Vatican II Rites — Are they valid?

url: http://www.calefactory.org/misc-v2-v2ritesaretheyvalid.htm

Vatican II Rites — Are they valid?

by

Eugene A. W. Howson

Surrey, England

Given here is a brief explanation of the Roman Pontifical for the “ordination” of bishops as revised by decree of the Second Vatican Council, and published under the “authority” of (false) Paul VI. Then follows an explanation of the Decree of Pope Leo XIII (Apostolicae Curae) where he defines for all time his judgment against Anglican orders as being totally ineffective. What Leo XIII says in the Church’s binding judgment on the Anglicans can equally be applied against the defects inherent in the Vatican II “ordinations.”

Distinction Between Bishop & Priest

Before considering the new Vatican II Ordinal, it seems appropriate to make a few remarks on the distinction between priest and bishop, and thus determine what power or powers are given to the latter over and above those given to the priest.

Whatever may have been the opinions in the past or even in the present to the contrary, it seems abundantly clear to the writer, that as there are only Seven Sacraments, of which one is that ofOrder, the priest having received this Sacrament when he was ordained a priest, cannot receive it again when he is consecrated as Bishop, for this is one of the Three Sacraments which cannot be received more than once. It is clear from the fact that the Catholic Church insists that a candidate for the Episcopate must firstly be a priest, and that the consecration rite cannot impart the character of the Sacrament of Order. If it could, then there would have been no need for the Church to insist upon this condition.

Episcopal Power & Duties

Apart from the Power of Jurisdiction, which is not bestowed by a sacramental rite, but by a commission received from Christ or from the lawful Ecclesiastical authority, since its direct object is not the production of the spiritual effect of Power and Grace in the soul, the essential Power which differentiates the Episcopacy from the Priesthood, is that the former alone has the power to transmit the priesthood. This opinion is confirmed by St. Jerome and others. Just as the Power to forgive sins was given by Christ as an annexation to, and consequent to the priesthood, so the priest is elevated to the highest Rank of Priesthood when the Power to Transmit the Sacrament of Order is Annexed to the Consecration Rite to his priesthood.

The essentials of the Rite whereby the priest is raised to the Episcopate consists of the Imposition of the Bishop’s hands (that is The Matter of the Sacrament), and the recitation of the prescribed prayer (that is the Form of the Sacrament); but like all the sacraments, there must be a Signification of what that power is that is to be Conferred. In other words, what the Church means by Ministerium Suum (the high priesthood) the rank of Bishop. The Form itself does not specify this in the old Ordinal, but it does specify the duties of the Bishop with the words: “Episcopus oportet, judicare, interpretari, consecrare, ordinare, offere, battizare, et confirmare.”

Deliberate Omissions

In the new rite, the Matter is still the laying on of the hands, whilst the Form is more explicit in its Signification than in the old-Quoting thus – from the English version issued in 1968 by the International Commission on the English in the Liturgy, (ICEL) the Essential part of the Form says:

“Father you know all hearts. You have chosen your servants for the Office of Bishop. May they be shepherds to your holy flock, and high priests blameless in your sight, ministering to you night and day: May they always gain the blessing of your favour and offer the gifts of your holy Church.

Through the Spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood, grant them the power to forgive sins as you have commanded, to assign ministries as you have decreed, and to loose every bond by authority which you gave to your apostles.

May they be pleasing to you by their gentleness and purity of heart, presenting a fragrant offering to you through Jesus Christ, Your Son, whom glory and power and honour are yours with the Holy Spirit in your holy Church, now and forever. Amen.

No Power to Ordain, Confirm, Consecrate

The traditional liturgy and rites were to have needed change in order to simplify and clarify obscurities, yet in the Vatican II ceremony we see the “power to forgive sins” being given to Bishops, whilst not giving this power to priests. What strange theological reasoning could there be behind such a change?

There is no mention of “Power to Ordain,” the essence of the High priesthood, or is the word “assign ministries as you have decreed,” supposed to mean the “Power to Ordain?” If so, why not say “To Ordain?” Although the English version uses this phrase, “Assign,” etc, it does not appear in the original Latin text, where this second power is: “Ut distribuant munera secundum praeceptum.” What these, “Munera Gifts” are supposed to be, the rite is silent. Why? And why is there this discrepancy between the Vatican II Latin version and the ICEL English translation? There is no prima facie evidence that the new rite Bishop has any power to Ordain and thereby pass on the powers of the priesthood, even if the Rite for Ordaining priests used in the Vatican II rite was a valid one. Although it is generally agreed that a simple priest can be authorized to confirm, the Bishop is the normal minister for this Sacrament, yet no mention of this power, nor his power to consecrate Holy Oils. So even for the sake of argument the word “Munera” (Gifts) was intended to mean these other powers, why does not a revised rite, whose alleged object was to clarify, not say so? In any event the English version, which is the one used in English-speaking countries, has nothing which could possibly be interpreted to mean either to Confirm or to Consecrate.

One can therefore only conclude that this new rite is like that for the Anglican priesthood condemned by Leo XIII as totally invalid. It fails to give that essential power belonging only to the bishop, the power to Ordain. This is a spiritual power, the powers to assigning and loosing (in the new rite) are only judiciary powers.

How can one draw any other conclusion, when the Reformers deliberately suppressed the Catholic Rite of the Apostolic Tradition, and drew up a new one deliberately leaving out the Essential reason which the Catholic Church had for raising a priest to the Episcopacy!

It follows, therefore, not only from the changes in the Ordinal for the priesthood, but confirmed by the one for the Episcopacy too, that this is not the catholic religion, but a new Protestant religion, falsely calling itself “Catholic,” having neither priest nor bishop but only laymen as ministers.

It is true that the new rite uses matter and form, but only to resemble the old [apostolic] rite; but what is the value of its words in this New Form, if the meaning they intend to convey is not stated there or anywhere else in this New rite. When the principal meaning is omitted, how can one conclude rationally that the new meaning of its intention in the new rite is in fact the same as in the Old Rite! To maintain that it does, is to make a mockery and nonsense of Language, which God has given to man solely to convey meaning.

It may be of interest to note, that whatever the theological importance of the ceremony is, or is not, that the anointing of the hands of the bishop-elect has been abolished!

Validity of the Vatican II Ordination Rite

To reflect on the validity or invalidity of the New Vatican II Ordination rite of 1968 is not only reasonable, but also a prudent act. It is easily accomplished once we come to understand that we have no less an authority than the Papal Bulla, “Apostolicae Curae” issued by Leo XIII on Sept. 18, 1896, one of our greatest modern-day Popes, to test the validity or invalidity of this “new rite.”

Back in the 1800’s certain Roman Catholic leaders with some of their Anglican friends, were attempting “unity” with Rome, whilst entertaining strange illusions as to how this would be accomplished. It was in the spring of 1895, when the great Pope Leo XIII caused the English to see, that to become a Catholic, one might still remain an Englishman, but not an Anglican. In closing his very beautiful Letter, this Holy Father recommended prayers to the Mother of God. He did this deliberately for several reasons; one as a test of Anglican sincerity. If they were to be united to the One True Church, then it was high time they should show their love and trust in the help of the Mother of God. There was no equivocating with this pope!

Following his Spring Letter, he gave another in June 1895. Pope Leo traces for them and all of us, the image of the Church, sketches her prominent features, bringing out in relief the characteristic mark of her Unity. Never did Leo ever give up any of her Rights and Prerogatives. There was no compromising and no suppressing of the truth in favour of Conciliarism as has been done by the traitors of Vatican II.

It was again in the spring of 1896 when this holy Pontiff appointed a Commission to re-examine the whole question of the “validity” of Anglican “orders”. In September of that year, he decreed a most important and Infallible Judgment, called “Apostolicae Curae”, showing that Anglican Orders, according to the Ewardine Ordinal had in those Three centuries, regarded the Catholic Apostolic Church as Null and Void. The re-examination of this Anglican Ordinal proved that the Sacrament of Holy Orders no longer existed in the Anglican Church.

Later that year Leo XIII settled the matter for all time, answering in detail the three ingredients that make up a valid Sacrament: the Intent, the matter, and the form of the rite of Ordination.

Those on both sides who tried for a false unity fell back and admitted that The Judgment had overthrown their whole position.

In Pope Leo XIII’s Bulla declaring Anglican Orders invalid, we have a powerful weapon to use against this false new Montinian Rite. Let us use it, just as Leo XIII showed the substantial defects, and thecorrupt intention of the persons ordaining this rite and its intention of manifestly excluding the essence of the priesthood, namely the power to offer Divine Sacrifice, thus resulting in the invalidity of the Sacraments when the Form does not truly Signify the Effect intended by Christ, and the Church HE founded. Let us use and show up this new and false Vatican II Montinian rite in exposing its complete invalidity.

This decree of Leo XIII, as might be expected brought forth howls of anger from the Anglicans! Responding to this reaction the Cardinal and Bishops of the Province of Westminster wrote a “Vindication of the Bulla of Pope Leo XIII.”

In their own document, the English Bishops {of Leo XIII’s time} using the judgment of Pope Leo XIII wrote their: “Catholic Doctrine of the Priesthood “a.k.a. “The Vindication.”

“Priest and Sacrifice are correlative terms with us at all times, and indeed with all nations, except insofar as your own Communion may be an exception. A Priest is one who offers sacrifice: and as it is the sacrifice, so it is the priest who offers it. Since our sacrifice isthe Sacrifice of the Mass, and Our priest is one appointed and empowered to offer up that sacrifice; then one who has received this power from God by means of the words of consecration in the Canon of the Mass, to cause the Body and Blood of Christ to become present under the appearances of bread and wine, and to offer them up sacrificially. The priest may have other powers annexed to his office, such as the power to forgive sins; and he may likewise be charged with the duty of preaching the word of God, and exercising pastoral care over the people consigned to him. But these other powers and duties are super-added and consequent. They are suitably annexed to the priesthood, but they are not of its essence. The priest would not have been less a priest if they had been withheld from him, nor is he any more a priest because Our Lord has thought fit to communicate them to him.”

Here is the clear teaching of the essence of the priesthood, confirmed not only by the manner in which Our Lord instituted the Sacrament of Order and Penance, but by the practice of the Catholic Church in Her traditional Rites whereby after the priest is Ordained, the bishop then invokes the Holy Ghost, and by the imposition of hands and the accompanying prayer, transmits to the newly-ordained priest the power to forgive sins.

This Power is not given to Vatican II “priests”

A little later on we will examine the new Montinian rite of 1968, to determine whether the ordained is truly a valid priest. For the moment, let us pretend that he is, then if he is, then most definitely he has not been given the power to forgive sins, since Vatican II rite has suppressed the form and the matter, and is silent also whereby this power was annexed to the priest in the Old Apostolic Rite. This in itself is serious. But the real crime is that from the “pope” downwards through the bishops and priests, the laity are permitted to go to these men who have no power in the belief that they will have their sins forgiven. This is a treacherous deceit, a sacrilegious profanation of the Sacrament of Penance, and one of the greatest sins ever committed by the “new” clergy. The real question must be asked: “Can a true successor of St. Peter promulgate such a horrendous rite, and deny the laity the right to heaven. The clear answer is a resounding NO!

The only conclusion, the only honest one is that Montini, or Paul VI, must have been a false “pope” to have issued such a blasphemous rite, and his successor, John Paul II is also a false “pope” for continuing to allow this blasphemous rite. What of the bishops, the ones who use it, can they be considered as true successors of the Apostles? Again the answer is a resounding NO!

How can a true successor of the Apostles not pass on this power to forgive sins? They do so by using the false Montinian rite. In other words, that is their intention. They are destroying the Sacrament of penance, for in time, there will be no bishop left in the Western Church with this power to pass on. The new bishop cannot pass on what he has not received, any more than the Apostles could have done, had they not received this power firstly from Christ. One is therefore forced to come to the conclusion, that these men are not only deceiving the laity, but they are apostates or cowards. The evidence of decline in confessions in the UK and its virtual decrease in Holland, would lead one to think that they belong to the apostate brigade, rather than to the cowards. It is no oversight or accident that this power was excluded from the ordination rite, because if that was the case, it would have been rectified by now. At this time, many years later on, millions of the laity have received invalid and profane confessions. This rite today has still remained unchanged. The laity still do not know, so they cannot be blamed {Ed. Not quite so, as they “sin” against culpable ignorance and are liable for their own salvation}, but the clergy certainly do know {Ed. Again it is those older clergy from pre-Vatican II days that are truly liable. The very young and new clergy are no different to the Protestant members in that they have LOST their understanding of the true faith.}, and they must share in the guilt of their Bishops. Members of the English Hierarchy {Ed. And other nations} , when challenged with this dishonesty, maintained, as usual, their rock solid deafening silence.

Pope Leo XIII on the Validity of Holy Orders

All the foregoing presupposes that the men ordained under this “new rite” of Vatican II, are “true” priests, but what if their ordination is invalid? If they are true priests, then the lack of power to forgive sins could be remedied, but if they are not validly ordained, the giving of the power to forgive sins would be meaningless, for it belongs to the institution of the Apostolic priesthood alone. We must therefore consider the validity of the “new rite of ordination” in the light and teachings of the Church as laid down by Leo XIII.

Again quoting from the “Vindication of the Bulla” by the English Bishops in 1896, they said:

“The Bulla, however, when passing over the controversies about the Matter, lays down that the Form of Holy Orders must be definite. It does not require that the Form should always consist of the same words, but that it should always conform to the same definite type.”

Hence it goes on to say in what this definite type is to consist of. The form must always definitely express the sacred order, or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power of consecrating and offering of the “Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.”

The vindication continues:

“But we also notice another misconception in your further contention that the particular Signification which the Pope deems essential to Holy Orders is not found in the many forms which the Holy See nevertheless allows as valid!”

After discussing some of these ancient forms to which the Anglicans have referred, the Vindication continues:

“What Leo XIII means is that the Order to which the candidate is being promoted to must be distinctly indicated either by its accepted name, or by an explicit reference to the grace and power which belongs to it … nor is such a disjunctive statement unreasonable, for in the Catholic Apostolic Church, the alternative phrases are perfectly equivalent.”

Power to Offer Sacrifice

“The Catholic Church has always meant by that term, priest (Sacerdos), a person appointed and empowered to offer sacrifice. For the true historical reason, a fact which was carefully investigated in the recent commissions, is that not one single ordination rite which the Catholic Church has accepted, is without one or the other of these alternative modes of definite signification.”

“A further objection of the Anglicans is then considered. The terms Priest, Bishop, it may now be said, are now declared to be the accepted terms to denote those who have received in substance or in plenitude the sacrificial power. Why then, have they been rejected in an earlier part of this Letter, as not bearing the Meaning when they occur in your prayer. Because Pope Leo XIII ruled in his Bulla that the formula, “Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest or Bishop”, has no validity being now mere words, voided of the reality which Christ instituted, once a new rite has been introduced, denying or corrupting the sacrament of Order, and repudiating any notion whatsoever of consecrating and sacrifice. The Pope also said that if an ordination rite implies the exclusion of the power to sacrifice, then it is necessarily null and void, even though it may express mention of the words “priest.” It is impossible for a Form to be suitable and significant for a Sacrament when it suppresses that which it ought to signify distinctly.

Further passages from the “Vindication” should now be noted since they have an important bearing on the Montinian Rite of Paul VI 1968.

“Your Reformers no doubt retained the terms “priest” and “bishop” as the distinctive names of the two higher degrees of their clergy … probably because they did not dare to discard terms so long held established and revered .

“They did not mean ministers empowered to OFFER SACRIFICE, but pastors set over their flocks, to teach them, to administer to them such sacraments as they believed in, and generally to tend to them spiritually. This meaning they professed to regard as that of Scripture and the Primitive.

Quoting Leo XIII, the “Vindication” says:

“There is nothing more pertinent than to consider the circumstances under which it was composed and publicly authorized. Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, the laws of believing and the laws of prayer {Lex Credendi, Lex Orandi}, and under the pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the liturgical order in many ways to suit the errors of the Reformers .

“For this reason in the whole Ordinal, not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice or consecrating … and offering sacrifice, but as we have said, every trace of these things, which had been in the prayers of the Catholic Rite … was deliberately removed and struck off. Their object in discarding it was to disavow Catholic Apostolic doctrines, and not as you contend to render the rites simpler.”

“We have already dealt with the use of the word “priest”… and have shown that nothing can be inferred in it from the new {Edwardine} rite. Yet where else can any intimation be found that the graces imparted have ANY reference to the consecration and oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ. Nowhere of course! But your contention seems to be that we must not argue Ex Silentio. It would be sufficient answer to this plea to point out that at least according to the principles by which the Holy See must judge, an Ordination Rite must contain, either explicitly, or at least implicitly, the definite signification of what is essential to the Order conferred. But the silence of your Ordinal is not merely neutral; it speaks volumes…”

“Striking Suppression”

“And yet throughout, there is not one word of reference to the powers of consecration, or sacrifice … Why was there this striking suppression, unless it were that the makers of this Ordinal could find no place in their conception of the ministry for elements which in a Catholic Ordinal are essential? Next look at the Catholic Ordinal which was superseded. We are not referring to the Catholic Rite in its older and simpler style, such as we find in the Leonine Sacramentary. Even there, the sacrificial character of the power communicated is not obscurely indicated, quite apart from the use of the sacrificial term, Priest and Bishop. We are calling attention to this Catholic Rite, as it was prescribed and employed in England and on the Continent at the time of the so-called “reformation.”

“It is this rite which Cranmer and his colleagues took in hand and reformed. It is with this old rite that their revised rite must be compared to if we desire to interpret on rational principles the meaning of the Latter Rite. That the Catholic Apostolic Rite in its medieval stage abounded in words and ceremonies giving expression to the sacrificial character of the power to be conveyed, is so well known that we do not need to prove it.”

“We will content ourselves therefore with re-calling to mind the delivery of the sacrificial instruments, the clothing in the sacrificial vestments, the anointing of the hands, together with the addresses to the candidates accompanying these manual ceremonies. We desire to accentuate that these striking assertions of the sacrificial Priesthood which at the time were in almost immemorial possession, were all struck out of the Edwardine Ordinal. Why was this done so?”

“It could not have been as you seem to suggest, because the reformers wished to go back to what was primitive … It could not have been … for a rite of great simplicity, for they could have retained some short sentence such as, “sacerdotum, opert, offere benedicere, praesse, pradicare, conficere, et baptizare”, or they could have constructed another short sentence of equivalent meaning. It could not have been for no reason at all. In short, the only and sufficient reason for the suppression, is that they disliked the notion of a sacrificing priesthood, which they alleged to be without warrant in Scripture, and desired to dissociate their Ordinal from all connection with it.”

“This argument is strengthened when from the Ordinal itself we turn to your Communion service. To put the matter briefly, if the First Prayer book of Edward VI is compared with the Missal, sixteen omissions can be detected of which the evident purpose was to eliminate the idea of sacrifice … Again therefore, we must put the question: “Why these systematic changes and suppressions unless it was that your “fathers” wished to prevent their rites from continuing to express the grace and power which is chiefly the power of consecrating and offering the Body and Blood of Christ.”

Real Question

“The question raised is in fact whether the language of your Ordinal definitely signifies the orders of priesthood or episcopate, or the respective graces and powers of each, such a definitive signification being essential to its recognition by the Holy See as a valid rite. Now to claim that this Ordinal can be interpreted with equal justice and propriety as expressing the opinions of Cranmer on the nature of the ministry, and those of Gardiner, is nothing less than to allow that the rite so far from being definite in its meaning is in fact indefinite and ambiguous, and that with an ambiguity extending so far as to cover both the assertion and the denial of the true priesthood, such as Our Lord instituted.

Vatican II Rite and Pope Leo XIII

In the light of the foregoing quotations from the “Vindications,” let us examine the “new rite” of 1968, or the Montinian rite, which is the more correct, let us see what the relationship it is to the centuries old rite of the Catholic Apostolic Church. In other words, we will be making the same comparisons as did Leo XIII did with the Edwardian rite of the 16th century Reformers, to the Vatican II Montinian rite of the present time in our age, that of 1968.

The ordination rite has through the centuries had prayers and ceremonies added to it, mainly no doubt to express more clearly the power and grace which the Sacrament Signifies. Never, according to Pope Leo XIII, has there been any suppression, not until the time of the “reformers.” Nevertheless, the “new” rite of Paul VI does retain the traditional form as follows, but it must be looked at in isolation from the statement of the English Bishops in their “Vindication,” where, warning against omitting or reforming, they state that there is no known historical foundations for the subtracting of prayers and ceremonies in previous use. The English translation of the V-2 {Vatican II} form is as follows:

“We ask you [A very impersonal form of address to God], all-powerful Father, give these servants of yours [?] the dignity of the priesthood. Renew the Spirit of holiness within them. By your [?] divine gift, may they attain the second order in the hierarchy and exemplify right conduct in their lives.” (False Rite)

This new Montinian rite has suppressed the following prayers which were in the ancient rite:

“Be pleased O Lord, to consecrate and sanctify these hands by this anointing and our blessing. Amen . That whatsoever they bless may be blessed, and whatsoever they consecrate may be consecrated and sanctified in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.” (True rite)

When the Bishop delivers to each priest the chalice containing wine and water, and the paten with a host on it, he used to say this prayer:

“Receive the Power to Offer SACRIFICE to God and to celebrate Mass, both for the living and the DEAD, in the name of Our Lord. Amen.” (True rite)

In place of the traditional prayer used at the anointing of the hands, the Montinian rite has this:

“The Father anointed Jesus Christ as Lord through the power of the Holy Spirit. May Jesus keep you worthy of offering sacrifices to God and sanctify the Christian assembly.”(False rite)

In place of the suppressed prayer: “receive the power etc…”, the Montinian Rite or the new rite bishop says:

“Accept the gifts from the people [!!!!] to be offered to God. Be conscious of what you are doing [???], be holy as the actions you perform and model your life after the mystery of the Lord’s cross.” (the false Protestant-worded phrases)

Is this the clear and definite signification of the grace to be conferred? Certainly not. In fact, as Pope Leo XIII said in his Bulla: “if an ordination rite implies the exclusion of the power to offer sacrifice (and by this he meant the sacrifice of the altar – not some butcher’s block of a table – as condemned by Pius XII in “Mediator Dei”), then it is necessarily null even though it may include some express mention of the word “priest.”

This deliberate denial of the sacrifice of the Mass (that is the Divine Sacrifice of the Cross and the Altar) which is the essence of the Apostolic priesthood, compels any reasonable person to conclude that this new rite of Montini is invalid. Again, as Pope Leo XIII points out: “It is impossible for a Form to be suitable and Sufficient for a Sacrament when it suppresses that which it ought to distinctly signify.”

Conclusion

Do we dare to ignore the Infallible words of Pope Leo XIII , that apply to this new Vatican II rite, this new false Montinian rite, just as much as to his condemnation of the false Anglican Ordinal of King Edward VI.

This truly great and holy Pope Leo XIII reaches out across time and also nullifies all the false Vatican II rites.

Says Pope Leo XIII: “If the rite is modified with the manifest object of introducing another not admitted by the Apostolic Church, and rejecting the one she uses, then not only is the necessary intention for the Sacrament defective {through Intent, 3rd of the three necessary conditions for a valid sacrament}, but also there is an intention contrary and opposed to the sacrament.”

So again we must conclude that not only was Paul VI a “false pope” but that this new religion of the Second Vatican Council is not the Catholic religion, that those who adhere to it are not Catholics, but apostates. No true pope, bishop or priest could promulgate such an apostate rite.

There is however other important evidence to substantiate this because, like the reformers of the 16th century, the Reformers of the 20th century, the new Vatican II Conciliar Church altered in an heretical sense, not only the Ordinal rite, but the (forbidden ever-to-be-altered Mass from time immemorial) and then each and every one of the Seven Sacraments instituted by Christ. We must never forget that the Belief of Faith is evidenced by its prayers. As we pray, so also we believe, and as we believe, so also we pray. (Lex Credendi; Lex Orandi)

In the foregoing, we examined the new Vatican II Ordinal and found that all references to the sacrifice of the Mass have been eliminated. But the fact remains that the priest and the Sacrifice of the Mass are inseparable. If a priest does not offer the Divine Sacrifice, he is useless as a priest; and if he is ordained falsely, and not given this power, then he is no priest of God. Certainly Pope Leo XIII has proven this fact to all of us. There is no question that after examining this new V-2 ordinal rite against the judgment of a Loyal Vicar of Christ, Leo XIII, we have found that all references to the sacrifice of the Mass has been

eliminated. The next question we should ask is Why? Why was this elimination made and required?

Catholics cannot have any part in this new invalid liturgy, which forbids the offering of the Sacrifice of the Cross at the Altar of sacrifice, and substitutes a parody of the clean oblation. Catholics can have nothing to do with these new V-2 men who pose as priests, while lacking the power of the priesthood. Neither may Catholics have anything to do with those true priests who willfully subject themselves to the V-2 suppressions. However, we ought to pray for these miserable wretches because of their terrible crime of deceiving so many Catholics as to the truth of what is going on inside what was once the Catholic Church today under the suppression and knavery of Vatican II.

About The Voice Of Bombay's Catholic Laity

Bombay Laity Ezekiel’s Chapter 3 Task as Watchman 17 “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the people of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. 18 When I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for[b] their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. 19 But if you do warn the wicked person and they do not turn from their wickedness or from their evil ways, they will die for their sin; but you will have saved yourself.
This entry was posted in General Articles, Silenced Voice. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s