Immaculate Conception Church

Old Roman Catholic Church, Hudson Florida

Modernism

Can you be a Witch (New Ager) AND a Christian?

By

Recently there was an article in the mainstream Catholic press on whether one can practice witchcraft and also be “Christian’.

It says much about the postmodern absurdity our civilization is struggling with when we can say “dark” can co-exist with “light” to make a better grey. No.

Good and Evil can indeed be confusing because Evil often masks as good.

In Genesis 3:1 the serpent questions the “Why” of God’s commands and in some translations says “Did God really say that…?” That’s essential the devil’s sales job to this very day.

In this age witchcraft, satanism, luciferianism, appears to be on the rise and concurrent to this the Christian Church embraced a trajectory from heresy, via further surrender to the world toward an full apostasy.

This phenomenon is not restricted to any one Christian tradition or denomination. This author (theologically Traditional Catholic Priest) only two days ago had a very serious Baptist church member who attends church services and Bible study 3 hours + weekly describe the value of astrological categories.

This isn’t uncommon at all. Is it pleasing to God? No.

The First Commandment – both in Old and New Testament is clear that nothing comes before the unedited Triune God.

Seeking comfort or power apart form the providence of God places our soul in great peril.

Avoid those who are stubborn in their allegiance to the New Age. Avoid bringing objects from such people into your home. The enemy (the devil) is very good at fooling folks using their own intellect or aspirations/hopes against them. Cast anything that does not keep you close to the True God away from you.

Here’s some scripture for your reflection and consideration:

Deuteronomy 18:9-14
Ephesians 6:12
1 Corinthians 10:20-21
Romans 1:18-25
Colossians 2:8
2 Thessalonians 2:1-12

Also of interest:

PRESENTATIONS OF HOLY SEE’S DOCUMENT ON “NEW AGE”







Gnosticism Today

By

“What is needed for salvation is not simply knowledge, but more important, the means to overcome moral evil and the empowerment to live freely holy lives. Christians believe that God ultimately achieved our salvation by sending into the word his Son who became incarnate by the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary. Now Jesus did teach us many things (like the Beatitudes), however, his most importantly he performed saving acts – his passion, death, resurrection and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. Through his loving sacrificial death on the cross, Jesus freed us from the evil of sin and death. By rising gloriously from the dead, he made possible our own resurrection into eternal life. By sending forth the Holy Spirit, Jesus made it possible for us to become holy children of the Father and so empowered to live holy lives.”

 

Read more:

Father Weinandy discusses Gnosticism Today

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism (MTD)

By

It has been argued that Modernist Christianity has been moving in a direction that is no longer only heretical but apostate.

Modernist Christians and many who identify as “spiritual but not religious” do not actually follow or believe in the God of Abraham, the Holy Triune God at all.  Rather they believe in a celestial santa of their own invention with no criteria outside of their hopes, presumption or sentiment.

The false god of MTD can be identified with these core beliefs:

  1. A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.
  2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
  3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
  4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.
  5. Good people go to heaven when they die.

This god is not compatible with the Christian God.

Liturgical Catastrophe in 1969

By

For nineteen centuries the things connected with the Church’s Liturgy were held more sacred than any other human possession. The Mass was the renewal of the one Sacrifice of the Cross, accomplished by His ordained priest acting “in the Person of Christ.” From that Mass might be communicated or reserved in a golden vessel the true Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of Jesus Christ; given to those fasting, and in the state of grace, and wearing their “Sunday best.” The Psalms chanted or recited for several hours a week; said without fail by cloistered religious in monasteries and convents, by busy priests in their churches or even on subway trains, were the “work of God.” There was a sense of the sacred about Catholic churches and establishments — perhaps a sense, and a smell, and a taste, and a touch, and a sight — all unmistakably pointing to something holy. Today, that pointer is missing, and perhaps the something holy is gone as well.

At the time of Vatican II there was a well developed “liturgical movement” comprised of people wanting to return to a greater degree of participation by the congregation in the Mass. The Vatican II declaration on the Liturgy,  Sacrosanctum concilium, appeared to be a reasonable step in that direction. Attention was paid to participation in the Mass, the Office, and the Gregorian Chant. The less frequently heard parts of the Mass could be read in the vernacular. Even such ideas as adapting the liturgy to the cultures of mission countries did not seem particularly dangerous at that time since no one could even conceive of a priest offering Mass in anything but a holy way. Laymen were enlisted to read the epistle, but that was actually less significant than using laymen as Mass servers, which had been done for centuries. Offertory processions were a novelty to most, as well as some altars that faced the congregation, but not all that traumatic. The abominable translations of the Epistles and Gospels caused some stir, but everyone assumed that they would be corrected. In 1965 various parts of the Mass were removed, and the “bidding prayers” inserted.1

To my recollection, the first undeniable damage was done to the Mass around 1967, when the Canon of the Mass was translated into English and other vernacular languages. In sacred Scripture and in every Catholic (and non-Catholic) rite, the words of consecration indicate that the Precious Blood of Christ is “shed for [you and for] many unto the forgiveness of sins.”2
In every language that I know anything about, except Greek, the words of consecration were mis-translated with the identical, heretical phrase! Instead of saying “for many,” the phrase was rendered “for all men,” “por todos,” “fur alle,” “per tutti,” etc. The Catechism of the Council of Trent,3
some 400 years ago, specifically stated that we do not use such words in the Consecration, for while Christ did shed His Blood to redeem all mankind, not everyone’s sins are forgiven, and it is to forgiveness that our Lord referred at the Last Supper. The idea that all men are forgiven of their sins, or are otherwise saved is the heresy of “Universalism.”4
It is reasonable to suppose that someone who knowingly falsifies the meaning of our Lord’s words does not do what He does, and thus at least fails to consecrate the wine and perhaps does not celebrate Mass at all.

1969 brought the complete revision of the Mass known as the Novus Ordo Missae, or New Order of Mass. Composed with the help of six Protestant ministers, the Novus Ordo, and particularly its vernacular versions, minimizes the concept of sin and forgiveness, or that Mass is a sacrifice, or that there is a difference between the priest and the people. There is a great body of literature about its shortcomings, the best, in my opinion, being  The Great Sacrilege by Father Wathen.5
A more “official” critique of the Novus Ordo was issued by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, the former head of the Holy Office (today known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith).6

The Ottaviani Intervention points out that the New Mass may be invalidly celebrated for another reason, beyond the mis-translations of the essential parts. The new missal refers to the “Narrative of the Institution” instead of the Consecration. Together with St. Thomas, Ottaviani holds that the intention to narrate is not the intention to consecrate.7
The term “narrative” appears to be intentional as the error is reiterated in the New Catechism.8

Gradual developments further reduced belief in the sacrificial nature of the Mass and in the Real Presence. Communion in the hand, lay distributors, altar girls, liturgical dancing, and so forth have combined to strip Catholics of their belief in the Sacred Mysteries. There are few vocations to the Sacred Priesthood because there is nothing Sacred anymore. Man now worships existentialist man, and not the Father of Heaven. Please note that I have cited only those abuses actually sanctioned by the Pope — there are a myriad of yet crazier practices that go on with at least the tacit approval of those in authority. And there are many more to come.

I have merely “scratched the surface” with my brief analysis of what has gone wrong in the New Mass and in the New Church. You may have noticed that the word “Latin” appears nowhere in these pages apart from this single occurrence. While much could be said about the loss of the traditional and universal language of the Church, I will refrain from doing so in order to put the lie to the Modernist contention that Traditionalists are upset about nothing more significant than the nostalgia associated with the use of an ancient tongue.

    1. Instruction, Sacred Congregation of Rites, 26 September 1964. 

    2. Matthew 26, Mark 14.  Luke 22 says only “for you.”  John gives no account. 1 Corinthians 11 does not say. 

    3. Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests (1563) Part II, Chapter IV, Section 24. 

    4. Hans Urs von Balthasar, a proponent of Universalism was named Cardinal by Pope John Paul II but was struck dead the night before receiving the Red Hat. There are overtones of it in the CCC, #1058 for example; and in CTTOH, 186-7, where it is suggested that Hell is real but maybe Purgatory is adequate and nobody actually goes to Hell. 

    5.. James F. Wathen, OSJ, The Great Sacrilege (Rockford: TAN Books and Publishers, 1971). 

    6. Alfredo Card. Ottaviani, Antonio Card. Bacci, and a Group of Roman Theologians, The Ottaviani Intervention (Rockford: TAN Books and Publishers, 1971). 

    7. Ottaviani, ibid., page 44 and note 29 in the TAN edition; St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Q. 78, A. 5.

    8. CCC #1353.

[Fr Brusca]

Globalism and the “New World Order”

By

Traditionally, the Church recognizes the right of individuals to band together and form nations. While It holds a monolithic notion of one true doctrine and one correct morality for all the world, it recognizes that the worldly affairs of people may differ from one region of the globe to another. Political rule is best left to the lowest organizational level possible, so that the rulers are personally familiar with the conditions about which they are legislating. Localized rule also gives people who don’t like the way things are done in one place the freedom to move somewhere else — global rule implies a requirement for everyone to think alike. At the end of the First World War, Pope Benedict XV put it this way:

    The coming of a world state is longed for and confidently expected by all the worst and most disordered elements…. The state based on an absolute equality of men and a community of possessions, would banish all national loyalties…. In it no acknowledgement would be made of a father over his children — or of God over human society…. If these ideas are put into practice there will inevitably follow a reign of terror.1

Yet in spite of this, several documents point to the Vatican II popes as globalists. Gaudium et spes, the Vatican II document on the Church in the modern world, is long winded but deserves a reading. It points out a lot of things in the world that “ought to be.” Now, it is hard to argue with “ought-to-be”s. Everyone should have a good standard of living, and education, and health insurance, and safety from crime, and the benefits of music and art, and so on – – very few would disagree. However, aa problem arises when, after lots of well publicized discussion, no one has any real world solutions for how the “ought-to-be”s might be made realities. More and bigger government is usually the final answer, despite calls for something called “subsidiarity.” In this case, bigger government means world government — a very frightening prospect for any but those in favor with that government. For those who disagree with its policies, world government means nowhere to hide.

Among the global utopian socialist ideas of the postconciliar church we find: International re-distribution of income, and a world bank;2 the elimination of nationalism;3 the desirability of an armed world-force to allow the disarmament of nations, and the government control of privately owned weapons.4 The inability of any but a world organization to protect the rights of each individual.5

In his 1964 speech to the United Nations, Pope Paul VI referred to that body as the “last great hope for mankind.” Not the Catholic Church, or the Blessed Virgin, or Christ the King — but the United Nations.

 

    1. Pope Benedict XV, 25 July 1920.  Bonum sane

    2. Pope Paul VI; Populorum progressio #49, #51. 

    3. Populorum progressio #62.

    4. CCC #1308, #1316. 

    5. Pope John XXIII, Pacem in terris #137, #145 

 

[Fr Brusca]