Dear Karl Keating
#1
To assert that the conciliar Reform is not from the Holy Spirit, one only has to observe that, since 1965, two religions have been fighting it out in the very heart of the Church: that of Man who makes himself god against that of God who became man. You will know them by their fruits. --Abbé de Nantes


Roman Protestants
By Reverend Basil Wrighton



Whatever the new “ecumenism” may say or mean, the plain fact remains that there is
fundamental antithesis between “Catholic” and “Protestant.” One has only to reflect on
the history of these two religions to see how they contradict and exclude one another.

While the one claims to expound a divine revelation with divinely conferred authority and
to administer supernatural sacraments as a means of divine grace, the other professes
only to comment on the Scriptures by the light of human reason, and fights shy of
anything supernatural or miraculous. While the one upholds the great Christian mysteries
of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the redemption and the Real Presence of Christ in
the Holy Eucharist, the other has become very doubtful about these mysteries and inclined
to reject some or all of them as outdated superstitions. The same holds good concerning
angels and devils, hell, purgatory and heaven: these are very real for Catholics, very
unreal for Protestants, at any rate for the contemporary type.

For the Protestant mentality is essentially skeptical and fragmentary. Once it had broken
away from the parent Christian stock and committed itself to the vagaries of private
judgement, it went on changing, evolving and splitting up into ever new sects. For a time
it held on the main tenets of Christian faith, but with the sects becoming more and more
liberal, they tended to drop them overboard and explain them away.

There have, of course, been reactions against this devolution. “Fundamentalist”
minorities in various times and places have dug in their heels and refused to move with
the times, hanging on to some semblance of the original faith. A more intellectual and
more influential reaction was that of Newman, who reasoned their way back to a
substantially Catholic theology, emerging as a “high-church” party within the Anglican
establishment. Newman was quick to perceive that they had no future there; he thereupon
made his submission to Rome, and many of his disciples followed him, to the great
advantage of both the neophytes and their hosts.

Now, however, since Vatican II we have been faced with the hitherto incredible spectacle
of a mass movement in reverse - a movement of Catholics toward Protestantism. It began
with a caucus of modernist prelates and their ‘experts’ who brought off a successful coup
d’etat at the first session of the Council, by tearing up the authorized agenda and
substituting their own program. The “pastoral” rather than dogmatic character of this
Council made its texts all the more susceptible of tendentious interpretation.

It was of course the same progressive party which got the job of implementing the
conciliar decrees, and that is where the trouble became most serious. The Party’s first
concern was with the liturgy, which of all the Church’s institutions stood in least need
of reform, and which no responsible Catholic wanted to change. The Council has made a few
cautious, limited and reasonable concessions for the vernacular languages to be used in
scriptural readings and prayers in which the people took a vocal part. These apart, it
insisted on the retention of Latin. That is not what the Party wanted. The Council text
was defied, and the Holy Mass of all the Catholic ages, the Church’s most sacred
treasure, was cunningly demolished by installments and frequently replaced by a
completely different rite, entirely vernacular and frequently vulgar, celebrated back to
front and shorn of the traditional gestures of reverence and the verbal safeguards of
Catholic Eucharistic doctrine.

The sacrificial element was consigned to oblivion, and all the emphasis transferred to the “memorial”
and “meal” elements, just as in the Protestant “Lord’s Supper.” The obvious purpose was to
make the Eucharist so “ecumenical” that it could be shared by those who had no belief in
either the Sacrifice of the Real Presence. Yet the modernists were allowed to get away
with it and impose it on the whole Church of the West. No such subversion has ever before
been known in the Catholic Church.

Since the Novus Ordo Missae was designed as an “ecumenical’ liturgy, ambivalence was
essential to it. Hence the many alternative formulas left to the option of the celebrant,
together with the studied ambiguity of the wording where any definite Catholic doctrine
is involved. The result has been to stir up controversy among the faithful as to whether
the new liturgy can be regarded as sacramentally valid. All that used to protect and
nourish this faith has been ruthlessly cut away in the interests of “ecumenism” and the
effect of the revolution can be plainly seen in the vast exodus from the Church which has
followed it.

The Novus Ordo was only a first step. The Party had many more changes up its sleeve. The
revolution was to be “on-going,” the faithful were to have no respite from shocks and
scandals. It is a galloping process of “desacralization.” Nothing is now to be held
sacred or inviolable. All that is sacred in our religion from time immemorial is dragged
down to a common and profane level, to adapt it to the abject spirit of this age.

But, the authority does nothing to correct them. There seems to be no limit to what the
bishops will now tolerate - so long as the abuses are committed on the liberal,
revolutionary side. But if any poor deprived Catholic on the other side attempts to
revive the Holy Mass, them the fulminations begin! The only capital offense that remains,
it seems, is fidelity to Catholic tradition.

The Party, modernist and progressive, which seized power in the Church from the Council
onwards and is constantly building it up by selective appointment, is moving in the same
direction as the Protestant reformers whom it copied so closely in the new liturgy. But
it is going much faster and further than they went. It is Liberal-Protestant. St. Pius X
remarked this in his encyclical Pascendi in 1907: historical Protestantism and Modernism
are successive stages in the progress to Atheism.

The progressive ideology has taken over the Catholic schools, seminaries and
universities, and bought up the Catholic press. Even the expensive schools run by the
religious orders themselves have joined the Modernist bandwagon. Many faithful Catholics
have found themselves obliged to take their children away from “Catholic” schools in
order to save their faith.

The majority of our once Catholic population, those who will not bestir themselves to
resist and protest against what has been done to them, are daily and visibly more and
more assimilated in manners, morals and beliefs to their Protestant neighbors, and will
soon be indistinguishable from them. “Ecumenisim” will have attained its goal, not a
return of the separated brethren to the one true fold, but as a massive apostasy from
that fold, let by its own shepherds - a massive sell-out of Catholic truth.

What shall we call the multitudes of ex-Catholic shepherds and their sheep who have
either defected or drifted into a new religion? Perhaps we might call them “Roman
Protestants.” We older Catholics did not like being called Roman Catholics, for we did
not admit that there were any other kind of Catholic. But there are various kinds of
Romans, and many kinds of Protestants, and Rome is now the headquarters, not only of the
Catholic Church, but of the Modernist Mafia which has invaded and subjected it.

When obedience to the constant tradition of the Church is so clearly in conflict with
obedience to certain office-holders who have departed from that tradition, we
rank-and-file Catholics must use our common sense and opt for the superior obedience. The
simple faithful have always done this in time of epidemic heresy. The gravest in the
Church’s past history was the Arian Crisis of the fourth century. It is in this situation
that faithful Catholics are finding themselves faced with the stark alternative of
becoming either recusants or renegades.

Sixteen hundred years ago, when the bulk of the hierarchy had strayed from the faith of
Nicaea and even the Pope faltered for a time, St. Athanasius headed the faithful few who
stood out for Catholic truth against a world in the grip of heresy. He had much to
suffer, and was even excommunicated, but eventually his cause prevailed and the faith was
saved. In our day likewise, amid the ceaseless babble of post-conciliar Newspeak, one
episcopal voice has been heard to observe, in plain French, that one religion is NOT as
good as another, that faith and morals are NOT variable with times and circumstances, and
(with regard to "renewal") that the emperor has no clothes! For the audacity of these
views, and for his fidelity to Catholic tradition, he is denounced and persecuted by the
liberal establishment, but will NOT recant. His witness and his work continues, and the
day will come when a restored Church will bless his name.

Once again, magna est veritas et praevalebit.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)