that Holy Scripture must be interpreted in the spiritual sense, not the carnal sense of the Jews, or of Jewish-derived non-Catholic religions. To the best of my knowledge, it has been the teaching of orthodox writers that the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem and the events preceding it were but pre-figurements of the latter days and end of the world. Finally, what position of extraordinary power could Antichrist hold and yet be inconspicuous, so as to be in accord with the Scriptural prediction of a general blindness and apostasy? I suggest that it would have to be an old established position, one that in a sense is "taken for granted" by the people. Any extraordinary new office, any demonstration of external "wonders" before the end would give the whole show away, and thus contradict the Scriptural prediction of a great deception. To deceive successfully and consistently it is necessary to speak mostly truth, while appearing outwardly no different than men expect. When I decided to head these LETTERS with the words of St. John the Apostle, "to be of the truth," I had in mind the lying and insane character of our time, in which the Catholic mind has become immersed. Incidentally, Mr. H. Belloc gives the ingredients of the modern mind as pride, ignorance and intellectual sloth. To sum up, then, we have these indications that this time of ours is exceptional in history: 1. A general state of revolt, at all levels, against authority and the natural law, including worldwide agitation or open revolt against all governments which yet remain relatively free; 2. A very strange kind of pope, one who as Archbishop and Cardinal questioned the very nature of the Church, who as Pope has tampered with every sacrament, law and custom, who has made of the Catholic Liturgy an open house for all manner of people and abuses, who has by words and deeds rejected the papal authority as such, and who when openly accused of crimes of heresy, schism and scandal by a learned French priest, took no action against that priest. The "reforming mania" this Pope (Paul VI) instituted, and the confusion of doctrine which has resulted, are plain to see for those who will see. Finally; 3. We have a blindness on the part of Catholics which causes them to resent being reminded of the Catholic doctrines they once held, or the present reality behind the chaos within the Church. This is what I have observed during nearly four years of trying to pass along significant truths, none of which are ever denied but are simply evaded. But not all refuse to see. And when the truth can no longer be evaded, those who have had their eyes open all the time will not be shattered in their faith. They will know that "an enemy hath done this," not foolishly thinking that the ancient Enemy could not steal into the highest place. ECONE Having noticed the growing controversy about Archbishop Lefebvre and Econe, I devoted space to this subject in my Letter No. 12. Since then has come news of the June 29 ordinations. In Letter No. 13 I wrote against these ordinations on general principles. Until the June 29 ordinations I had not looked closely at Econe, thinking that whatever mistakes or irregularities might exist in Archbishop Lefebvre's position could be justified by the difficult circumstances of our time. Briefly, I was inclined to trust him and write of other matters.

But even the doubts I expressed brought some disagreements, and I received copies of the Archbishop's Letter No. 9 as evidence of the soundness of his position. But this Letter No. 9 does not satisfy me. On the contrary it makes it much more difficult to put my trust in the Archbishop and Econe. So for those disposed to consider unemotionally further comments of mine on this subject, I present the following: From the Society of St. Pius X Letter No. 9 to Friends and Benefactors, page 10: Referring to Paul VI, the Archbishop says this --"We are the keenest defenders of his authority as Peter's successor." How then does the Archbishop explain his defiance of Paul's order to close down his seminary? How can he justify the ordinations of 29 June, forbidden by Paul VI? How can he tell 1500 persons in attendance that "the Pope has no right to stop these ordinations?" Remember that it is Archbishop Lefebvre who professes his loyalty and obedience to the person of Paul VI as pope. But even if Archbishop Lefebvre were to believe as many of us do that Paul 6 is a false pope subverting the Church; even so, how can he assume jurisdiction, which he does not have as a non-residential Bishop, for these ordinations? But, it will be said -- is being said -- that the Archbishop is a holy man and the only bishop defending the Mass. But this in no way gives him the required jurisdiction, the necessary authority. The Catholic Church has never been ruled through a spiritual elite, but by authority passed down by those who received it from others -- from the Popes, starting with St. Peter who received it from Christ Himself. In the Catholic Church authority is not presumed. No authority, no jurisdiction, no action which requires jurisdiction. There seems to exist confused notions that Archbishop Lefebvre is taking a lawful stand on Canon Law against Paul 6. He has no standing whatever on Canon Law. If his Society had any approval from Paul 6 (which appears from certain Vatican correspondence not to be the case), Paul 6 can withdraw that approval at any time. Again I remind the reader that it is Archbishop Lefebvre who protests his loyalty to Paul 6 as true pope. Paul's order to close Econe, to cease all ordinations there, is clearly within the authority of a pope to so order. But if Paul be a false pope -- false to his office, a heretic or apostate, invalidly elected -- I still do not see where Archbishop Lefebvre gets his authority to operate a seminary, ordain young men to the priesthood, and turn them loose to minister in a string of chapels without canonical authorization. As already mentioned, there are good Catholics who think the Archbishop's holiness and right intentions are a sufficient mandate for his operations. This is understandable in the very simple faithful. It is quite another matter to find this notion expressed by Archbishop Lefebvre himself, page 11 of his Letter No. 9 as follows: "Therefore we must save the true Church and Peter's successor from this diabolical assault..." Well, a bishop needs no special divine mandate to do what he lawfully can to save the true Church. In fact it is his grave obligation to do what he can in every way lawful. As to saving Peter's successor, if he means Paul 6, Paul made it quite plain in his recent consistory that he doesn't want saving by Archbishop Lefebvre or anyone else. He made it clear that he wants Econe closed, the ordinations there stopped, and the Tridentine Mass stopped also. That was plain, straight from the horse's mouth, for all the world to hear. It is the Moderates' habit of closing their minds to this kind of plain evidence of Paul's enmity that has led them and others into this absurd position. The truth of the matter seems to be that Archbishop Lefebvre and the other Moderates have caught themselves in a net of their own weaving. Years of double-think about Paul has ended in an absurdity, and in defiance of the Pope the Moderates right along defended. Had these Moderates remained loyal to

the true popes they would not be so confused -- they would not have so deceived themselves, to put the best possible light on the matter. For those who are disposed to heed my advice, I saw follow no one in Religion who has not the right to command you. In the Catholic Church it is only the pope who has the right of command over all and each of the faithful. The rights of command of others, including all bishops, are limited. So, there is not today a true pope? God is not unaware of this, yet we may be certain that He commissions no one directly (since St. Peter) to set up an organization for dispensing the Sacraments, conferring orders, etc. The Keys were given to Peter and were passed on to his successors. There is no authority to be had from any other source. Something has been made of the report that Paul's emissaries tried repeatedly to get the Archbishop to call off the June ordinations. This in no way serves to justify the Archbishop's refusal to desist from ordaining young men...the Archbishop's refusal to obey. Paul 6 has his own reasons for not wanting these ordinations now. And strange as it may seem, this is one time he is in the right as pope. I say that because outwardly everything looks so good about Econe that it might be, regardless of the Archbishop's generally good intention and of those who support him, the ultimate trap. St. John of the Cross teaches that "the devil destroys the spiritual with the spiritual." He does not ordinarily offer to the high-minded base temptations, but appeals to weaknesses of character in such people. The fact of a false pope in no way sets aside the Divine Plan for governing and sanctifying the Church's members. No bishop may say to himself, "the pope is not doing his job so I will do it." I have before me a copy of Archbishop Lefebvre's address of 29 June, on the occasion of his recent ordinations. He tells his audience that the authorities from Rome put the new Missal into his hands, saying, "Here is the Mass that you must celebrate and that you shall celebrate henceforth in all your houses." And the Archbishop asks, "Are we wrong in obstinately wanting to keep the rite of all time? We have, of course, prayed, we have consulted, we have reflected, we have meditated to discover if it is not indeed we who are in error, or if we do not have a sufficient reason not to submit ourselves to the new rite. And in fact, the very insistence of those who were sent from Rome to ask us to change the rite makes us wonder." But at this point it is not for Archbishop Lefebvre a question of the rite of the Mass, but of simple obedience. The Archbishop has been directed by Paul 6, whom the Archbishop upholds as true pope, to not ordain, but he does so anyway. The grave obligation to reject a heretical rite does not confer a right to ordain priests without the required jurisdiction and in disobedience to him who has been consistently upheld by the Archbishop as true pope. This is elementary. At the end of his June 29 sermon Archbishop Lefebvre says this: "And that is why we are persuaded that, in maintaining these traditions, we are manifesting our love, our docility, our obedience to the Successor of Peter." Such is the double-think of our time. Speaking of the Traditions, the primary tradition is obedience to Peter's successors in all that is not wrong in itself. When the papal office lacks a visible head or a true vicar of Christ there yet remains the Church's laws which are all bound to obey. And we must bear in mind that, according to excellent authorities on the papal authority, Christ will sustain the jurisdiction of a heretical pope in commands not against the law.

For what it is worth, a few sentences on my own position opposed to the counter-church of Paul 6. I have never attended the Novus Ordo, the so-called Mass of Paul VI. When our parish priest began to recite the loud narrative "consecration" we went elsewhere to Mass, for as long as it lasted there. As I see it we are on perfectly safe ground when we withdraw from the parishes with their heretical worship service and instructional manuals. It is when we take the initiative, join in with those who are trying to set up a substitute for a canonically authorized parish that we find ourselves in a doubtful position. One lawful initiative remains open to us, that of speaking the truth about the papal usurper, and his servile bishops. For the bishops it is surely a grave sin to be silent about this man. Who truly believes in the authority given to Peter will defend that authority openly against the false pope, but will scrupulously obey the Church's laws. We should also bear in mind that Christ who is the invisible Head of the Church may very well sustain, or supply for the jurisdiction, as well as for all lawful orders, of even a false pope. So here is my own rule, which I derive from Catholic teachings: speak out against the demolitionists, reject their works, and leave the rest to God. Avoid all who profess to have the mission of saving the Church. From the beginning of Montini's pontificate the Catholic conservatives and most of those who think of themselves as traditionalists have put their trust in man, the man Montini rather than in that Tradition they rather clamorously professed. Not for them the principles, laws and doctrines of the true popes, but trust in Paul VI. But now after confidence in Montini has gradually oozed out, they pursue the same tactics of evasion, putting their trust in another man, the Archbishop Lefebvre. Not having succeeded in winning over Archbishop Lefebvre as Paul 6 would have preferred to do, the wily politician Montini makes the most of the Archbishop's own initiative to trap him. This surely is the meaning of Paul's public and prolonged castigation of Archbishop Lefebvre at the recent consistory. There he is, says Paul 6, the great traditionalists leader who defies the pope... who says that the pope has no right ot order him to desist from ordaining eleven young men. There is nothing of chagrin, of defeat, in Montini's charges against Archbishop Lefebvre on this occasion. If there were he would not have made so much of it publicly. Paul cares little or nothing about the ordinations, and by making the most of the Archbishop's open defiance he has gained points among those of the Clergy who have been in a state of doubt about Paul and his counter church. As I see it, there is only one right course of action in the present confusion, that of plain speaking about the words and works of chief demolitionist Montini. Had Archbishop Lefebvre refrained from his Econe venture, an attempt to circumvent the papal chair by providing priests and sacraments himself, had he spoken out instead, consistently and clearly, against the papal usurper, he would have won a far greater number of good priests than he has now in the immature young men he sends into the midst of wolves -- wolves of the left and right, without the proper support from mature priests. As of this writing I have received a dozen or so "take my name off your mailing list" notes; and several "How dare you speak against the Archbishop and his ordinations!", which emotionalism is a bad sign in itself. But for those who have kept their Catholic sense of balance, one last word: Econe is in no way a matter of conscience for those who are not already implicated in it. As mentioned above, the individual Catholic outside this Society has no obligation towards Archbishop Lefebvre and Econe. Personally, I intend to stand clear of Econe and all its works. It is not a valid argument against what I am saying to point out that The Wanderer editors have spoken out against Archbishop Lefebvre. Of course the silly Wanderer (as its name implies) would get it all wrong -- except that they do use the Archbishop's own stated reason, defense of the Rite of Trent, as basis for their criticisms. But while rightly setting aside Wanderer fallacies, what true Catholics must bear in mind in

that however selectively Paul 6 speaks the Law -- it is the standing law of the Church, not the law of Montini, that he spoke against the independent ordinations at Econe. What the Archbishop was long ago morally bond to do, speak the truth publicly against the usurper for all to hear, he did not do. He spoke only as much as expedient to keep the confidence and support of his close followers, who are mainly concerned to get the Sacraments. The road of false obedience was certain to end in some such fiasco. It is disturbing, though, to see many one-time uncompromising Catholics hastening to defend this indefensible move to assume the Church's fundamental authority. UPON THIS ROCK I will get to my main subject presently, approaching it indirectly. It seems useful to write something first about that which most directly concerns Catholics who have been resisting the Vatican II revolution, the Mass. And since in this Letter my remarks are addressed mainly to those who think of themselves as in some sense Catholic traditionalists, to avoid confusion I will say here what I mean by that term. By Traditionalists, Capital T, I mean those Catholics who in their concern about the destructive Vatican II reforms, look outside the Papacy for a Leader and Solution. It would be very foolish indeed to suppose that the plan for total destruction now evident is not to be applied against those who resist the evil reforms, and who set up for themselves substitute arrangements for Mass and Sacraments. It will be through this demand for Mass and Sacraments outside the law that the devil, always appearing as an angel of light, will approach these people. He will send those who seem to give a guarantee of preservation of the Mass, valid Orders, etc.; and in this, as usual, he lies. Or he might arrange to lure them into the counter-church of Paul VI as a Traditionalists sect. I have written this before but it bears repeating. It is the final Great Deception for those who resist Vatican II. In one of my early papers, I expressed the opinion that it would be permissible to attend Mass at open-to-the-public Traditionalist chapels, but that these should be approached, if at all, with caution. I was more definite in saying that chapel groups ought to stay clear of outside organizers. I realized the danger of starting a schismatic chapel or movement regardless of original good intentions. Of course early during the Vatican II Mass changes the thoughts of my wife and I, like those of many others, were of how we could satisfy our privilege and obligation to attend a certainly valid Mass somewhere. In this first concern there was that which, if not restrained, would lead many in the name of Tradition into eventual rejection of the Church's authority. We are now in the last and greatest phase of that Traditionalist rejection. It is my concern that by my writings I might have contributed something toward this rejection of the Law; and it is this which impels me in conscience to write against the rebellious movement from Econe, Switzerland. The issue is all the more confused because it is a law-destroying false pope who seems to oppose the Econe disregard of the Law. The cautious approval I expressed about Mass arrangements outside parish churches and other approved places of public worship was based on the following considerations: 1, the right of a priest to continue to offer the Mass of Trent as given in the Quo Primum decree of Pope Pius V; 2, the precedent of house Masses in England, Ireland, and Mexico, and doubtless in other countries, in times of persecution by the civil authorities; 3, the proposition that the obligation of the Faith is prior to that of obedience; 4, the normal need we all have for the Sacraments. So far so good; at least it looked good on paper, and we had the agreement of more than a few priests opposed to the corrupting changes in the Church. Even so, I was never comfortable about this way of

thinking, soundly based though it had once seemed to be. But it was not until I turned my attention to a recent international movement to organized Traditionalist chapels that I saw clearly what now appears to be the truth -- that there is no essential difference between the larger public chapel and the small house chapel with some outside attendance, all being apart from any legitimate authority, all opening up Mass and Sacraments to many abuses, as I well know from numerous letters received. If the Traditionalists are going to stand on the Law of Quo Primum, which they cite time and again, how can they justify setting aside other laws, such as the one which forbids the establishment for public worship any kind of chapel, large or small, without episcopal approval? According to the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia, under POPE, "the Pope alone gives to anyone the privilege of a private chapel where Mass may be said." According to a reliable source at hand, during the early centuries Mass was offered in the larger private houses, but the Church put an end to this practice because of abuses -- and what abuses and irregularities are to be expected now as compared to then! Even so, abuses are not such an absolute thing and might with care be eliminated -- at least theoretically. Practically not, what with the present general low level of spirituality, the general confusion which prevails, the presence of Traditionalists who hold some heresy, and the unwillingness at worst, the inability at best, of traditionalist priests to act as responsible pastors; and, sad to say, because some of these priests are traditionalists for reasons not the best. There is lacking not only authority but also sanctity of the kind the situation calls for. I write this in no sense of blame for anyone, or as following the Donatists in their false doctrine of necessary priestly perfection, which none of them ever came near obtaining, I'm sure. I am concerned only with reality; actual conditions. St. Augustine imagined that in the Latter Days giants would arise to defend the Faith, but I do not see any giants around. I have said that the fact of abuses is not such an absolute thing; but lack of legitimate authority is, and I thereby come to the main Traditionalist temptation, which is not only schism but heresy, the belief that Mass and Sacraments can be had lawfully and priests be lawfully ordained outside the juridical order of the Papacy. As I wrote in another paper, this is the heresy of Simon Magus. It is not a sufficient answer to say that Paul 6 does not seem to be a true pope. True pope or false, vacant Chair or not, the authority remains lacking for these attempts to set up substitute parishes, chapels, and seminaries. The fact of a destroyer on the Papal Chair, and apparently apostate Bishops in seemingly all dioceses, does not give anyone the right to disregard the Church's laws or bend them to his own purpose. This free interpretation of the Law, the putting of it aside as not now applicable, can serve to make any man -- Bishop, priest or layman -- a law to himself, and it opens a door for deliberate confusers and subverters. I know that a few papers of mine contain sentences that might be taken as encouraging this kind of disregard of the Law. I readily admit to some loose expressions and occasional unwise overemphasis in one way or another, and this disturbs me. But if my papers are examined as a whole, and distinctions are noted with regard to the particular applications as I made them, I think unbiased readers will concede that I have not encouraged any free-wheeling disregard of the Law on the presumption that a false pope and apostate Bishops can justify this. We have on the one side an unCatholic attitude of "the pope is the pope" blind obedience, of Paul 6 as the way, the life, and the truth. Against this attitude of the close followers of Paul 6 and the see-no-evil Moderates, are those of us who see the destructive reality of Montini's works and speak of them plainly. The Traditionalists have not closed their eyes but, noting Paul's words and works destructive of the Church, they say he has unpoped himself and lacks authority, and that they may therefore set up their own Traditionalist thing. According to this way of thinking, we are to suppose that any Bishop is free to set up what amounts to his own Church. Not much imagination is needed to see what this can lead to. With regard to a current claimant of this pseudo-pope status, Marcel Lefebvre, his followers assure us that we need not be concerned about his good intentions: Have faith in Lefebvre is their message. But all the faith in the world will not make him pope or do away with the Law. As a non-residential Bishop he hasn't any

authority over the least child in any diocese of the world. They are fools who give their allegiance to a Bishop without jurisdiction, for the whole plan of Salvation is founded on Authority. "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth...whose sins you shall forgive," etc. No true Catholic ever questions this. I myself have written that Paul 6 had unpoped himself; I said more -- that he had never assumed true papal authority, that he is Antichrist, but this is not to say or imply that there is no authority, that we are now free to do each his own thing. This is a truth that can be obscured when a Bishop's miter and a whole barrage of words, including vague twists of Canon Law, enters the picture. To return to the question of the Mass in our time, the Church's official and public act of worship, until recently strictly governed as to manner of performance and place: How can any layman or priest and group of laymen dare to set up a public chapel, large or small? Let us examine here the four points previously mentioned, of possible jurisdiction. First the right of priests as guaranteed by the Quo Primum decree of Pope Pius V. Was this intended as an absolute right, regardless, say, of a Bishop's direct order to one of his priests to cease offering the Trent Mass? Or did it only protect the priest in good conscience against orders to perform a heretical rite, such as the Novus Ordo of Paul 6? I am not suggesting an answer here but only raise a question. I would suppose priests have certain definite rights to offer Mass, which is what they are chiefly ordained to do. Yet there does exist such a thing as an obligation to obey lawful authorities in what is not unlawful. An instance of this was the order of Paul 6 to close the seminary at Econe, and to cease ordaining there. I will get to the question of Pope Paul's authority or lack of it presently. Number two of my four justifications, the precedent of "underground" Masses in times of persecution in England, Mexico, etc. Recall that this persecution was by civil authorities and that priests then were certainly acting under the authority of a true pope. The Mass they performed was not forbidden, as the Trent rite is forbidden today. Again I am only presenting a possible difficulty, possibly pertinent distinctions; two different situations. My main purpose in this is to make the average reader aware of the law and of our obligation to take due account of it. I am aware too that Paul 6 has not properly forbidden the Tridentine rite. Number three, the truth that our obligation to keep the faith is prior to that of obedience. This I do not see as applicable to the present Mass situation. The Faith can be kept for a long time without the Mass; therefore disobedience on this principle cannot be justified. Number four, the normal need for the Sacraments; their place in the divine scheme of salvation. Here we are on more solid ground, again theoretically. The Council of Trent condemns those who say that the Sacraments are not necessary for salvation, but this is not to be understood in an absolute sense, but as against the teachings of the Reformers' doctrine of justification by faith alone. But however that doctrine may apply, and practically speaking, how can a few priests provide Mass and Sacraments for thousands of scattered faithful? And may they do this in disregard of the Church's laws? Those who are baptized and have received Communion have received the necessary Sacraments. Baptism and Matrimony are possible without a priest. Anyone may baptize in an emergency, which would surely apply in times or places where a doubtfully valid rite is being used in the parishes. Canon Law provides for marriage in cases of a certain time without a priest. Now all the Traditionalists have heard about Canon 209 and the Church supplying jurisdiction. They cite this frequently -- even those who have never read it -- against the Bishops who are presumed to have lost all jurisdiction because of their apostasy. Let us see what 209 does say. From the Woywod, Vol. 1, "JURISDICTION SUPPLIED BY THE CHURCH. 161. The Church supplies jurisdiction both for the external and the internal forum: (1) in common error; (2) in a positive and probable doubt whether of fact of law (Canon 209). Common error consists in the erroneous belief of all or nearly all the

people of a place, parish, community, that a man has jurisdiction. The fact that the person knows that he has no jurisdiction, does not interfere with the validity of his acts if by common error he is believed to have jurisdiction." There follows in that first section, from which I have just quoted, a few sentences of comment on the old Canon Law. The latter half of Canon 209, section 162, deals with doubtful situations, and I shall quote it in full; but first as to the above-mentioned essential part. The plain sense of "common error" or "erroneous belief" concerning jurisdiction, surely applies to the Bishops today, including Paul 6, whose jurisdiction nearly all baptized Catholics accept without question. Here is St. Robert Bellarmine's doctrine made Canon Law, that a heretic retains jurisdiction until his heresy becomes notorious and he is deposed by lawful authority. This law contradicts those who say that the Bishops have lost jurisdiction, and that, therefore, the Church will supply this authority to certain Traditionalist priests, most certainly to a Traditionalist Bishop if one comes along, acting on their own initiative. Quite definitely Canon 209 indicates the opposite, that the Bishops retain their authority. Certainly Canon 209 provides for jurisdiction in its more common application, to a Religious community where the jurisdiction of a superior is doubtful, and to a priest -- any validly ordained priest -- for absolving from sins, censures, etc., in danger of death, and to less extreme or less urgent cases in our time when the proper form of the Sacrament of Penance is being generally corrupted. But the plain sense of Canon 209 does not support the claims of those who are citing this law as justification for a general disregard of the Law. Section 162 on Jurisdiction Supplied by the Church reads as follows:

"The Church supplies jurisdiction in a positive and probable doubt. Authors do not agree on the interpretation of the terms, "negative" and "positive" doubt. Generally speaking, a negative doubt means that one has no reason to serve as a basis for deciding a question, and it is about equal to ignorance on that question. A positive doubt means that one has a good reason for deciding a question one way, but that there is also a reason in favor of a contrary decision of the question. For example, the reasons for and against the existence of jurisdiction in a certain case create a positive doubt; and, if the reasons on both sides are of such weight so as to create a bonafide doubt, the Church supplies the jurisdiction, even though the person did not possess it."

So ends Canon Law 209. I can see nothing in it to warrant a Traditionalist Movement with Mass and Sacraments, or the setting up of any kind of Sacraments-outside-the-law chapel or new Church on the presumption that the works of Paul 6 have destroyed the true Church, now become a sect, as many Traditionalists are saying. Paul 6 and his host of heretics are not the Church. To imply that they are is to fall into Paul's own monstrous trap, in company with all those in the parishes that he has deceived. A priest writing in The Voice, 18 Sept. 1976, has this to say: "A few years ago Cardinal Ottaviani said that any priest who continues to offer the LatinTridentine Mass has faculties anywhere in the world. Canon 682 affirms this." Date, place and occasion of this supposed decree of Cardinal Ottaviani's were not given; neither were the Cardinal's exact words. Quite certainly Cardinal Ottaviani, wise and prudent head of the Holy Office under four popes, did not and could not give any such blanket authority to priests. And even were we disposed to believe this story, the writer conveniently omitted to mention the last part of Canon 682 which he cites in support of his argument. I give the whole law here: "The laity has the right to receive from the Clergy, the spiritual goods and especially the necessary means of salvation, according to the rules of ecclesiastical discipline (Canon 682)." As I say, the latter part was omitted by

the Voice writer. Those who are going to speak about rights and obligations should quote the whole law, not just that part which they can use. I will not trouble the reader with other parts of Canon Law which I have seen mentioned as supposedly opening a gate for Traditionalist free-wheelers. Doubtless those who are intent on that kind of thing will manage to discover, without help from me, other loopholes for their illicit operations. Long before this, I'm sure, the reader will have gotten the idea that I think we must all abide by the Law, not joining with the followers of Paul 6 in rejecting it or changing it to suit one's own purpose. After much observing of developments since Vatican II, I am convinced that the Law is for our protection, especially against various charlatans who falsely come in the name of Orthodoxy and Tradition, always with a hand extended for large sums of money. Incidentally I have read recently that Cardinal Felici now has ready the Vatican II updated code of "Canon Law," ordered by "He who sits in the holy place, changing all laws." In more than one of my papers I begged for a few Bishops to speak out against the destructive works of Vatican II and Paul 6. Two kinds of response are possible to such a plea: 1. From a Bishop who will speak out plainly against Paul 6 and his works, warning the faithful and demanding that Paul cease destroying the Church. 2. From a Bishop who sets up his own organization, in effect his own Church, for dispensing the Sacraments. This first Bishop should be supported by good Catholics, but cautiously at first. The second must be avoided like a plague. He is schismatic and heretical and this whether Paul 6 be false pope, invalidly elected, or what. Such a Bishop is, without question, doctrinally wrong, and he knows it. All Bishops are very much aware of Jurisdiction. So what of the papal authority today, of the divine promise, the Rock on which the Church was founded? In other papers I have tried honestly to deal with this question. Unlike some Traditionalists who have simply declared Paul 6 a manifest heretic and therefore without authority, I have not set aside the doctrine of Christ's promise to remain with the Church He founded, a visible Church with a visible head, not have I closed my eyes to what is of the greatest significance and concern for Catholics today, the destructive program of the present occupant of the papal Chair. I shall here sum up my own opinion of the matter as set down in other papers of mine. I have followed the doctrine of St. Robert Bellarmine, that Christ the invisible Head of the Church will supply or sustain the jurisdiction of a heretic pope, until such a pope's heresy becomes notorious and he is induced to remove himself from office. Cardinal Montini was elected to the papal office according to long established procedure, and no Cardinal of the Conclave which elected Montini has protested his election as being invalid. In any case, validly elected or not according to canonical procedures, Montini occupies the papal Chair and although having no intention to act as true Vicar of Christ, he is the visible head all the same-- visible head although a corrupted head. Embarking on a program manifestly destructive of the Church, Montini is unlike any other pope. How to fit this into Catholic doctrine? We have the definition of infallibility given at the First Vatican Council, a true doctrinal Council, and Montini has not taught error ex Cathedra; we have the Scriptural prediction of a Great Apostasy, and Pope St. Pius X's opinion that the Son of Perdition had already been born in 1903 --the Antichrist, one totally, "perfectly" opposed to Christ, which only a pope can be, and the taking away of the Continual Sacrifice,

which only a pope can do. These things, I say, satisfy all the doctrinal requirements. I have seen no other attempt to do this completely. In my booklet POPE, COUNCIL AND CHAOS, I wrote that Christ the invisible Head of the Church honors the arrangements for electing a pope that He has approved through the centuries. He has given this privilege and responsibility to the chief officers of the Church, the Cardinals. Christ does not interfere with their choice, and if in time the College becomes composed of corrupt Cardinals, rejecting the divine aid they will surely elect one of their own kind to the papal Chair. Theoretically any male baptized Catholic can be elected pope, but with good reason the office had become open only to Cardinals. According to Canon Law, a known heretic, schismatic or simoniac would be ineligible. (Note the word "known" or "notorious" which legally amounts to proved as such.) But suppose such a one were elected, would his election be invalid? Quite likely, but the man would nevertheless occupy the Chair of Peter. And as I have pointed out, according to certain theologians, he could exercise jurisdiction for the good of the Church, as already mentioned. In other words, the evil election having been made, his jurisdiction would be sustained to the extent necessary for the maintenance of the juridical order within the Church, which is for the good of the faithful. As I mention in another paper, this is not to deny the teaching of a well-known Bull of Pope Paul IV, but only to give its application as taught by Cardinal Bellarmine. Here it might be well to consider the word "invalid," so frequently spoken by the Traditionalists and others, including myself, opposed to the evil works of Vatican II and Paul 6. We speak of a Mass as invalid, meaning no Mass at all. The same with regard to, say, ordinations. By an invalid ordination we mean the sacramental action did not take place, and the man is not made priest. An invalid consecration of a priest leaves him a simple priest, no bishop. But a Cardinal elected and crowned pope receives no such new character, no additional powers of the priesthood, but remains a bishop. An invalidly consecrated "bishop" will not have the powers of a bishop to ordain; but an invalidly elected pope can carry on, set in motion, ratify, deputize, etc., the routine of the papal office. What are we to think, for example, of the eight years Antipope Anacletus II occupied the papal Chair? Did the Church stop dead, with all the action from the papal Chair then made null and void? Whether or not set down then as Canon Law, the provisions of that law for maintaining jurisdiction in cases of common error or of doubt certainly applied. In his article POPE in the 1912 CATHOLIC Encyclopedia, Fr. George Hayward Joyce, S. J., M.A. points out that according to Old Testament prophecy and Christ's own words, Christ had attributed the foundation of the Church to Himself, and that it is in a secondary degree that He assigns to Peter a prerogative which is His own. So, despite Montini, the papal office remains: Christ remains as invisible Head, as He promised, until the end of time. "Outside the Church there is no salvation...on this Rock I will build my Church...the gates of hell shall not prevail....Behold I am with you all days." It is impossible that the sins of any man, even the total heresy of a pope and a thousand bishops with him, can change one iota of this doctrine. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words will not pass away." There is no place in all this for a Traditionalist Sacramental Movement for the saving of the Church; no place for a separate function of the priestly office. Young men who go into such a thing do so at the peril of their souls. Likewise those who accept their ministrations. It has been the neatest of diabolic tricks to get both the blind obedience followers of Paul 6 and the Traditionalists to equate Paul 6 with the Papacy. The first group does this by approving or at least taking part in the destructive program of Vatican II and Paul 6, erroneously taking it to be the Law. The second group looks for a Solution and Leader outside the Papacy, and sets aside such laws of the Church as found opposed to Traditionalist initiatives. One enterprising young Traditionalist priest comes up with NECESSITY KNOWS NO LAW, grossly misrepresenting this from St. Thomas Aquinas who applies it

to a dying man's need for absolution. This twist of St. Thomas's "Necessity knows no law" is in complete harmony with Montini's action in completely "revising" Canon Law. The Traditionalists see themselves as the Church, with the law as obstacle or advantage, depending on Traditionalist requirements of the day. In a talk at Portland, Oregon, an Econe priest repeated this idea, of Econe as the Church, several times; it was the main thrust of his talk, full of questionable statements. I give here these exact words of his, uttered in criticism of the Cardinal in whose archdiocese the seminary at Armada, Michigan, is located: "to attack us is to attack the Church." By "us" he meant Archbishop Lefebvre and Econe, as the manifest divinely chosen new instrument of salvation, obvious answer to Traditionalist prayers. I marveled at the glib presumption of the young priest speaker, but considered that he was only echoing headquarters. One gentleman has suggested that I wait and see concerning the Lefebvre affair. There is no need to see more. Lefebvre has ordained outside the Church's jurisdiction, he has gone into numerous dioceses to confirm, a privilege only of Cardinals, and he has his priests operating as a separate Church in the United States and elsewhere, without jurisdiction. He thereby has excommunicated himself. This regardless of whether Paul 6 be validly elected or not, for it is the Church's own Jurisdiction Lefebvre rejects, not merely (as Lefebvre obviously sees it) the orders of Paul 6. Regardless of who occupies the papal Chair, and even if it be vacant, he who sets up a sacramental system on his own, puts himself outside the Church. That is where the Econe supporters are putting themselves. The Great Temptation of the Traditionalists is nothing new. It is the ancient, so frequently accepted work of revolt, of disregard for Authority, doing one's own thing, that Satan offered to Eve. If those who resist the evil reforms of Vatican II and Paul 6 will not go to the left, Satan, appearing at a late hour as angel of light, will induce them to go with him to the right. The respectable Moderates, once so self-righteously "obedient" in their refusal to say a word against Paul 6, will mostly join in the late hour revolt. This will be a consequence of their failure to oppose the Montinian revolt -- of their silence concerning the guilt of that evil revolutionist, Paul 6, of their resisting and covering up for so many years the known truth about Paul 6. Having closed their eyes at first, they now see only dimly. I write for those who simply want to remain Catholic. Why then do I not stay in the parish and oppose those who are forcing on us the iniquitous changes? The principle of Vatican II Dialogue is evil, meant to destroy the faith of those who take part in it, raise doubts concerning every doctrine and practice, so I will have nothing to do with it. I might be asked how, considering my insistence on the Law, I can justify my refusal to attend the Novus Ordo of Paul 6. The very words Novus Ordo, a New Order of Worship, ought to be sufficient reply. A Novus Ordo does not follow from unchanging doctrine and the basic laws of the Church; certainly this of Paul 6 does not. "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." This is teh conclusion of a study by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci and their group of Roman theologians, addressed publicly to Paul VI, to which Paul did not reply. The First Commandment surely forbids us to take part in a liturgy which "as a whole and in its details represents a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass" -- more words from this same study of the Novus Ordo. As head then of the Holy Office, Cardinal Ottaviani was the only man whose official duty it was to admonish a pope about errors of doctrine. One more item on the Law. My attention has been directed to Canon Law which requires that religious writings be submitted to the local Ordinary for permission. There are of course two parts to that law, the first on the part of the writer, the second by the Bishop. It is well known that it has been the Bishops who have disregarded this law almost from the beginning of the Second Vatican Council, and that every kind of error is published and tolerated these days. Actually the suggestion, as sent to me by mail, was not

impelled by any real concern for the law, but is one of several recently received to stop my writings against Mgr. Lefebvre and Econe. ------------------------------------------ There has been some misunderstanding about my remarks concerning a priest's right to offer the Tridentine Mass, and about the Law in general. My main argument in Letter 18 was against the Econe schism, which of course brings into focus smaller schismatic operations. My contention was that we who have resisted the Montini schism have only doctrine and the law to keep us on the right track in this dark time. To this end I started from scratch, raising questions about Canon Law and the Quo Primum decree of Pope Pius V. As I see it, this is the right and prudent way to proceed with such an examination of the law and its possible requirements. I did not presume to settle the questions I raised -- how could I? -- but hoped the matter would be taken up by the few faithful priests who have refused to preside at the Novus Ordo; and that is where I leave it. Personally I refuse to have anything to do with opn-to-the-public Traditionalist chapels, large or small. Since I do not put any title before my name, or initials after it, I have always assumed that readers will not see in what I write, more authority than is presented in my papers. As I have written several times in the past, my own position is one of simple withdrawal from the New Order parish, refusing to take part in or support financially the heretical Novus Ordo liturgy and doctrinal manuals of the Enemy Within. This is as far as I will go, believing as I do that they are on dangerous ground who attempt to set up their own little "traditionalist" parishes. As I say, this is my opinion. Let others do as they wish, especially those intent on helping to found a new Church at Econe, Switzerland, on which matter I have received some letters of abuse about my writings. One "open letter" of calumny is being circulated against me. I care nothing about that. But I reserve the right to speak my mind about Mgr. Lefebvre as I have about Paul 6. Let Lefebvre if he is really opposed to Paul 6 speak as plainly as I have done these past six years. Not that this can justify his setting up a new Church. With regard to the Law under Paul 6 and his Vatican II Bishops, consider our Lord's observance of the Old Law as distorted by the 613 precepts of the Rabbis. Offhand, I recall Christ's direction to the lepers-made-clean to "Go show yourself to the priests;" also Christ's submitting to circumcision, and His payment of the head tax to the Temple, this last indirectly because no law could require such payment from the Son of God, God Himself. This payment was made to avoid giving scandal, which is also an obligation on the part of those who would set up "traditionalist" chapels, having regard for those Catholics who go along in confusion and blind obedience with the false reform of Vatican II and Paul 6. It is a definition of schism that the bond of unity is destroyed through lack of charity. Following St. Paul and the teaching of the Church on this, I don't see it as a completely good excuse that one is doctrinally in the right. All of which need not be misconstrued as encouraging compromise of principles or covering over unpleasant truths. On the other hand, Catholics who are being faithful to Catholic teaching today do not need to be warned against the puerile sentimentalism of the false Vatican II "ecumenical" reforms, which masquerade as charity. My reasoning about traditionalist chapels is quite simple. If a bishop ordains outside the Church's jurisdiction and sets up a string of chapels internationally, for dispensing the Sacraments, that quite plain is a schismatic operation, or the word has lost its meaning. A national string of chapels having several priests is not different essentially from the international one. The single chapel, as at Pittsburgh, Boston, Houston, etc., does not differ essentially from the others, these also being outside the Church's jurisdiction. It is not a matter of numbers but of the setting up public places of worship outside the permanent laws and jurisdiction of the Church. This jurisdiction is not affected by the character or evil works of the man who occupies the papal chair. The cry that these are extraordinary times has been made

as an excuse by every charlatan who offers a way out of the present confusion -- only to add to the confusion and divisions among those who know pretty much what is going on, and to the scandal of those who do not know. Heresy is added to schism by these people -- by their implicit denial of Christ's promise to remain always with the Church He founded. As I have shown by my own writings, I do not mean that we should all play dead who reject the evil reforms; I have had my own ideas about what should have been done from the beginning; which, however, had nothing to do with starting any kind of new Church. That schism now threatens -- is actually present -- on an international scale is largely the fault of those who have been too much concerned about sensible spiritual consolations, rather than about the threatening total destruction of the Church. This destruction will overtake us all the quicker and more completely because of the every-man-for-himself-Sacraments-regardless-of-the-Law course of action pursued by most of those who call themselves traditionalists. The warnings of good Catholics against those who are destroying the Law would be more effective if these Catholics were not so ready to break the Law themselves. I hope these additional lines will answer the questions of those who have been puzzled or disturbed about my Letter 18. Not that I have answered all the objections that might be made against what I have thus far written. I shall try later to answer some that have been sent to me by three priests who are offering the Tridentine Mass. -------------- From AN EXPOSITION OF THE GOSPELS, MATTHEW AND MARK by John MacEvilly, Archbishop of Tuam, 1887, page 129. Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His justice, and all these things shall be added unto you. 1. After the negative precept prohibiting excessive anxiety in regard to the necessaries of life, our Redeemer now proposes a positive or affirmative precept..... 2. "Seek." He does not say, "be solicitious." For, even in reference to our spiritual wants, we should not indulge in distracting solicitude, "nihil soliciti sitis," etc. (St. Paul, Phil, IV) Concluding Personal Note So ends, with the preceding chapter, this collection of papers, begun for distribution in 1971. The reader will possibly have noticed references to LETTERS, which is what I have called some of my writings as they were originally printed. ANd it might be that certain oddities in them have caused momentary distractions. For instance my writing first Paul VI, later Paul 6, and my switching from "apostasy" to "apostacy." The change from the papal Roman numeral designator is indicative of my belief that in Montini we have a pope unlike any other. But my switch from "apostasy" to "apostacy" is purely arbitrary, for no better reason than that I came to prefer the latter spelling. I hope these pages will find their way to many who are confused by the devastating Vatican II Renewal. I cannot offer any solution, no more than I can walk on water or calm the storms. I only pass on information and grim warnings which, to be sure, do not make pleasant music, as many readers have complained. My advice for those who are disposed to take it is this: Keep the Faith, hold close to doctrine and the law, neither subtracting from nor adding to it. Avoid all who come offering however gradually, or in whatever devious way they present it, what amounts to a new Church.