Regína sacratíssimi Rosárii, ora pro nobis!

From an Internet Discussion List
Ubi Papa?  Just Where Is He When We Need Him?


Date:    Friday, April 27, 2007 5:05 PM
Subject: My Angelqueen post on Pope Benedict XVI's encyclical on love.

Dear Father:

I wrote the attached material in response to a post on the Angelqueen forum and would appreciate your making it available to our readers.  The list of suspicious changes in the Mass and Sacraments may be of value as many modern Catholics try to consider the modernist changes one at a time and fail to take the big picture into account.

in XTO,



Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 120

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:01 pm    Post subject: Pope's love letter is a hit

First Saturday of Our Lady - Saint Blaise, Bishop & Martyr

TonydeNewYork wrote:
Its sad the lack of RESPECT for the pope from some of the members of this forum.

Where is Peter there is the Church.

Ubi Petus ibi ecclesia --so just where is the Pope? Ubi Papa?

That is precisely the problem in the Modernist Church. Oh, the Pope is around plenty to apologize for things he did not do, and on behalf of those for whom he cannot speak. He is around to make ridiculous pronouncements about a variety of things about which he has no special competence—and seems to have little normal competence. He flits around the world making appearances like a rock star.

But where is he when his clowns are raping the altar boys? Or dipping their rather large hands into the collection basket? When they are selling dope? When they collaborate with the Communists? You must be aware that such offenses are punished only when they violate civil laws. And, indeed, the Novus Ordo Popes have been clearly involved in covering up the offenses and rewarding the facilitators. Cardinal Law was sentenced to live in a castle on a nice pension. Stanislaw Wielgus was made Archbishop of Warsaw.

Where, indeed, has been the Pope as virtually every element of the Faith has been changed? Everything from the Mass and Holy Orders down to the Stations of the Cross and the Rosary has been played with! Sometimes just for the sake of changing; sometimes with invalidating intent. Generally, the Pope has been right there—as the perpetrator!

Where indeed, has the movement from “relativism” been—the movement about which the current Pope spoke so convincingly on the eve of his election?

Respect is earned. While one must have respect for the Vicar of Christ, it is clear that the Vatican II Popes have earned disrespect by their actions against the Mystical Body of Christ.

Pray for the conversion of the Pope! That he becomes one of those "who cherish the Catholic and Apostolic Faith."

in XTO

PS: Pope Benedict’s “Love letter” was as incomprehensible as anything Pope John Paul II ever wrote!


Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 120

PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:02 pm    Post subject: Pope's Love Letter

Popes Love Letter
................Saint Titus, Bishop & Confessor

Thank you for your analysis of my post. I am not sure how to manipulate your post to interleave the answers, to I’ve numbered your points and my replies to them.

Londiniensis wrote:
M_Eulogius wrote:
... He is around to make ridiculous pronouncements about a variety of things about which he has no special competence ...

(1) Such as?

M_Eulogius wrote:
Stanislaw Wielgus was made Archbishop of Warsaw.

(2) I don't think that you are very up-to-date on Church news.

M_Eulogius wrote:
... virtually every element of the Faith has been changed ...

(3) The Creed was still there last time I looked. If you don't like collegiality, or ecumenism, or to be told that a sincere and ignorant Hottentot will be encompassed by the mercy of God, then say so.

M_Eulogius wrote:
... sometimes with invalidating intent ...

(4) Now this is really new and interesting and important - please do share your evidence with us.

M_Eulogius wrote:
... it is clear that the Vatican II Popes have earned disrespect by their actions against the Mystical Body of Christ ...

(5) Err, clear to whom?

M_Eulogius wrote:
... Pope Benedict’s “Love letter” was as incomprehensible as anything Pope John Paul II ever wrote!

(6) I sympathise if you need to look up long words or philosophical references in reference books - no such problem, obviously, with St Augustine or St Thomas Aquinas.

St Matthew 16:18 wrote:
(7) And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

(1) See any encyclical of the Vatican II Popes on economics. Pope Paul’s Humanæ vitæ, in which he inverts the ends of marriage. Pope John Paul II’s ideas on dialogue with Animists, Voodoo worshippers. Luther as a “religious genius.” Pope Paul VI’s endorsement of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin as scientific! Pope John Paul’s endorsement of evolution as scientific. Awarding a Papal Knighthood to St. Lucia's Foreign Minister, Julian Hunte, a pro abortion, non-Catholic. Pope Benedict XVI’s waffling on Islam. Any papal speech at the United Nations. Crossing the Threshold of Hope: Preaching the Gospel jointly with heretics, evangelization through tourism to shrines; need for population control through “responsible” parenthood, “a necessary condition for authentic conjugal love”; “"The Gospel . . . is a grand affirmation of the world and of man”; the reality of Hell and its probable emptiness. Veritatis splendor: To perfect himself in his specific order, the person must [in addition to some real things] ... refine and develop the riches of the material world, cultivate social life, seek truth, practice good and contemplate beauty. Ut unum sint, in which Pope John Paul II put up for discussion a number of essential Catholic dogmas: 1) the relationship between Sacred Scripture and Tradition ... as the highest authority in matters of faith 2) the Eucharist, as the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; 3) Ordination as a Sacrament; 4) the Magisterium of the Church, entrusted to the Pope and the Bishops; 5) the Virgin Mary, as Mother of God and Icon of the Church; 6) the Papacy itself! I don’t have the patience to keep up with them, but there have been a good number of pronouncements of things like sports, water quality, and the music of Bob Dylan,.

(2) In spite of knowing his record as a collaborator, Pope Benedict appointed Wielgus as Archbishop, tried to get the people to accept them, and backed down only when Wielgus realized that the popular attitude was against him. He would be archbishop today if the faithful had not opposed the Holy Father’s choice. A number of other collaborators have surfaced, with more to be named soon, including some bishops. Pope Benedict XVI rewarded Cardinal Claudio Hummes, a proponent of “liberation theology” making him prefect of the Congregation of the Clergy. Recall that while many heroic priests and bishops in Communist countries did hard time (or worse) for speaking the truth, others were free to flit about the globe, speaking with whomever they wished about whatever they wished.

(3) The Creed has been in use by Protestants for centuries. Its words may have been unchanged, but every manner of disbelief is tolerated in practice. In practice, many modernist Catholics interpret the words of the Creed as describing “the Christ of faith, and not the Christ of History.”

Does anyone think that having ladies in blue jeans and T-shirts distribute Holy Communion (or any of the other Eucharistic irreverences) encourages belief in the real presence among the young or the old?—if they have ever heard of the real presence, and have not been told “we are the body of Christ”—the hosts swept out from under the pews suggest disbelief.

Authentic Catholicism believes sodomy to be a “sin which cries out to God for vengeance.” In the Old Testament it was punishable by death, and even though Christianity is generally more merciful with sinners, the death penalty for sodomites was upheld at least as recently as the pontificate of Saint Pius V. Whatever the proper penalty, it is an horrendous sin. But today the Church is infected with sodomite priests and bishops and the Vatican does nothing unless they are caught and convicted by the civil authorities. The “whistleblowers” are punished while the sodomites live well on the donations of the faithful.

Ecumenism is another sin punished with death in the Old Testament—more than death actually, for those who tempted God’s people to false worship were stoned, and then their cities were destroyed. Again, Christianity is generally more merciful, but the Church had heretics put to death for many centuries. Today we have spectacles like the worship of the Buddha on top of the tabernacle at Assisi; Popes pouring out of libations to the snake god, kissing of the Koran, and praying in mosques and synagogues.

Pope Pius IX articulated the Church’s position on Hottentots and others invincibly ignorant. Simultaneously he indicated that the Catholic Church is the only vehicle of salvation. Salvation is not through false systems of belief, even though they may contain substantial amounts of truth. If non-Catholics are saved, it is not because they are Protestants or Jews or whatever, but only if they have somehow become incorporated or associated with the Mystical Body of Christ—which does not just “subsist in” but is the Catholic Church. In Mortalium animos, (para 2, 4) Pope Pius XI quite accurately described the ecumenical movement, saying: “Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.” “But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.”

(4) Nothing new at all! From Rome we have not a word about the invalid baptisms in Australia (“Creator, Sustainer, Redeemer”) or the Butt-baptisms in the US. Not a word about the simulated celebration of the Novus Ordo by Bishop Fernando Rifan.

But the track record of the Conciliar Church making invalidating or dubious changes speaks for itself. There is, of course, no “litmus test” for validity but the Church has determined certain minima for validity in terms of intention, minister, matter, and form. The moral theologians are unanimous in saying that one must never confect a Sacrament in an invalid or even dubious manner—surely not when the means to certain validity are available. Yet, the Conciliar Church tampered with all of the Sacraments in a dubious way:

... 1967 the vernacular canon was introduced. At roughly the same time, the same heretical mistranslation of the words of consecration of the wine was introduced in most of the European languages, and approved by the Holy See (and used by the Popes themselves) in spite of a clear explanation of the Catholic doctrine on the matter in The Catechism of Trent. Invalidating? Perhaps. Dubious for sure. Sacrilegious in putting heretical words in the mouth of Christ. Would you prefer a valid sacrilege or an invalid sacrilege?

... 1968 Pope Paul VI changed the rite of priestly ordination significantly, and that of episcopal consecration radically.

In my personal opinion (some will say I am liberal in this) the rite for priestly ordination would be valid if used in Catholic circumstances; with the intention to ordain sacrificing priests. The elimination of some of the adjunct rites—like replacing, in the tradition of instruments, “Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God and to celebrate Mass for the living as well as for the dead in the name of the Lord.”—with— “Accept from the holy people of God the gifts to be offered to him. Know what you are doing, and imitate the mystery you celebrate: model your life on the mystery of the Lord’s cross.”—suggests that the framers of Pope Paul’s rite intended a more Protestant conception of the priesthood.

The rite for episcopal consecration eliminated the essential form prescribed by Pope Pius XII, replacing it with a single phrase taken from the ordinal attributed to the anti-Pope Hippolytus. Pope Paul VI, taking the phrase out of context and making it the essential form of the Sacrament very likely invalidated it, for now the “essential form” fails to mention the conferral of the fullness of the priesthood—something declared invalidating in both Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicæ curæ and in Pope Pius XII’s Sacramentum ordinis. Paradoxically, the rite might be valid if the consecrator announced the conscious intention of contradicting Pope Paul’s decree in Pontificalis Romani and stated that he intended to use it in its historical context instead, adding the other words of the rite to Pope Paul’s defective “form” as though the form was the entire rite—a convoluted intention at best!

Walter Cardinal Kasper, the president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, a member of the Roman Curia, has publicly declared an understanding of Holy Orders entirely different from the Catholic position, suggesting a forthcoming reexamination of Apostolicæ curæ. Pope Benedict says otherwise, but the last time I looked Apostolicæ curæ had gone down “the memory hole” as far as the Vatican website was concerned. I believe Kasper remains in the Curia.

...1969 Pope Paul VI introduced his Novus Ordo. The vernacular versions maintained the error in the form of consecration. Although probably not invalidating, the removal of the offertory prayers does suggest a repudiation of the sacrificial nature of the Mass, as do the Papally approved translations of “Eucharistic Prayer I” You will look in vain for “Thy holy people, offer unto Thy supreme majesty, of the gifts bestowed upon us, the pure + Victim, the holy + Victim, the all-perfect + Victim” in the ICEL translation of Prex I. The offertory prayers have been replaced with Jewish table graces—here again the Vatican approved translations are lacking: The “bread (wine) which we offer” in Latin become the “bread (wine) we have to offer” in ICEL’s version, with no mention of actually offering it. Often overlooked is the erroneous notion that the words of our Lord spoken over the bread and wine are a mere “narrative of the institution”! Narration tells what happened—to validly consecrate the priest must do what Christ did, not narrate. This error is found both in the GIRM and in the CCC, which suggest that it is to be held both by Novus Ordo priests and by all priests “in full communion” no matter what rite they use for Mass.

At about the same time it became much the “in thing” to celebrate “mass” with invalid matter. In more radical quarters the priests wore clown suits and “consecrated” Coca-Cola and potato chips. Far more widespread was the use of home made “breads”—big black crumbly hosts containing molasses, sugar, butter, and what have you. According to The Angelus (July 1990) corn wine and cakes made of cassava root are used in Novus Ordo Africa with papal permission!

... 1 July 1969 introduced the new rite for Matrimony. It is consistent with the inversion of the ends of matrimony found in Vatican II and later papal documents: the “the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning” as Pope Paul said in Humanæ vitæ, (12), which became “the well-being of the spouses and ... the procreation and upbringing of children” (in that order) in Pope John Paul’s 1983 Code (n.c.1055). While the new form of the Sacrament seems reasonable, the inversion of emphasis might be construed as an impediment to valid consent.

... 1969 also saw a new rite for baptism promulgated on September 8th. It maintains the essential matter and form (although we have seen some deviations in practice!). Curiously, it has taken the promises previously made by the sponsors on behalf of the child, now making them a renewal of the sponsors’ promises and not promises on behalf of the child. Probably not invalidating, but it does give some “wiggle room” for the person who wants to repudiate his Baptism later on, and for those who insist with the Protestants that Confirmation is the ratification of promises made earlier by someone else.

... 3 December 1970, the matter for the various Holy Oils may now be “any vegetable oil.” An unheard of departure from the use of olive oil. Blue Bonnet?

... 30 November 1972, Extreme Unction, already called the Anointing of the Sick no longer brings about the forgiveness of sins in the essential form, neither as “I forgive you,” nor as “May the Lord forgive you.” The new form is “Through this holy anointing may the Lord in his love and mercy help you with the grace of the Holy Spirit. May the Lord who frees you from sin save you and raise you up.” It says that God forgives sins, but does not ask Him to do so. It seems to have been reduced to a deprecatory blessing.

... 1 January 1973 brought the new rite of Confirmation. It is rather deficient as to Sacramental form: “Be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit” doesn’t really say what is going on. I’ve been told that this is another “Eastern form” but that begs the question, for the Easterners rarely expect a certain short phrase to stand for or even replace the entire ceremony as Westerners do in the concept of “essential form.”

... 2 December 1973 ushered in the new rite for “Reconciliation.” If anyone actually goes to Confession anymore, this one is probably valid: “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit.” There is no mention, though, of censures or interdicts. The major complaint with this one was the introduction of “Community Reconciliation” which often became general absolution, and “priest Confession” becoming rare. My Novus Ordo friend relates that someone in the local parish wanted to go to Confession, but the priest couldn’t find the key to the reconciliation room.

... 20 July 2001. The Assyrian debacle. I am not making this one up, although it seems like an April Fool’s letter from the Vatican. When they feel it necessary, Chaldean Catholics are now authorized to attend Mass in the (non-Catholic) Assyrian Church Of The East. They may also receive “Communion” even though there are no words of Consecration at all in the Assyrian Liturgy. This is not some argument about how a few words are translated—there are no words of Consecration at all!

Again, there is no “litmus test” for validity. (Except, perhaps for consecrating cookies, or the Assyrian thing!) Many of the post-Vatican II changes are awfully suspect, though. They often seem to be purposefully hanging right on the edge, so that older people will still see the Sacraments, and coming generations will see something quite different; so that it is difficult or impossible to nail them down as valid or invalid. They fit the description of Modernist writing given by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi (18): “in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist.” But again, there is no excuse for Sacraments that are doubtful—particularly when a certain Sacrament is available.

(5) I don’t mean to be offensive in this, but the actions of the post Vatican II popes should be clear to anyone who knows the authentic Catholic Faith and has taken the time to read the news and the documents which have come out of the Vatican. Perhaps that is not the average person, but I would expect it to be many of the people on Angelqueen. Perhaps obscurity might also arise from misplaced loyalty (the Pope above all else); the notion that the Pope is continuously infallible in all he does and says (papalotry or its opposite, which may not be discussed on Angelqueen); or the belief that the Pope is a prisoner, a clone, a double, or somehow otherwise not the author of his own writings, and not able to do anything about any of the myriad abuses in his Church.

(6) Saints Augustine and Aquinas can also be difficult, as they examine the Catholic faith in great depth, and it is difficult to read one part of their works without having other parts for background. Archaic translations can also hinder reading of the Fathers and Doctors.

Pope John Paul II’s writings are difficult for several different reasons. They are far more verbose than most papal writings—he wrote books, where most other Popes wrote pamphlets—they say Slavic authors are paid by the pound.

Far more important, Pope John Paul’s thinking was governed by a philosophy that is alien to the Catholic Faith. Authors like Augustine, and particularly Aquinas, conceived of reality as being fixed the way it is in the mind of God—“the Father of Lights, in Whom there is no shadow of change nor alteration”—a reality in which doctrinal truth and human morality never changed. Pope John Paul II was bound by no such fixed system of truth. He was an existentialist—a system not cast in stone in the mind of God, but rather one cast in the runny Jell-O of human opinion and consensus. John Paul was the man of “dialogue,” a Hegellian process in which opinions keep colliding and producing new opinions temporarily designated as “truths” until the next collision with a new opinion. This philosophy was condemned as recently as the encyclical Humani generis of Pope Pius XII in 1950.

Catholic philosophy places God in the transcendent and man in the immanent—man is important because God loves him. The nominalism of the late part of the second millennium leaned toward making man a trivial part of the faith. Modernism is an over reaction to nominalism, making “man the measure of all things” (actually an old idea borrowed from the ancient Greek, Protagoras). It is as if man were now transcendent and God immanent!

To understand the problem with Pope John Paul II’s writing it is necessary to read a few of the traditional Popes’ writings like Æterni Patris of Leo XIII, Pascendi of Saint Pius X, and Humani generis of Pius XII, and then to read a few of John Paul’s writings like Veritatis splendor and Ut unum sint. In Veritatis splendor you get a taste of the “acting person” forming his own essence through “authentic” behavior. In Ut unum sint there are some frightening passages about “dialogue” on essential points of doctrine, as though doctrinal issues will go away if we but talk about them long enough. A survey course in philosophy covering both scholastic and modern philosophy would be helpful.

(6) “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Absolutely correct! It has to be, for it is revealed by God “in Whom there is no shadow of alteration.” The Church of God does not just “subsist” in the Catholic Church and the Rock of Peter, it “is” the Catholic Church and the Rock of Peter. But that does not mean that all of Peter’s successors will be good and holy men, willing to defend the Faith above all else.

The first Pope not to be called “Saint” was Liberius, who failed to stand strong against the Arians around AD 360. There was Honorius I around 630, who was soft on the Monothelite heresy, which denied the human will of Christ.  There was the scandal of the women Theodora and her daughter Marozia, who put boys and men on and off the papal throne—mother or mistress to some of them in the early tenth century. Catholic historians agree that John XII died in flagrante delicto, and that while living, according to Philip Hughes, he and his friends would drink to the health of the devil.  Pope at the end of the fifteenth century, Alexander VI’s surname “Borgia,” will ever be associated with immorality.  It is not quite a joke to say that the Catholic Church’s survival in spite of Her leaders is proof of Her divine protection.

Popes John XII and Alexander VI serve very well to illustrate the current problem Both John XII and Alexander VI were truly Popes. Not even their harshest critics challenge the validity of their Papacies. Now, put yourself in the position of an attractive woman invited to dinner with either of them in the Vatican. She is seated at table with the Vicar of Christ, a man whom she knows with deep conviction of faith to be infallible, not only in matters of faith, but also in matters of morals. At the end of the evening she is invited by the Pope himself to the papal bedroom. Is she obliged to obey the Pope’s command? Is she disobedient or disrespectful if she tells him “no” in very certain terms? Is she disrespectful if she warns all of her pretty friends against fraternizing with him? The answer to all three questions is “no.” And, indeed, her actions will earn her praise in heaven, where the moral law originates.

The questions of disobedience and disrespect are no different when the Pope “sins between the ears rather than between the sheets” and we are considering matters of faith rather than morals.

Father Brian Houghton’s book Mitre and Crook describes an encounter between Pope Alexander VI and a Dominican mystic named Colomba. For twenty minutes the nun berated the Pope: “You are the Vicar of Christ and act as the vicar of Satan! You hold the Keys of the Kingdom but only unlock brothels! ...” Everyone in the room was afraid for the poor woman should Alexander’s temper flare. But humbly he acknowledged: “Her spirit is from God since everything she says is true.” In the present, the fictional Bishop Forester says: “I could go on for well over twenty minutes. What I doubt is whether the sixth Paul has the humility of the sixth Alexander. Admittedly it is far more difficult to be humble if one sins between the ears than if one sins between the sheets. Anyway the point is perfectly clear: Colomba was in opposition to the person of the Pope precisely out of loyalty to the institution of the Papacy.”

The “institution of the Papacy” is that Rock upon which Christ founded the Catholic Church. She is above the frail men who lead Her, and it is in no way disobedient or disrespectful or disloyal to speak out against them when they fail in their duty of making sure that the “gates of hell shall not prevail.” “Hell shall not prevail” no matter what they do, but many souls may be lost in the process if no one “resists them to their faces.”

in XTO,


Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 120

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:50 pm    Post subject:

Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Bishop & Doctor of the Church

Londiniensis wrote:
M_Eulogius, Thank you for your very full response to my questions. I have been busy the last two days and have not had time to pen an adequate reply - I'll try as aoon as I can.

Believe me, I understand!! I suspect the problems of the past half century can go unsolved for a few more days.

in XTO,

Thanks go to Frater Eulogius for permission to reprint his comments!



Dei via est íntegra
Our Lady of the Rosary, 144 North Federal Highway (US#1), Deerfield Beach, Florida 33441  954+428-2428
Authentic  Catholic Mass, Doctrine, and Moral Teaching -- Don't do without them -- 
Don't accept one without the others!