RU 28/2007 - CATHOLIC CHURCH

- CATHOLIC CHURCH: The Motu Proprio (personal letter) of Benedict XVI concerning the universal restoration of the ancient Holy Mass of the time before the Council Vatican II, published on July 7th, 2007, is a very good thing. On the other hand, after the euphoria of the first days, some new questions now are coming up: 1) If this reintroduction confirms a posteriori the fundamental option of +Mgr Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Priests Society St Pius X, is is anymore reasonable for the Vatican to keep him - and the bishops ordained by him - positively excommunicated? There is no valid reason existing for it. 2) Worse, if the Holy ancient Mass "has never been abolished", was it not a huge injustice to calumniate, and sometimes to persecute until death many priests who, since 40 years, even until these days, tried and yet are trying to remain faithful against winds and tides to the inestimable treasure of the ancient Holy Mass rite? When will their persecutors formally ask for pardon to those - dead or living - heroes, in the name of almost all 'conciliary' bishops and priests' ? 3) And when will come the repentance by those same priests and bishops - and popes - in relation to the true oecumenism which they delayed - and even made impossible - as they made impossible any true oecumenical progress while throwing the ancient Latin rite to garbish, to the big scandal of our orthodox brothers for whom the Catholic Church, by the fact of her obvious disloyalty to her own Tradition, was no more considered as a valid partner in the research of the necessary unity of Christians, making thus uselessly bleed, during several decades, the terrifying wound of the Christian division? 4) The fact to state that "there is only one Roman rite, in 2 forms", the modern one called 'ordinary' and the ancient one called 'extraordinary', is it not a way to turn a blind eye to a completely different reality? Because was the ancient Mass not totally 'ordinary' since at least 15 centuries in the Church, and is the new Mass not a poor recent invention at 80 % different from the one received from our holy antecessors? It would have been more courageous to call the things by their name: it's the modern Mass which is the new form, the 'extroardinary' one, out of the norm! 5) Would it not have been more faithful to the truth to suppress the new rite, which empties the churches and makes lose the faith, while simply restoring the ancient rite at its just place? 6) The consequences of this lack of courage and truth will lead very far, since already many bishops declared that they fear the worse effects of this future 'bi-ritualism': separations inside parochial (and monastic?) communities, dissensions and altercations between the supporters of such or such rite or 'form of rite', accelerated desertification of the churches? 6) How will one practically celebrate henceforth, in many churches, two rituals in alternation, the elder one and the modern one? Will one have to equip the modern altar tables - called also 'tables of Luther' - with rollers, in order to be able to pass quickly from one 'form' of Mass to the other one, as the ancient one must be celebrated towards God while turning the back to the faitful? 7) Will one have to search for the ancient main altar, sometimes of precious barocco style, in the rumbles of the sacristies - if it has not been sold or demolished since long time - in order to restore it at the place of honor in the choir of the church, so as to be able to celebrate the ancient - henceforth 'liberated' - ritual with the due dignity? 8) Even if the famous council Vatican II didn't directly dictate the new Mass, he created nevertheless documents and principles which are confused and ambiguous enough to permit this enormous and devastating deviation in its name. History teaches us that a council can be erroneous, and can be partly or completely annulled by the Sovereign Pontiff. Thus pope Stephan III declared nul, in 769, the Council of Hieria of the year 754 which had introduced and blessed the iconoclasm, with the wellknowncatastrophic consequences for the Church of that time? Didn't the Council Vatican II carry enough disastrous consequences for the Church so that even the blindest of the bishops is able to see by himself the catastrophy? - These are questions which need rapidly a courageous answer from the pope. The battle for the truth and the justice only starts in the Catholic Church. Until these questions are solved, it is wise - if not necessary to keep one's faith - to remain closely grouped around the rock of resistance constituted by the courageous bishops and priests of +Mgr Lefebvre, while imploring God to daign to continue to give back to the Church the dignity of being the mystical Spouse of Christ, in 'the splendor of the Truth'. - (ru)

- Negative counter: 814th day of the maintenance of the excommunication of the bishops of the (major portion of the) Tradition of the Catholic Church under our Holy Father Benedict XVI.

- Positive counter: Up to this very day, the association SOS MOTHERS (UNEC) could save directly from abortion 363 babies. Deo gratias!

- - O.A.M.D.G. - -