Host’s Parasite –
I
Upon the good, to
exist depends the bad.
Thus Newchurch
with no true Church can’t be had.
The purpose of saying half a year ago that a priest is
not obliged in every case to forbid a Catholic to attend the New Mass (NOM) was
obviously not to say that the NOM is perfectly alright to attend. The NOM rite
is, in itself, the central act of worship of the false man-centred religion of
Vatican II, in whose wake it followed in 1969. In fact the obligation to stay
away from the NOM is proportional to one’s knowledge of how wrong it is. It has
enormously contributed to countless Catholics losing their faith, almost
without realizing it.
But there are two factors which even to this day have
made it easy for Catholics to be deceived by the NOM. Firstly, it was imposed
on the entire Latin-rite Church by what Paul VI did all he could to make look
like the full force of his Papal authority, which in 1969 seemed immense. Still
today the NOM passes for the “ordinary” rite, while the Mass of all time is
officially discounted as the “extraordinary” rite, so that even 47 years later
an honest Catholic can still feel obliged in obedience to attend the NOM. Of
course in reality there can be no such obligation, because no Church law can
oblige a Catholic to put his faith in danger, which he normally does by
attending the NOM, such is its falsity.
And secondly, the NOM was introduced gradually, in a
series of skilfully graduated changes, notably in 1962, 1964 and 1967, so that
the wholesale revolution of 1969 found Catholics ready for novelty. In fact
even today the NOM rite includes options for the celebrant which make it
possible for him to celebrate the NOM either as a full-blooded ceremony of the
new humanist religion, or as a ceremony resembling the true Mass closely enough
to deceive many a Catholic that there is no significant difference between the
old and the new rites. Of course in reality, as Archbishop Lefebvre always
said, better the old rite in a modern language than the new rite in La tin,
because of the diminution or downright falsification of the Catholic doctrine
of the Mass in the NOM.
Moreover these two factors, the official imposition of
the changes and their sometimes optional character intrinsic to the NOM, more
than suffice to explain that to this day there must be multitudes of Catholics
who want and mean to be Catholics and yet assume that the right way to be
Catholics is to attend the NOM every Sunday. And who will dare say that out of
these multitudes there are none who are still nourishing their faith by obeying
what seems to them (subjectively) to be their (objective) duty? God is their
judge, but for how many years did easily most followers of Catholic Tradition
have to attend the NOM before they understood that their faith obliged them not
to do so? And if the NOM had in all those years made them lose the faith, how
would they have come to Catholic Tradition? Depending on how a celebrant uses
the options in the NOM, not all the elements that can nourish faith are
necessarily eliminated from it, especially if the Consecration is valid, a
possibility which nobody who knows his sacramental theology can deny.
However, given the weakness of human nature and so the
risk of encouraging Catholics to go with the new and easy religion by the least
word said in favour of its central rite of worship, why say a word in favour of
any feature of the Newchurch? For at least two reasons. Secondly, to ward off
potentially pharisaical scorn of any believers outside of the Traditional
movement, and firstly to ward off what is coming to be called
“ecclesiavacantism,” namely the idea that the Newchurch has nothing Catholic
left in it whatsoever. In theory the Newchurch is pure rot, but in practice
that rot could not exist without something not yet rotted still being there to
be rotted. Every parasite needs a host. Also, had this particular host, the
true Church, completely disappeared, would not the gates of Hell have prevailed
against it? Impossible (Mt.XVI, 18).
Kyrie eleison.
No comments:
Post a Comment