Boston Catholic Journal
 

“Salus animarum supemus lex esto” — the salvation of souls … must be the supreme law in the Church.” Canon Law (1752)
 

Suggested Reading:


The Problem
of Evil

The Problem of Evil: Exonerating God

Exonerating God


CCD

CCD: Crisis in Catholic Doctrine

Crisis in
Catholic Doctrine:

the Grave State of Religious Education in America



Boston Catholic Journal

Write us:

editor@boston-catholic-journal.com Boston Catholic Journal
 


Boston Catholic Journal

Today’s Martyrology

 

Welcome Home to the One, True, Holy, Catholic Church

 


Home ... the One, True, Holy, Catholic Church
 


 “That understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding
(Blessed Pope Pius IX, 1st Vatican Council, S.3, C.2 on Revelation, 1870 ex cathedra)

 

The Robe of Christ by Joyce Kilmer

from:
The Robe of Christ


Now, must I look on the Devil robed
In the radiant Robe of Christ?

He comes, and his face is sad and mild,
With thorns his head is crowned;
There are great bleeding wounds in his feet,
And in each hand a wound.
How can I tell, who am a fool,
If this be Christ or no?
Those bleeding hands outstretched to me!
Those eyes that love me so!
I see the Robe — I look — I hope — I fear — but there is one
Who will direct my troubled mind;
Christ’s Mother knows her Son.
O Mother of Good Counsel, lend
Intelligence to me!
Encompass me with wisdom,
Thou Tower of Ivory!
“This is the Man of Lies,” she says,
“Disguised with fearful art:
He has the wounded hands and feet,
But not the wounded heart.

Beside the Cross on Calvary
She watched them as they diced.
She saw the Devil join the game
And win the Robe of Christ.
"


Joyce Kilmer
American Soldier, Poet, and Writer
died July 30, 1918 Seringes-et-Nesles, France, WWI, age 31
 

... and perhaps prophet in these evil days of confusion and deception in the pontificate itself of Holy Mother Church:
 


 

A TALE OF TWO POPES

A Tale of Two Popes

 

It is reported that “Pope Francis says he hopes for the grace to know when to quit.”

Given the scandalous and illicit machinations of more than a handful of cardinals that resulted in what can only frankly be described as a papal coup resulting in Francis’s usurping the Seat of Peter — may we suggest that he reflect upon the fact that he relinquished that grace the moment he accepted— in full complicity — his “nomination” — given all the corrupt antecedents to which he willingly and wittingly assented.

That moment — which will likely be more a moment of calculated opportunity than “grace” — is, may we suggest:
 

NOW!
 

The man of “grandiose public humility” and “intolerable private arrogance” still hopes, it would appear, to retain that public image by doing — of course — a publicly celebrated act-of-all-acts-of-humility: relinquishing the power he lusted for. Having accomplished the de facto ruin of the Church, he, too, can resign … just as Benedict did. His infamous motto, “Make a mess!” having been effected, he can now leave the mess to others: a deeply broken and divided Church that has lost virtually all continuity with its 2000 year old identity preceding 1963 and the notorious Second Vatican Council. The mirror into which she long looked that was resplendent with the Glory of God and which indefeasibly understood itself in terms of the Salvation of Souls (Salus animarum) was defaced by the thoroughly Modernist “Council Fathers”, and the reflection became at first indistinct, then gradually nebulous, distorted, refracted, and finally opaque. Francis merely took a hammer to it and shattered it as something worthless — not because it was now unrecognizable, but because it was redundant: a mere reflection of “the world” — that obscured the face of God.

It is not that Francis likely ever sought the latter and only destroyed it when he found that it was not made in his image after all, but that there was no image — only an empty frame though which the world peered.

 

The latest “New Paradigm” — EMERITI?

A duplex can be made of the Papal Palace of Castel Gandolfo and the now “Emeriti Benedict and Francis” can both retire to pursue matters more to their liking while another Emeritus-in-waiting resumes the deconstruction of the Catholic Church as the rank effluence of the Rhine continues to flow into the Tiber. Eventually a theological flood will obliterate all distinctions: Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli will be rehabilitated and monumentalized (a statue of Luther already occupies a place of reverence in the Hall of Pope Paul I at the Vatican) as precursors to “The New Paradigm” that must, of ecumenical necessity, embrace Allah, Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma, Buddha, together with Neo-Paganism and Spiritism (to mention a few) in a Pantheon that sublates and reconciles all competing gods — regardless of their own abhorrence of ecumenism as the illogical nonsense that it is. The atheist Lenin had once entertained the notion of “The Withering Away of the State” into a Proletarian Paradise. The “Conciliar” and “Post-Conciliar” Fathers will have “The Withering Away of Catholicism” — and every vestige of Christianity into a Pantheistic Paradise. If atheism and Catholicism equally abolish Jesus Christ as an impediment to Pantheistic Ecumenism — what is the difference?
 

Self-Loathing

The most pressing question appears to be this: whence this self-loathing — this distancing of Catholicism to the point of vanishing? Who can possibly be agitating for so wicked an enterprise? Let us take another tack: Cui bono? Who benefits from this “deconstruction” to the point of annihilation? It is … Devilishly clever … no? Who has ever propagated lies from the very beginning?

And now we are confronted with yet another “new paradigm”: the resignation of the papacy as de rigueur. 2000 years of popes (save one) stayed until death (or murder) — but Benedict, still a pope, with the suffix “emeritus” as though a retired professor of philosophy (PS: There has never been a “Pope Emeritus” until Benedict fled.) It is a fabricated “title” necessary to the amicable co-existence of two popes. We are, for all purposes, back to Avignon except that one hand is now washing the other, and there is no vying for primacy. Why would contention exist? The two are really one. That fleeting hope for a return to authenticity under the papacy of Benedict briefly quelled voices despairing of the increasingly liberal state of the Church — just long enough, perhaps, to engineer the juggernaut of brooding Modernism that would tear down the walls of the Church … from within — and after Francis tosses the last brick over his shoulder he will “retire” with much satisfaction and to great acclaim, having succeeded in reframing the Chair of Saint Peter to accommodate the recreant “reformer” Luther he so admired  … and emulated.

Holy Mother Church has consistently survived Her persecutors. Francis, Kasper, Marx, Danneels, and many, many others will pass. She will remain … as Christ promised — even if only “two or more are gathered in His Name” (Saint Matthew 18.20). Little wonder, then, that Christ asked, “When the Son of Man comes will He find faith on earth?” (Saint Luke 18.8)

The question is no longer rhetorical.

 

Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
May 18, 2018

   Printable PDF Version

Comments? Write us:  editor@boston-catholic-journal.com

 

 

 


 


Francis as “the Prince”

 

Francis: The Machiavellian Prince

 

and the Logical Conclusion of Vatican II

 

 

 

Francis is the logical conclusion of the Second Vatican Council understood as the Assisted Suicide of the ChurchHe is the logical consequent of nearly every flawed statement, every questionable postulate, and every sophistical premise either substantive or implicit, within Vatican II as so many antecedents to a catastrophically spurious argument.  As he himself stated as early as 2013 — but not before a rude  slap in the face to all his predecessors (one still alive: Pope “Emeritus” Benedict):   
 

“In the interview, Francis denounced the “Vatican-centric” nature of the Holy See administration and acknowledged that popes past had been infatuated with the pomp of the
Vatican and its “courtesans.” and then:

“He said the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that brought the church into the modern world, had promised such an opening to people of other faiths and non-believers,
but that the church hadn’t made progress since then.”
1
 

He then went further, to make the paradoxical claim that:

I have the humility and ambition to do so,” he said.” 1


In other words, “I, Francis the celebrated, acclaimed, and famously humble and unpretentious — propose to fully actualize all the nonsense embodied in the equally celebrated (albeit spurious) ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ because I alone among all my predecessors have the real humilityand ambition — that they lacked — and the iron will to do so! Bet on it.”

 

 Let us ponder that for a moment, for it is fraught with significance.

Does a humble man boast of his humility? Of course not, for he sees the contradiction inherent in such a question.

More troubling still is the question: is ambition consonant with humility in a pope?

At the apex of power (at which Francis now sits) ambition can dangerously verge on Machiavellian. As Niccolo observed “Ambition is so powerful a passion in the heart, that however high we reach we are never satisfied.”
 

How Far?

Machiavelli was a vehement atheist. Francis is an unbridled progressivist.  In both cases, however otherwise divergent, the pressing question appears identical: “How far can I go? What can I get away with? To what extent can I push the limits of this power vested in me?”

These are serious questions, especially as they pertain to the Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth.

Has the Church, as Francis insists, really been stagnant for 50 years — until the epiphany of Francis who alone can achieve what Vatican II proposed — because he alone has the humility to accomplish this, coupled with an unbending determination? Is there something disconcerting about this statement? Even contradictory?

What is more, we need only look at the anemic state of the Church following Vatican II:  the dearth of clergy, religious, seminarians — the aging and emptying pews … to see that no such “stagnation” in the Church occurred. To the contrary, prior to Vatican II it was a Church full of vitality in every conceivable metric — and growing exponentially!

To understand how Francis arrives at this spurious conclusion we must first understand that Francis is the quintessential product of a unique generation.  He is among the last of that now dwindling generation (thank God) who themselves were products of the psychotropic culture of the 1960’s — which, in our rear-view mirror — is a now barely visible, and from which we cannot speed away fast enough. It has long begun to fade to fatuity. Most of us have, by now, come to our senses and recognize this.

 
A Deadly Age

It was a deadly age, a noxious age whose poison still leeches into Western society. At a given stratum it will be percolated through reason, eventually strained of its poison, and become the historical nonsense it was — even if it contaminated so much and so many lives before it was bleached out of our consciousness and finally became innocuous , together with the psychedelic caricature of a reality it had never known. Timothy Leary, et alia, “Turned on, tuned in, dropped out” and in alignment with his not-so-famous literary micropiece “Design for Dying — Dying? Throw a House Party! ” — dropped dead.

The Age of Aquarius and the Psilocybin mushroom are dead and what is left of that sad crop are dying leaves on a withering tree, fretted by songs still strummed by the arthritic hands of the elderly on guitars three times the age of the audience. They are pathetic figures clinging to a youth that betrayed them to an old age that wasn’t supposed to happen in the euphoric Flower Days.

In truth it was a miserable age that opiated America; an age that filled the valleys and made the mountains low — for the coming of the Flower Child who littered it with filth. It was Woodstock after the rain and the music stopped: a wasteland of plastic trash, condoms and roach clips.
 

The Segue into Vatican II

Same time, same culture, same euphoria, same mantra against inhibition, same contempt for authority, same disdain for absolutes. It was the time to experiment with society, with minds, and — most sadly — with souls. While students occupied the chancellor’s office at the university, “liberated” Catholic theologians, together with Avant-guard bishops and their ecumenically requisite Protestant advisors occupied the Vatican.

“The Establishment” was shut out — in academic, ecclesiastic and civil society. “Old school” was out. “New school” was in: a new and radical school of theology and spirituality; new interpretation, “exegesis”, “hermeneutics”, and now “discernment”.  “Dogma” became “anathema” and “anathema” was finally scrubbed from the Catholic lexicon altogether: both became something  pejorative: nothing was incontrovertibly true (itself a reflexive contradiction).

Latin as an Ecclesiastical Marker or Identifier was out. Banality was in. Priests spoke the vernacular and finally realized that they had nothing to say. Homily became comedy. Comedy became skit. The Guitar is King! — no longer Christ Jesus. And the only Choir we know is not of Angels: they ceased their accompaniment with us when “Liturgists” discarded Gregorian Chant in favor of the insipid ditties of Marty Haugen who is Lutheran or the “Saint Louis Jesuits (not all of whom remain Jesuits, or priests, or even Christians.”1)

 

No going back: DNR and the Church as a Hospice

New vestments, new language(s), new Mass, new spirituality that emphasized man through a unilateral (Catholics gave up virtually everything. Protestants relinquished nothing) effort at a newly-reformulated notion of “ecumenism” instead of salvation. Nun’s and Sister’s Habits were shortened, then abbreviated, then thrown out. The new “cool” was the collarless priest, the unidentifiable Sister. The various “Conferences of Catholic Bishops” (which have no binding authority) became social, then political. The Church effectively became the “field hospital” envisioned by Francis — but it was also the only patient — mortally wounded, and strapped to it was the purple rescript DNR (“Do Not Resuscitate or Revive”) upon the inauguration of Francis as pope with a ready hand on the plug. Vatican II, it turns out, was really an act of Assisted Suicide as Francis has more than amply demonstrated and the Church has become less a “field hospital” than a hospice. “Better that the one true Church die than acknowledge our mistakes and return to the business of saving souls as we had done for the 2000 years preceding Vatican II.” But even the model of a hospice is inadequate, for after the last Catholic dies, the hospice itself altogether ceases to be. This is nihilism — not Catholicism — and it has been for some time.
 

The Birth of Theo-Politics

Theo-politics
was born. Peace, Poverty, Immigration, Inclusiveness, Equality, Linguistic Neuterization in the Liturgy, Feminism, and “Ministries” without meaning or number became the New Evangel. The salvation of souls?  Not a chance. That outdated mandate belonged to the 2000 years prior to the Second Vatican Council — and is something of an embarrassment to contemporary Catholic priests, theologians, scholars, and … yes … laymen. Ask yourself: when was the last time you so much as even heard that phrase at Church? Modernism — that synthesis of all heresies — replaced every vestige of the theological concept of Tradition that is inseparable from the identity of the Church especially as it is articulated through infallible Church Teaching and Dogma.

The Kingdom of God became the Polity of Man. Language was purged of “salvation”, “soul”,  “Hell”, “Penance”, “repentance”, “Mary”, woman, virgin, man, he, she, her, hers, his, gender, evil, the devil, conversion,  sin, suffering, chastity, mortification — anything that stifled the desires of men and the ambitions of women. Heaven now has Open Borders — and they are coterminous with earth.
 

A Replica or a Counterfeit?

We built a simulacrum, a meretricious and largely plastic replica of the Kingdom of Heaven and placed in on earth — complete with electric votive candles.  And yet, for all its semblance we secretly fear it is counterfeit.  It is little wonder that we fear dying and leaving our Kingdom … for, perhaps, another and fabled Kingdom of which we heard long ago where Someone else ruled and in which the totality of man did not abide, given his sin, selfishness, cruelty, malice and indifference to God — a place of ceaseless Light and no fire divided from a chasm of ceaseless fire with no Light.

 But we know that Vatican II — or at least it’s true “spirit” abolished all that 50 years ago. “Everyone and everything goes to “Heaven” — despite the explicit teaching of Christ to the contrary (Saint Matthew 7.13-14).

 Does this appalling vision offend you? Have I injured your “sensibilities”?

Reality is like that — much like the “Reality TV Shows” that you probably watch. Not every episode has a good ending. Many do not even have a good beginning — much like Vatican II — and even more apropos of the spectacle that is Francis as its culmination.

__________________________________________

1 Associated Press http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2013/10/pope_francis_urges_reform_want.html

2 https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otr.cfm?id=3844

3 Niccolo Machiavelli — The Prince

 

Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
April 19, 2018

   Printable PDF Version

Comments? Write us:  editor@boston-catholic-journal.com

 

 


 

The Liability of Logic:

 Existential quantifier abolished

The “Francis Effect Defect”

 

If I cannot be certain about what my Catholic Faith holds to be indefeasibly truenot by any conflict between internal logic and divine revelation — but because Pope Francis is ambiguous about tenets held for 2000 years and inscribed in Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Deposit of Faith —  such as the existence of Hell, the immortality of the soul, the absolute proscription against Adultery in the Ten Commandments, the condemnation of Homosexuality — despite the constant 2000 years old teaching of every pope in the history of the Church, then I do not reject my faith, but I do take issue with — indeed, reject — the disordered thinking of the present pope, and, with cause, likely his sanity or at least his mental stability.

Why will no one state the obvious?  Francis is either cognitively impaired, deeply defective in his understanding of Christianity, the Person of Christ, and the nature of His Church — or a buffoon. 

 A buffoon, however, is rarely dangerous.

 Francis is.

He is because he is held to speak the mind of the Church — even when he speaks non ex-Cathedra — what he states has a direct impact upon the faithful to whom he has been faithless. That is why he is dangerous. He is not just in conflict with the Church and the faithful: his conflict with the Church results in not just confusion among the faithful, but the adherence of the faithful who cannot reconcile his novel pseudo-theological episodes with 2000 years of constant Church teaching and Sacred Scripture itself.

The danger is defection. And the danger is real. They will embrace the one or the other, but cannot embrace both — or … they can reject both as irrational nonsense since such a state of affairs conflicts with reason and what was held to be inviolable revelation. God Himself cannot make 2 plus 2 equal 5. This violates reason and consequently our understanding of God. Outside of divine revelation (which, while not conflicting with reason, exceeds it) anything we predicate of God is done so through the vehicle of reason.  Any sentence that starts with “God is …” can only conclude in two ways: through an appeal to reason or to revelation. We cannot sustain our association with any organization that demands not just the suspension, but the violation of reason — and if we do we can, eo ipso, provide no reason for it.

 Let us simplify the matter: either God and 2000 years of Church teaching — including the authority of Holy Writ are right — or Francis is right. But by the Law of the Excluded Middle (non-contradiction) both cannot be right if the one is a contradiction to, or the negation of, the other. The assertions that “Hell exists” (Catholic doctrine) and “Hell does not exist” (Francis’s own quixotic preference”) cannot be reconciled: the one is the negation of the other. In the inventory of the canons of Logic both propositions constitute an Appeal to Authority” which of itself is not logically substantive — nevertheless such appeals can in fact coincide with received canons without contradiction. In such a case one then must consider the preeminence and magnitude of the authority invoked — in the present case, God or Francis.
 

  • God asserts the existence of Hell.
                 Francis repudiates it. *
     

  • The Church also teaches the immortality of the soul.
                Francis denies it. *
     

  • The Divine proscription against adultery is not capable of attenuation (read “discernment” or “accompaniment”) in Holy Scripture. It is absolute. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14; Saint Matthew 19:18)
             — For Francis, it is not an inviolable Commandment —  literally set in stone —  but a matter of Situational Ethics (a discredited moral concept condemned by the Church).
     

  • Homosexuality, toward which he shows remarkable deference, has always been condemned by the Church and Sacred Scripture.
          
      Francis: “Who am I to judge”?

       

It is absolutely clear that no Divine Commandment can be negotiated to accommodate man. “Commandments” are incontestable injunctions, prohibitions, or proscriptions — they are not “Propositions” subject to debate or amendment. To assert otherwise is to contradict Holy Scripture, Jesus Christ, the Magisterium of the Church, and the Sacred Deposit of Faith. It is to renounce the Catholic Faith.

 

The Inconvenient Law of the Excluded Middle: to Hell with Reason?

Whenever we are confronted with a contradiction, we must not only decide which is right but adduce reasons for it — or remain in a state of abstention, aloof from the proposition entirely. What we cannot do is affirm both since each negates the other. In other words we cannot be both Catholic and “indifferent”, both Catholic and “undecided”, both Catholic and “permissive’. It is not consistent with logic — which is another of saying that it is illogical! For human beings this is not a desirable attribute. It is, in fact, one of the signatures of madness.

Given the illogical nightmare that Francis has brought to the Church — in what he apparently believes is his fulfilling the mandate of the Spirit of Vatican II — he has left a vacuum of reason into which something diabolical, irrational, and recreant has rushed.

Why this has been allowed to come to such a pass in this unfortunate generation, given the responsibility of the episcopate — the cardinals and bishops who should be fraternally correcting him for the sake of Jesus Christ and the souls of the faithful He came to save — rather than pusillanimously colluding with him — is anyone’s guess.

One thing is apparent: there is as deep a defection from the Catholic Faith in the cardinals and bishops as there is in Francis. Perhaps they fear him — and losing the perquisites of their positions of authority-seldom-exercised, or exercised to the detriment of the faithful. Their fear, however, is deeply misplaced: rather than fearing the retaliation of an autocrat arrogating the Seat of Peter, they should fear Him Who can cast both body and soul into Hell. (St. Luke 12.5).

Perhaps that fear is reserved to simple Catholics and it is time that the sheep teach the shepherds.

____________________________________

*  While the official Vatican organ delegated with re-constructing Francis’s logical and theological ... paroxysms ... with feeble and ambiguous statements such as “What is reported by the author in today’s article is the result of his reconstruction, in which the literal words pronounced by the Pope are not quoted. No quotation of the aforementioned article must therefore be considered as a faithful transcription of the words of the Holy Father” is proffered as assurance that he said no such thing (which it does not say, for it speaks only of Scalfari’s assertions — not Francis’s) it sounds much more like the non-committal, ambiguous, and litigious language of a solicitor or attorney who pleads an “objection!” to a potentially damaging assertion — no? Nor does it help matters when Francis makes no effort to deny or distance himself from  Scalfari’s “interpretation”.

 

Geoffrey K. Mondello
for the Boston Catholic Journal
April 3, 2018

   Printable PDF Version

Comments? Write us:  editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
 

 



 

The Perpetual Authority of the Latin Mass
 

The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

What part of the word Forever do we no Longer Understand?



REVISITING THE APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION  QUO PRIMUM

(Pope St. Pius V - July 14, 1570)
 

 

April 3, 1969: When forever came to mean only 399 years

On the third day of April 1969 the temporal concept of forever was astonishingly and arbitrarily quantified by Pope Paul VI — much to the perplexity of historians and physicists — as 399 years—  or to be precise, 399 years, 9 months, and 11 days.

On that day Pope Paul tampered with time and eternity by expurgating or otherwise expunging the ancient Latin rite of the Mass known as Quo Primum — which unambiguously states that this present Constitution … will be valid henceforth, now, and forever — and replacing it, by a tour de force, with his own Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, otherwise known as the Novus Ordo, or The New Mass.

This does not mean, of course, that Pope Paul VI explicitly stated that:

“Henceforth the word, the concept, and the notion of forever now — as of this third day of April 1969 — only means 399 years, 9 months, and 11 days.”

However — and this is vital to understand — it is the inescapable logical consequence of replacing the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum — which unambiguously states that the Tridentine Mass (as we have come to call it) is, and always will be, the only valid Mass, incapable of being altered, modified, or changed in any way by any person whomsoever — “henceforth, now, and forever”.

Pretty clear, yes?

But this unalterable Mass had, in fact, been superseded by the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order Mass) following Vatican II, despite the fact that Quo Primum was to be in force “forever” and in no way “altered”. What was decreed to remain both unalterable and forever … was neither, following Vatican II.

We were left asking ourselves what, in fact, the word “forever” had suddenly come to mean, together with all the ramifications of this re-definition of a clearly understood concept. In other words, if “forever” does not mean “for all time and into eternity” … what, precisely does it mean?

If what is held to be “forever” is abrogated in its intension by the introduction of something that re-defines it in such a way that it is nullified. Why is that?  Simply put,  anything “other than” our understanding of the intensionality of “forever” eo ipso nullifies it, for it must be less and cannot be greater than “forever” as we had always understood the concept “forever”— and what is less is already understood in other temporal terms, in which case the re-definition of “forever” becomes merely redundant of other and already existing temporal concepts such as “now”, “past”, “present”, and “future”.

In other words, if “forever” is in any way abbreviated to something less, then it is determinate and if it is determinate it is quantifiable. In the present case it is reduced to 399 years, 9 months, and 11 days, or the period between Quo Primum (the Latin Mass) in 1570 and its being superseded by Missale Romanum  (Mass in the vernacular) in 1969. What was deemed as binding “forever” in 1570 and the following 400 years was breached by something new (novus) and different in 1969. But how is this possible if what was binding “now, henceforth, and forever” in 1570 was replaced in 1969? How could “forever” come to mean, “only in force for 400 years — after which it is susceptible to being abrogated”? Logically such a breach cannot occur without somehow re-defining the concept of “forever”. But this is fraught with inconsistencies and contradictions that make any effort of the sort possible.

Consider the following verse: “I am the living bread that came down out of Heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever (St. John 6.51) What do we understand by this? That those who “eat of this bread” shall live for 399 years, 9 months, and 11 days? Of course not. We understand that they shall live forever, which is to say, for all time into eternity. The word “forever” or “for ever” occurs 472 times in Holy Scripture and it is always spoken of or understood in terms of limitless perpetuity, e.g. “for his mercy endureth forever.” (Ps. 135.20) By what possible warrant can we understand God’s mercy as enduring for a finite quantum of time, say, 160 years, 6 months and two days? In other words, how do we quantify forever? We cannot. It is not a quantifiable sum.

When Saint Paul says of Christ: “Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same forever”, how are we to hold “yesterday” as meaning, “the day before this present day”, and “today” as “this present day” — but “forever” as meaning “399 years, 9 months, and 11 days”? After that limited duration of time does Christ become something different? Why did Saint Paul not say “Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and for 399 years, 9 months, and 11 days”?

In other words, does the word “forever” in Sacred Scripture, and in ordinary discourse, mean something different than it meant in Quo Primum, and if it does, why just Quo Primum? If we re-define the concept of “forever” it must apply to each and every iteration of it, wherever it occurs, sacred or profane. Are we prepared to do this? Is it even logically possible? In a word, no.

Moreover, we must then ask, what then is the periodicity of the concept “forever” once it acquires a terminus, an end — and what is more, and of far greater importance, what lies beyond it? If it is merely the most extensive temporal concept in an array of other lesser, but equally determinate temporal concepts, then its durability is finite — notwithstanding that the notion of time itself is indefinite (for being discretely, and however arbitrarily enumerated, it is at least conceptually infinite by mere addition). As Saint Augustine pointed out in broaching the concept of eternity (in which there is no time as we understand it) it is pointless to ask “what preceded eternity?” for the notion of precedence is itself a temporal notion, and to ask “what preceded eternity?” (in which there is no time) is to ask “what preceded time before there was no time.” We are now asking, “what succeeds forever when “forever” as a determinate time frame expires?” What do we call it? Can we concatenate a series of “forevers” indefinitely? And if we do, what shall we call it? Forever? We cannot — for “forever”, as we had said, has become a determinate time frame following the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of Vatican II. Perhaps you begin to see the inconsistency, the absurdity really, of tampering with the notion of “forever”.

Even if we argue that the Pope has the authority and the ability to re-define and abbreviate the notion of “forever” by invoking Christ’s pronouncement to Saint Peter: “Whatever you bind on earth is bound in Heaven” (St. Mat. 18.18), we still have not circumvented the problem. Heaven itself is the paradigm par excellence of “forever” (and so, too, is Hell). Time and logic are not in the arena of “Faith and Morals” in which alone the Pope is competent and infallible. (Nor, incidentally is economics). Even if a pope repeals a former pope’s Apostolic Constitution, he cannot repeal logic nor re-define the intensionality of a concept, in this case “forever”. To say that St. Pius V did not “intend” to use “forever” in the way we, and all our predecessors understood it, is absolutely without warrant or justification. 1 He meant that The Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum would be binding forever. If not, why the severest admonition at the end of Quo Primum?

 “Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should anyone dare to contravene it, know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.


Further consider the force, extent, clarity, and absolute perpetuity of the following twelve excerpts from Quo Primum:

 

  • It is most becoming that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass

  • This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever

  • This new rite alone is to be used

  • This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever.

  • This present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever

  • Nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it

  • We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us

  • They must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal

  • This Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used.

  • This present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remains always valid and retain its full force

  • The Missal [must] be preserved incorrupt throughout the whole world and kept free of flaws and errors

  • Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should anyone dare to contravene it, know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.


Since Vatican II, however,
forever”, it appears, has a terminus after all ... and does not mean ... well ... forever … at least in the reinterpreted and novel concept of time enunciated by Pope Paul VI in his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum — which abolished, or more properly expurgated the notion of “forever” to accommodate changes that could not be reconciled with that concept. Quo Primum leaves absolutely no room for ambiguity as you will see in the document itself which accompanies this article. If the proposal on the table is in open conflict with the concept of “forever”, then one must go: the proposal or “forever”.  Paul VI opted for the latter. It must either be redefined or abolished. He did both.

From a purely philosophical point of view, this quantification of the temporal category that we understand as “forever” poses not simply significant, but insuperable problems in any discussion concerning the nature of any conceivable temporal discourse. Let us look at a few instances.

If “forever” does not mean "uninterrupted continuity without end", then by that same logic it simultaneously and necessarily abrogates every other temporal permutation:

  • Never does not mean at no time — either in the past, the present or the future.

  • Now does not mean at this moment or in this present time

  • Before no longer means preceding or anteceding the present

  • And by the Past we no longer understand what had preceded the present

Altering the connotation or intension of any of these five categories (forever, never, now, before, past — but especially “forever”), not simply alters, but abolishes the connotation or meaning of each and all of them.

Consider the following diametrically polar concepts of temporal permutations which — if "forever" no longer means "absolute perpetuity — no longer connote, or mean, what we had erstwhile understood them to mean in the temporal ordering of any state of affairs:
 

  • FOREVER / never, periodicity

  • NOW / before or after

  • PRESENT / past, future, soon

  • EARLY / late

  • OLD / new

  • MODERN / ancient

  • FIRST / last, second, third, etc. (i.e. a series) — also, minute, hour, day, week, month, year, decade, century, millennium, etc.

  • ETERNAL / temporal
     

As we see, quite a bit follows from “forever” no longer being understood as forever but rather, as 399 years at which time “forever” expires.

We must understand that the term “forever” subsumes all the temporal categories and inflections under it, all of which are determinate and finite extensions of time relative only to “forever” (for all time and into eternity) which had erstwhile been understood as indefinite and indeterminate — as so many parts, or segments, if you will, of an infinitely extensive concept (forever) that is indeterminate by definition.

In a word, if “forever” is arbitrarily determined as a finite quantum, all that it subsumed beneath it and understood relative to it is also susceptible to arbitrary determination and we can no longer coherently enter into temporal discourse of any kind that presumes to bind any state of affairs to a determinate referent in time. A week, or month, for example, is only what we arbitrarily understand it to be according to our purpose at hand.

The implications of “implicitly” redefining the temporal concept of “forever” are enormous. Think of it. They pertain, according to the canons of reason, not only to the simplest geometric concept of a line (“A line has only one dimension: length. It continues forever in two directions.”), but to the trajectory, and ultimately, the destiny of the human soul according to the most fundamental notions of Christian doctrine: the eternity of God and the immortality of the soul.

 

Now as 3-minutes-27-seconds

Let us look at this more closely. If, by a pure fiat, we are no longer to understand “now" as “the present moment", but a duration of “3 minutes and 27 seconds” — what follows? Indeed, can we even ask the question, “what follows? since “following” is a temporal concept meaning “occurring after the present moment, or “now”.

What happened in the intervening “3-minutes-27-seconds”?

How do we understand that 3-minutes-27-seconds vacuum? We cannot say that it did not exist, or that what occurred within it did not occur — nor is it possible that nothing occurred within it. Such an assertion accords with neither reason nor experience. In the 3-minutes-27-seconds that intervenes between the present now and the next now (3-minutes-27-seconds later) what do we say of what we did or what had happened in that time frame? Whatever it was, it did not occur in a “now", but in the hiatus between 2 successive 3-minute-27-seconds “nows”.

When then did it occur? We do not have the apparatus to determine this, for we have created a false and illogical time narrative that involves not just inconsistencies but contradictions. By interjecting 3-minutes-27-seconds between successive “nows” we have superseded the model of time and, of course, of the notion of a clock which was ticking between, and enumerating those 3-minutes-27-second “nows”.
 

Before as 2-minutes-17-seconds

What logically holds true for the concept “now” equally holds true for every other category of re-interpreted time. If, for example, we reinterpret “before” as preceding “now” by 2-minutes-17-seconds, we face the same conundrum. It devolves through every other permuation of re-interpreted time until we can have no coherent discourse or discussion involving temporal characteristics. This is to say that we cannot have a discussion in which anything is spoken, for “spoken” is the past tense of the present tense “speak”. In a word, all discourse is inescapably temporal. It occurs or had occurred or will occur.

We cannot say a lot in 2-minutes-17-seconds which, by this reasoning, would qualify it as speaking “now”. Moreover, when the 2-minutes-17-seconds are up, how are they differentiated from the “following” or “previous” 2-minutes-17-seconds? Is there a hiatus between the “previous” 2-minutes-17-seconds and the “following” 2-minutes-17-seconds? What is its duration? And what can — for something must — occur within it? How then, shall we speak of it?

Once specific determinacy is predicated of temporal concepts they lose all coherence.

 You may say, “Well, a clock enumerates 60 seconds for each minute and 60 minutes for each hour, and so on — so there is a specific and determinate time frame.” Yes … for atomic clocks and the like (which are arbitrarily and artificially divided to begin with — why, for example, 60 seconds for a minute and not 136, and what is the specific duration of a second that is not already arbitrarily based on the present caesium model (“The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. The International System of Units ) that is in itself a qualified model. 2 Would the same numeric values hold true if the model were based on barium?) In other words, this may hold true for certain atomic clocks, but not for concepts.

 

Quo Primum and the indefeasible Concept of Forever

All this has been a rather long and roundabout way of demonstrating the most important fact that pertains to Catholics: that “forever” as it pertains to time is not a finite quantum, but means, as it has always meant, and will always be understood to mean: "uninterrupted continuity without end". This pertains to Heaven and it pertains to Hell. Therefore it intrinsically pertains to Christian Doctrine. If either Heaven or Hell are merely 399 years, 9 months, and 11 days, the question naturally arises: what happens after that? As we see ,we cannot escape the notion of “forever” without logical inconsistency — and if Quo Primum states “forever concerning the way we celebrate Mass, it was a definitive, unambiguous, and unimpeachable statement that clarified, once and for all, the manner in which the Mass was, is, and always will be celebrated — forever.

Even popes cannot change the nature of time and the consistency of logic. Quo Primum and the traditional Latin Mass prior to its enervation (or evisceration: you choose, for both apply) following Vatican II, remains binding upon all Catholics (read Quo primum which follows) — forever. It is inescapable. Pope Saint Pius V forever bound every successor to the Chair of Peter to it, together with every Catholic.

The extremely frightening question that follows is ineluctable: what does this mean concerning the validity of virtually every Mass “celebrated” since Vatican II? If we can prescind from an authentic Apostolic Constitution that binds us forever to the Mass as it was celebrated prior to 1962, from what else are we prepared to illicitly dispense with in the way of the Deposit of the Faith and authentic historical Catholic dogma? We already see it unfolding before us, especially under the papacy of Francis among those who deplore a “throw away culture” but appear to embrace a “throw away” Church.

 Somewhere in every part of the world the authentic Latin Mass is being celebrated; many under conditions similar to the underground Church in China, and the only difference is that those who police and brutally suppress these recalcitrant congregations outside of atheistic China are the heavy-handed bishops of the Church itself — many of whom appear to have lost the Faith — but not the comfort and perquisites of their office.

 

 ____________________________

1  Despite the purely conjectural assertion by apologists such as Likoudis and Whitehead that, "Quo Primum [was] … not attempting to fix one particular version of the Roman Missal for all time.” And that “the ‘Tridentine Mass’ and the ‘New Order of the Mass’ constitute different versions of the same Missal” — they do not even upon the most cursory reading of both.  The Pope, the Council, and the Mass: Answers to Questions the Traditionalists Have Asked, 1981 and 2006, Emmaus Road Publishing

2  http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/second.html  “The frequencies of all primary frequency standards should therefore be corrected for the shift due to ambient radiation, as stated at the meeting of the Consultative Committee for Time and Frequency in 1999.”
 

Editor
Boston Catholic Journal

Comments? Write us:  editor@boston-catholic-journal.com

 



Martyrology for today:

 

ROMAN MARTYROLOGY

Saturday May 26th in the Year of Grace 2018

Season after Pentecost


This Day, the Twenty-Sixth Day of May

At Rome, St. Philip Neri, founder of the Congregation of the Oratory, celebrated for his virginal purity, the gift of prophecy, and miracles.

Also, at Rome, St. Eleutherius, Pope and martyr, who converted many noble Romans to the Christian faith. He sent the saints Damian and Fugatius to England, who baptized king Lucius with his wife and almost all his people.

In the same city, the holy martyrs Simitrius, priest, and twenty-two others, who suffered under Antoninus Pius.

At Athens, during the persecution of Adrian, the birthday of blessed Quadratus, a disciple of the Apostles, who collected through his zealous exertions the faithful dispersed by terror, and presented to the emperor an excellent apology of the Christian religion, worthy of an Apostle.

At Vienne, St. Zachary, bishop and martyr, who suffered under Trajan.

In Africa, St. Quadratus, martyr, on whose festival St. Augustine preached a sermon.

At Todi, the birthday of the holy martyrs Felicissimus, Heraclius, and Paulinus.

In the territory of Auxerre, the passion of St. Priscus, martyr, with a great multitude of Christians.

At Canterbury, in England, St. Augustine, bishop, who was sent thither with others by the blessed Pope Gregory and preached the Gospel of Christ to the English nation. Celebrated for virtues and miracles, he went peacefully to his rest in the Lord.

And elsewhere in divers places, many other holy martyrs, confessors, and holy virgins.


Omnes sancti Mártyres, oráte pro nobis. ("All ye Holy Martyrs, pray for us", from the Litaniae Sanctorum, the Litany of the Saints)

Response: Thanks be to God.

 


 


Roman Martyrology by Month
 

 


 

Why the Martyrs Matter



Each day we bring you a calendar, a list really, of the holy Martyrs who had suffered and died for Christ, for His Bride the Church, and for our holy Catholic Faith; men and women for whom — and well they knew — their Profession of Faith would cost them their lives.

They could have repudiated all three (Christ, Church, and Catholic Faith) and kept their lives for a short time longer (even the lapsi only postponed their death — and at so great a cost!).1

What would motivate men, women, even children and entire families to willingly undergo the most evil and painfully devised tortures; to suffer death rather than denial?

Why did they not renounce their Catholic Faith when the first flame licked at their feet, after the first eye was plucked out, or after they were “baptized” in mockery by boiling water or molten lead poured over their heads? Why did they not flee to offer incense to the pagan gods since such a ritual concession would be merely perfunctory, having been done, after all, under duress, exacted by the compulsion of the state? What is a little burned incense and a few words uttered without conviction, compared to your own life and the lives of those you love? Surely God knows that you are merely placating the state with empty gestures …

Did they love their wives, husbands, children — their mothers, fathers and friends less than we do? Did they value their own lives less? Were they less sensitive to pain than we are? In a word, what did they possess that we do not?

Nothing. They possessed what we ourselves are given in the Sacrament of Confirmation — but cleaved to it in far greater measure than we do: Faith and faithfulness; fortitude and valor, uncompromising belief in the invincible reality of God, of life eternal in Him for the faithful, of damnation everlasting apart from Him for the unfaithful; of the ephemerality of this passing world and all within it, and lives lived in total accord with that adamant belief.

We are the Martyrs to come. What made them so will make us so. What they suffered we will suffer. What they died for, we will die for. If only we will! For most us, life will be a bloodless martyrdom, a suffering for Christ, for the sake of Christ, for the sake of the Church in a thousand ways outside the arena. The road to Heaven is lined on both sides with Crosses, and upon the Crosses people, people who suffered unknown to the world, but known to God. Catholics living in partibus infidelium, under the scourge of Islam. Loveless marriages. Injustices on all sides. Poverty. Illness. Old age. Dependency. They are the cruciform! Those whose lives became Crosses because they would not flee God, the Church, the call to, the demand for, holiness in the most ordinary things of life made extraordinary through the grace of God. The Martyrology we celebrate each day is just a vignette, a small, immeasurably small, sampling of the martyrdom that has been the lives of countless men and women whom Christ and the Angels know, but whom the world does not know.

“Exemplum enim dedi vobis”, Christ said to His Apostles: “I have given you an example.” And His Martyrs give one to us — and that is why the Martyrs matter.


Geoffrey K. Mondello
Contributing Editor
B
oston Catholic Journal


Note: We suggest that you explore our newly edited and revised “De SS. Martyrum Cruciatibus — The Torments and Tortures of the Christian Martyrs” for an in-depth historical account of the sufferings of the Martyrs.

 

 

INTRODUCTION TO THE ROMAN MARTYROLOGY

By J. Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop Baltimore


THE ROMAN MARTYROLOGY is an official and accredited record, on the pages of which are set forth in simple and brief, but impressive words, the glorious deeds of the Soldiers of Christ in all ages of the Church; of the illustrious Heroes and Heroines of the Cross, whom her solemn verdict has beatified or canonized. In making up this long roll of honor, the Church has been actuated by that instinctive wisdom with which the Spirit of God, who abides in her and teaches her all truth, has endowed her, and which permeates through and guides all her actions. She is the Spouse of Christ, without spot or wrinkle or blemish, wholly glorious and undefiled, whom He loved, for whom He died, and to whom He promised the Spirit of Truth, to comfort her in her dreary pilgrimage through this valley of tears, and to abide with her forever. She is one with Him in Spirit and in love, she is subject to Him in all things; she loves what He loves, she teaches and practices what He commands.

If the world has its Legions of Honor, why should not also the Church of the Living God, the pillar and the ground of the truth? If men who have been stained with blood, and women who have been tainted with vice, have had their memory consecrated in prose and in verse, and monuments erected to their memory, because they exhibited extraordinary talents, achieved great success, or were, to a greater or less extent, benefactors of their race in the temporal order, which passeth away, why should not the true Heroes and Heroines of Jesus, who, imitating His example, have overcome themselves, risen superior to and trampled upon the world, have aspired, in all their thoughts, words, and actions, to a heavenly crown, and have moreover labored with disinterested zeal and self-forgetting love for the good of their fellow-men, have their memories likewise consecrated and embalmed in the minds and hearts of the people of God? If time have its heroes, why should not eternity; if man, why should not God? Thy friends, O Lord, are exceedingly honored; their principality is exceedingly exalted.Whom His Father so dearly loved, the world crucified; whom the world neglects, despises, and crucifies, God, through His Church, exceedingly honors and exalts. Their praises are sung forth, with jubilation of heart, in the Church of God for ages on ages.

The wisdom of the Church of God in honoring her Saints is equaled only by the great utility of the practice thus consecrated. The Saints are not merely heroes; they are models. Christ lived in them, and Christ yet speaks through them. They were the living temples of the Holy Ghost, in whose mortal bodies dwelt all the riches of His wisdom and grace. They were in life consecrated human exemplars of divine excellence and perfection. Their example still appeals to our minds and to our hearts, more eloquently even than did their words to the men of their own generation, while they were in the tabernacle of the flesh. Though dead, they still speak. Their relics are instinct with sanctity, and through them they continue to breathe forth the sweet odor of Christ. The immortality into which they have entered still lingers in their bones, and seems to breathe in their mortal remains. As many an ardent, spirit has been induced to rush to the cannon's mouth by reading the exploits of earthly heroes, so many a generous Christian soul has been fired with heavenly ardor, and been impelled to rush to the crown of martyrdom, by reading the lives and heroic achievements of the Saints and Martyrs of Christ. Example, in its silent appeal, is more potent in its influence on the human heart and conduct than are words in their most eloquent utterances.

The Church knows and feels all this, in the Spirit of God with whom she is replenished ; and hence she sets forth, with holy joy and exultant hope, her bright and ever-increasing Calendar of Sanctity of just men and women made perfect and rendered glorious, under her unearthly and sublime teachings. In reading this roll of consecrated holiness, our instinctive conclusion is, precisely that which the great soul of St. Augustine reached at the very crisis of his life, the moment of his conversion If other men like me have attained to such sanctity, why not I? Shall the poor, the afflicted, the despised of the World, bear away the palm of victory, the crown of immortality, while I lie buried in my sloth and dead in my sins, and thus lose the brilliant and glorious mansion already prepared for me in heaven? Shall all the gifts, which God has lavished upon me, be ingloriously spent and foolishly wasted, in the petty contest for this world's evanescent honors and riches, while the poor and contemned lay up treasures in heaven, and secure the prize of immortal glory? Shall others be the friends of God, whom He delights to honor, while I alone remain His enemy, and an alien from His blessed Kingdom?

It is a consoling evidence of progress in the spiritual life in this country to find the Martyrology here published, for the first time, in English, and thereby made accessible, in its rich treasures of Sanctity, to all classes of our population. It will prove highly edifying and useful, not only to the members of our numerous religious Communities of both sexes, but also to the laity generally. Every day has here its record of Sanctity; and there is scarcely a Christian, no matter how lowly or how much occupied, who may not be able to daily peruse, with faith and with great profit, the brief page of each day's models of Holiness. These belong to all classes and callings of life; from the throne to the hovel, from the Pontiff to the lowest cleric, from the philosopher to the peasant, from the busy walks of life to the dreary wastes of the desert.

Let all, then, procure and read daily the appropriate portions of this Martyrology. Its daily and pious perusal will console us in affliction, will animate us in despondency, will make our souls glow with the love of God in coldness, and will lift up our minds and hearts from this dull and ever-changing earth to the bright and everlasting mansions prepared for us in Heaven!

Imprimatur,  J. Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop Baltimore, Maryland 1916

   Printable PDF Version

 



 

 


THE APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
 

QUO PRIMUM

 

(and what Forever really means)

 

Pope Pius V Catechism of Trent

 

From the very first, upon Our elevation to the chief Apostleship, We gladly turned our mind and energies and directed all out thoughts to those matters which concerned the preservation of a pure liturgy, and We strove with God's help, by every means in our power, to accomplish this purpose. For, besides other decrees of the sacred Council of Trent, there were stipulations for Us to revise and re-edit the sacred books: the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary. With the Catechism published for the instruction of the faithful, by God's help, and the Breviary thoroughly revised for the worthy praise of God, in order that the Missal and Breviary may be in perfect harmony, as fitting and proper —  for it is most becoming that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass — We deemed it necessary to give our immediate attention to what still remained to be done, viz, the re-editing of the Missal as soon as possible.

Hence, We decided to entrust this work to learned men of our selection. They very carefully collated all their work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved or emended codices from elsewhere. Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers. When this work has been gone over numerous times and further emended, after serious study and reflection, We commanded that the finished product be printed and published as soon as possible, so that all might enjoy the fruits of this labor; and thus, priests would know which prayers to use and which rites and ceremonies they were required to observe from now on in the celebration of Masses.

Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us.
This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women — even of military orders — and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever.

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding.

All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by
this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.

We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.

Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that
this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remains always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription — except, however, if more than two hundred years' standing.

It is Our will, therefore, and by the same authority, We decree that, after We publish this constitution and the edition of the Missal, the priests of the Roman Curia are, after thirty days, obliged to chant or read the Mass according to it; all others south of the Alps, after three months; and those beyond the Alps either within six months or whenever the Missal is available for sale. Wherefore, in order that the Missal be preserved incorrupt throughout the whole world and kept free of flaws and errors, the penalty for nonobservance for printers, whether mediately or immediately subject to Our dominion, and that of the Holy Roman Church, will be the forfeiting of their books and a fine of one hundred gold ducats, payable ipso facto to the Apostolic Treasury. Further, as for those located in other parts of the world, the penalty is excommunication latae sententiae, and such other penalties as may in Our judgment be imposed; and We decree by this law that they must not dare or presume either to print or to publish or to sell, or in any way to accept books of this nature without Our approval and consent, or without the express consent of the Apostolic Commissaries of those places, who will be appointed by Us. Said printer must receive a standard Missal and agree faithfully with it and in no wise vary from the Roman Missal of the large type (secundum magnum impressionem).

Accordingly, since it would be difficult for this present pronouncement to be sent to all parts of the Christian world and simultaneously come to light everywhere, We direct that it be, as usual, posted and published at the doors of the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, also at the Apostolic Chancery, and on the street at Campo Flora; furthermore, We direct that printed copies of this same edict signed by a notary public and made official by an ecclesiastical dignitary possess the same indubitable validity everywhere and in every nation, as if Our manuscript were shown there.
Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should anyone dare to contravene it, know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

    
Given at St. Peter
s in the year of the Lord's Incarnation, 1570, on the 14th of July of the Fifth year of Our Pontificate.

 

   Printable PDF Version

 

 

 

 


Search the Boston Catholic Journal


FREE CATHOLIC
AUDIO
LIBRARY


Free Catholic Audio Library
Download Catholic Prayers
and more


The Metaphysics of
Christian Mysticism

The Metaphysics of Mysticism — St. John of the Cross: Reason, Revelation, and the inexorable Logic of the Ascent of the Soul to God by Geoffrey K. Mondello

St. John of the Cross:
Reason, Revelation, and the inexorable Logic of the Ascent of the Soul to God


by:
Geoffrey K. Mondello

available at Amazon


The End

Archbishop Fulton Sheen - The Fourth Great Crisis in the Church - The End of Christendom

of Christendom

“The Fourth Great Crisis
of the Church”

 Why the  Church
— and the West
are withering

An audio presentation


The Little Office

The Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary

of the
Blessed Virgin Mary


Saint Michael the Archangel

Prayer to Saint Michael against satan


Novena to St Jude

 Novena to St Jude Printable 4-fold with one piece of paper
Printable Booklet
on 1 sheet
of paper, 4-fold, free


With Mary in the Rose Garden
Mary Immaculate, Mother of God
Reflections on the Rosary
with a Poor Clare Nun and Padre Pio


The Baltimore Catechism

Discover what the Church really teaches
Download the PDF

Thoughts in Passing about our Holy Catholic Faith

Thoughts in Passing
on our Life in Faith


The Practice of the Presence of God
by
 Brother Lawrence

Complete Audio Files


Father Michael Schmitz

Father Mike Schmitz — Homilies

A Passion for Preaching


Pope Saint Pius X
Pray for us

Pope St. Pius X Pray for us

“I shall spare myself neither care nor labor nor vigils for the salvation of souls”

 

  

Boston Catholic Journal
 

Totally Faithful to the Sacred Deposit of Faith entrusted to the Holy See in Rome

 Scio opera tua ... quia modicum habes virtutem, et servasti verbum Meum, nec non negasti Nomen Meum 
I know your works ... that you have but little power, and yet you have kept My word, and have not denied My Name. (Apocalypse 3.8)


 

Copyright © 2004 - 2018 Boston Catholic Journal. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise stated, permission is granted by the Boston Catholic Journal for the copying and distribution of the articles and audio files under the following conditions:
No additions, deletions, or changes are to be made to the text or audio files in any way, and the copies may not be sold for a profit. In the reproduction, in any format of any image, graphic, text, or audio file, attribution must be given to the Boston Catholic Journal.