THE BROKEN CROSS (La croix cassée) par Piers Compton

Part Nine

O change beyond report, thought, or belief!
Milton.


The following section has been written with some misgivings. For on the one hand it
leads up, in a subsequent part, to events that are startling, obscene, desecrating, which
have taken place in buildings consecrated by ritual and by history, that the still practising
Catholic may prefer to ignore. While on the other hand it deals with the Church’s
teaching on the Mass, or rather, on what the Church taught about the Mass when it still
spoke with an authority that was recognised even by those who refused to accept it.
It is therefore necessary, to clear the understanding of those who may not have been
acquainted with that teaching, to glance at a few essential aspects concerning it.

The Mass was not merely a service. It was the central act in the Church’s life, a great
mystery by which bread and wine were consecrated and so became the actual body and
blood of Christ. It was the sacrifice of Calvary enacted over again, an earnest of the
salvation effected by Christ who was there, under the sacred species of bread (‘This is my
Body’) and wine, upon the altar.

Whenever a Catholic found himself in strange surroundings, the Mass was there as a
rallying point for his worship. So it had been, with but a few minor alterations, for Latin
Catholics from the earliest Christian centuries (beginning, roughly, from the seventh
century) on record. And so it would remain, the Church taught and the faithful believed,
until the end of time, a bulwark against error that inspired an air of sanctity – or
impressive hanky-panky, call it what you will – that was recognised by devotee and
disbeliever alike.

Typical of those who knew this was the Liberal and Protestant Augustine Birrell, 1850-
1933, who was sometime Secretary for Ireland. ‘It is the Mass that matters’, he said. ‘It is
the Mass that makes the difference, so hard to define, between a Catholic country and a
Protestant one, between Dublin and Edinburgh.’

The unique quality of what may be called, in pedestrian terms, a landmark in religion, has
always influenced the plans of those who set out to overcome the Church. The Mass has
always stood in their path, a stumbling block that had to be demolished before their attack
could make headway. It was denigrated as a base superstition, a mere operation of the
hands, accompanied by words, that deceived the over-credulous. The assault against it
was heaviest, and partly successful, in the sixteenth century; and when the Church
recovered its breath it called a Council that took its name from the little town of Trent,
which later became an Italian province, where the principles of the Counter-Reformation
were defined. And those principles took shape, largely, as a defence of the focal point
that had never been lost sight of – the Mass.

It was codified by Pius V, the future saint who had started life as a shepherd boy and
who, in keeping with Rome’s verdict that Henry VIII’s marriage to Anne Boleyn had
been invalid, declared that their child, the English Queen Elizabeth I, was therefore both
heretic and bastard. And from then on the echoes of his firm, uncompromising yet always
dignified thunder had lived on in association with the old Romanesque cathedral of Trent,
the place that gives its name, Tridentine, to the order of the Mass that was intended to
pass into general use for the whole Church, and for all time.

The Missal he drew up, and in which this was decreed, leaves no doubt as to that: ‘At no
time in the future can a priest ever be forced to use any other way of saying Mass. And in
order once for all to preclude any scruples of conscience and fear of ecclesiastical
penalties and censures, we declare herewith that it is by virtue of our Apostolic authority
that we decree and prescribe that this present order of ours is to last in perpetuity and
never at a future date can it be revoked or legally amended.’

The decree specifically warned ‘all persons in authority, of whatever dignity or rank,
Cardinals not excluded, and to command them as a matter of strict obedience never to use
or permit any ceremonies and Mass prayers other than those contained in this Missal.’

This was repeated, as though to make doubly clear, even to those who were already
converted, that he was speaking as Pope: ‘And so this Council reaches the true and
genuine doctrine about this venerable and divine Sacrifice of the Eucharist – the doctrine
which the Catholic Church has always held, and which She will hold until the end of the
world, as She learned it from Christ Our Lord Himself, from the Apostles, and from the
Holy Ghost.’

Few Papal assertions have been more explicit. The Mass, as generally known, was to be
preserved, unaltered and unalterable, for all time. But Cardinal Bugnini, who had gone on
clinging to the office after his membership of a secret society had become known, and
Paul VI, who affected to be unaware of any such revelation, made short work of Pope St.
Pius V’s pronouncement.

It later became known that some twenty years before Vatican Two made pulp of the
traditional Mass book, a priest-professor had been detailed to draw up plans for gradual
liturgical changes; while in December 1963 the Council introduced new practices and a
new phraseology that, at first, made little impact on the public.

But now Pope Paul and Cardinal Bugnini, assisted by Cardinal Lercaro, went straight
ahead, with the assistance of non-Catholics whom they called ‘authoritative experts of
sacred theology.’

2.

The experts called in to amend the Most Holy Sacrament of the Catholic Church comprised one or two Protestants; Canon Ronald Jasper; Robert McAfee Brown, a Presbyterian; Brother Thurion, who was a Lutheran; a Calvinist, a Rabbi, and a certain Joachim Jeremias, a one-time Professor of Gottingen University who denied the divinity of Christ.

Bugnini said that they were merely present as observers, that they had no voice when the
changes were discussed. But apart from the fact that they claimed to have played an
active part in the Concilium, that they commented upon it and made suggestions, one
need only ask: why, without some set purpose, were they ever invited to participate?

Whatever this very mixed bag decided, said Pope Paul, would be ‘in accordance with
God’s will’. It was also intended to correspond to the temper of ‘modern man’. And what
emerged from their deliberations was a Novus Ordo (New Mass) missal, a veritable sign
of the times which meant that the era of a ‘MiniMass,’ and of ‘pop’ music in Church,
with all the profanities it led to, was about to begin.

Such innovations extracted a blind obedience from those who believed that conformity to
whatever was said and done by the priesthood, especially in church, was a virtue. Some
who questioned the changes were told not to presume any further. It was said to be
contumacious, and displeasing to God; while the fact that many were resolute in opposing
the changes, and turned their backs upon the Novus Ordo, called forth the charge that
they were in mortal sin, and inflicting another wound on the loving Father who was
waiting to welcome them.

After all, the Vatican and its spokesman-in-chief, Pope Paul, had approved the changes.
A revolution had been achieved, and it was all for the good. The old Roman Missal had
become a back number. The progressives were cock-a-hoop. And now they proceeded to
pass beyond their original objective and pressed forward.

A number of what may at first appear to be minor practices came under their scrutiny.
Genuflecting, and kneeling to receive Holy Communion, were found to be unnecessary.One entering a church, the interior of which had long been familiar, suffered a shockwhen it was seen that the perhaps priceless Travertine altar had been replaced by a table, at which the priest, who was now sometimes called the president, faced the people and, in a clumsy vernacular instead of the old verbal music (for Latin has always been hated by the enemies of the Church) invited the congregation to join in a ‘repast’.

The manner of receiving Communion now differed greatly. The Host might be given into
the hand, as was evidenced when Pope Paul celebrated a New Mass at Geneva. A number
of Hosts were passed to a girl who was standing conveniently near, and these she
distributed into the hands, sometimes grubby or sticky, of those about her, or into the
hand of any chance looker-on who came up to see what was being given away.

Another method was to place the one-time Sacred Elements in a chalice and then invite
the people to come forward and help themselves. An extra relish could be given to the
bread by dunking it in the wine. It had hitherto been out of the question for non-Catholics
to receive Communion at Mass. But Pope Paul introduced a new ‘updating’ by permitting
a self-confessed Presbyterian lady, Miss Barberina Olsen, to receive the wafer.

His example was followed. First Cardinal Bea, and after him Cardinal Willebrands,
empowered their Bishops to issue an open invitation; and then Cardinal Suenens, at the
close of a Congress at Medellion, in Columbia, called on all and sundry to come forward
with open mouth or ready hand.

A more decisive battle was fought out in Rome, where Bugnini’s New Mass was
celebrated in the Sistine Chapel. A large majority of the prelates who were present voted
against it. The actual numbers were seventy-eight in favour, two hundred and seven
against. The orthodox Cardinal Ottaviani, who never lost caste, examined the text of the
vandalised version, and found that it contained some twenty heresies.
‘The New Mass’, he said, ‘departs radically from Catholic doctrine and dismantles all
defences of the Faith.’ The same sentiment was expressed by Cardinal Heenan of
Westminster: ‘The old boast that the Mass is everywhere the same ... is no longer true.’

Ottaviani was head of the Holy Office, which exercised guardianship over faith and
morals. Pope Paul clamped down upon the office, and clipped the Cardinal’s claws; and
he was so annoyed by the adverse vote that he forbade the New Mass ever to be the
subject of a ballot again. From then on it was given official, but not popular sanction.
Thousands of people, who would not tolerate a form of the Mass that was less dignified
than the Protestant Communion service, either left or stopped going to church. Many
priests followed suit. Those who stood by the incontrovertible ruling of Pius V on the
Mass were threatened with suspension, or even excommunication.

One of the first to be declared anathema for observing the old Mass, was a priest who was
somewhat remote from the scenes of tension, a Father Carmona of Acapulco, in Mexico.
Bishop Ackermann of Covington, America, when faced with a number of orthodox and
therefore recalcitrant priests in his diocese, lamented helplessly, ‘What can I do? I can’t
throw them into jail.’ Their doubts were embodied in a question that was left for Pope
Paul to answer – whether the introduction of the New Mass was the beginning of an age
of new darkness on the earth, or the harbinger of an unprecedented crisis within the
Church?

He refused to answer. And the same wall of silence was encountered by a deputation of
priests who begged for a return to the traditional Mass; while thousands from several
parts of Europe, who went to Rome with the same purpose in mind, were turned away.
Those who brought about the changes had not been working blindly. They had followed a
plan, in conformance with the secret design that furnishes the theme of these pages. They
now had the future in their hands, and the confident way in which they accepted this was
made clear by an article in L'Osservatore Romano, which depicted the pretty hopeless
future awaiting those priests who braved the wrath of the Vatican by carrying out the
duties for which they had been trained. They would, said the article, become ‘headless,
autonomous priests facing an arid, squalid life. No sheltered future, no promotion to the
hierarchy, no expectation of a pension at the end of their ministry.’

One who had been most zealous in promoting the changes sang their praises in the
following terms: ‘It is a different liturgy of the Mass. We want to say it plainly. The
Roman rite as we knew it exists no more. It has gone. Some walls of the structure have
fallen, others have been altered. We can look at it now as a ruin or as the particular
foundation of a new building. We, must not weep over ruins or dream of an historical
reconstruction. Open new ways, or we shall be condemned as Jesus condemned the
Pharisees.’

Pope Paul was equally extreme in approving the findings of the Second Vatican
Council’s commission on the Liturgy: ‘The old rite of the Mass is in fact the expression
of a warped ecclesiology.’

Reading that, some may have been reminded of the old Coronation Oath, that ran as
follows:

‘I vow to change nothing of the received tradition, and nothing thereof I found before me
guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach, to alter, or permit any innovation
therein.

‘To the contrary; with glowing affection to reverently safeguard the passed on good, with
my whole strength and my utmost effort. To cleanse all that is in contradiction with
canonical order that may surface.

‘To guard the whole canons and decrees of our Popes likewise as divine ordinances of
heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the grace of God.

‘If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or permit that it will be
executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful day of Divine Justice.

‘Accordingly, without exclusion, we subject to severest excommunication anyone – be it
myself or be it another – who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to
this constituted evangelical tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the
Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would
concur with those who undertake such blasphemous venture.’

Whenever this oath may have been taken at the time of a coronation, I know not. But its
principles, until the Roncalli era, were tacitly accepted and endorsed as a conventional
part of Papal observance.

For instance, one of the greatest and most gifted of the Popes, Pius II (1458-64) in his
Bull Execrabilis, repeated a law that was endorsed through the centuries and accepted,
without modification, by what has always been referred to as the magisterium of the
Church: ‘Any Council called to make drastic change
in the Church is beforehand decreed to be void and annulled.’

But Paul VI, the friend of Communists, who collaborated with the anarchist Alinsky and with the Mafia gangster, Sindona, issued his own statement of policy which appeared in L’Osservatore Romano, on April the 22nd, 1971, English edition:

‘We moderns, men of our own day, wish everything to be new. Our old people, the traditionalists, the conservatives, measured the value of things according to their enduring quality. We, instead, are actualists, we want everything to be new all the time, to be expressed in a continually improvised and dynamic unusual form.

It was raving of this sort (reminiscent of ‘Peter Simple’s’ sarcasm in The Daily Telegraph) that led to the introduction of eatables such as roast beef, jellies, and hot dogs, washed down by draughts of coca-cola, in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and to nuns clicking their heels and twisting their bodies, in a kind of carmagnole, to mark the Offertory.

‘Anti-Christ’, said Hilaire Belloc in 1929, ‘will be a man.’

But perhaps the most ludicrous justification of the change was put forward by one of our most ‘progressive’ Bishops, who said to the present writer: ‘The New Mass got off to a ringing start yesterday. The guitars were going all over my diocese.’

3.

The doctrinal and liturgical changes in the Church were not long in showing the effects that the conservatives had forecast; and startling though many of them were, they still remain largely unknown even to people who live in the countries where they occurred.

It used to be looked back upon as an outrage of the most extreme order when, during the French Revolution, a harlot was hoisted on to the altar of Notre Dame where she was crowned and worshipped as the Goddess of Reason; or when Chartres Cathedral was on the point of being converted into a Temple of Reason.

But such things pale into insignificance when compared with the desecrations and obscenities that have taken place, often with the approval of prelates, in some of the most revered Catholic ministers on both sides of the Atlantic.

There was a marked falling off from established ritual when such things as a communal supper took the place of a solemn Mass; when the priest, armed with a bread knife, had a large loaf placed in front of him which he proceeded to cut into chunks, helping the others and then himself until a general munching of jaws showed their appreciation of the Body of Christ. Such suppers, served in a parishioner’s house, became a regular feature of Dutch family life. Sometimes the ‘lady of the house’, instead of a priest, officiated at Mass that was served in her ‘best room’.

There were not a few places where the traditional office of priest was taken over by a woman, who walked among the congregation giving out the Sacrament to any who stood with gaping mouth and a nauseous display of tongue and teeth. Sometimes it was placed in the sweaty hand of a child, or between the trembling fingers and palm of a geriatric who promptly dropped it on the floor, where it could be trampled; or it might be self-administered.

One small girl came away from Mass, in one of the more ‘advanced’ quarters of Holland, saying that she had learnt more there than she ever had through seeing her brother in a bath. For the altar-boy who, in England, would have passed for a fourth former, had been naked.  

Pope Paul, determined not to lag behind in the scurry for progress, signed a special edict whereby any who cared to help themselves to the Blood of Christ could suck it up through a straw. In that way some churches came to resemble a coffee bar, especially when the blare of a discotheque issued from the sanctuary, together with the shouting, strumming, and stamping of feet that accompany the celebration of a jazz Mass, a beat, and a ‘yeah-yeah’ Mass.

There were teenage Masses where, instead of the sacramental Bread and Wine, hot dogs, buns, and coca-cola were served. At others, whisky and cream crackers took the place of the elements. Some priests found the wearing of an alb inconvenient when saying Mass, and so resorted to shirt-sleeves.

The new freedom offered a chance for political extremists to advertise their usually Left-wing tenets. One of the foremost seminaries in Canada was sold to Chinese Reds, who tore out the tabernacle and put in its place a portrait of the wholesale murderer Mao Tse Tung. It later became a training centre for revolutionary street fighters.  

In September, 1971, the Catholic school at Vald’Or, Abitibi, Quebec, initiated a new game for boys. It consisted of spitting at the figure of Christ on the cross, and the one who covered the face with the biggest spit was declared winner. This was reported in the French-Canadian paper, Vers Demain, in September, 1971.      

Javier a écrit:

In September, 1971, the Catholic school at Vald’Or, Abitibi, Quebec, initiated a new game for boys. It consisted of spitting at the figure of Christ on the cross, and the one who covered the face with the biggest spit was declared winner. This was reported in the French-Canadian paper, Vers Demain, in September, 1971.      

TBC...

(Note de Javier) Le dernier paragraphe m'a profondément choqué et attristé ... Je n'ai pas de mots pour exprimer mon indignation face à un événement si dégoûtant et impie. Cela a eu lieu très près de Quebec si je ne me trompe pas, à Val d'Or, Abitibi. J'ai fait des recherches sur le web, notamment à propos de la revue Vers Demain, mais leurs archives en ligne  ne comprennent pas le contenu de 1971. Je me demande si peut-être que certains d'entre vous avez entendu parler de cet incident odieux ? C'est TRÈS DÉTESTABLE. Bon Jesús, ayez pitié de nous !!!

Le Droit canonique défendait de publier les prophéties nouvelles sans l'Imprimatur; mais le Canon 1,399 qui fait cette défense fut supprimé par la S. Congrégation de la Doctrine de la Foi, le 12 octobre 1966, décision approuvée par le Pape Paul VI, le 14 octobre 1966. -- Il est donc permis maintenant de faire connaître ces apparitions et de reproduire ces prophéties sans imprimatur, à condition de respecter la foi et la morale et de ne pas compromettre le salut des âmes.

http://dieu-sauve.chez-alice.fr/apparitions/bayside/rosesfromheaven.htm

Roger Boivin a écrit:
- De plus, tant qu'à parler d'apparition, tout en faisant mes recherches, j'ai trouvé cela, cependant ce serait à confirmer :

Le Droit canonique défendait de publier les prophéties nouvelles sans l'Imprimatur; mais le Canon 1,399 qui fait cette défense fut supprimé par la S. Congrégation de la Doctrine de la Foi, le 12 octobre 1966, décision approuvée par le Pape Paul VI, le 14 octobre 1966. -- Il est donc permis maintenant de faire connaître ces apparitions et de reproduire ces prophéties sans imprimatur, à condition de respecter la foi et la morale et de ne pas compromettre le salut des âmes.

http://dieu-sauve.chez-alice.fr/apparitions/bayside/rosesfromheaven.htm

Roger Boivin a écrit:- De plus, tant qu'à parler d'apparition, tout en faisant mes recherches, j'ai trouvé cela, cependant ce serait à confirmer :

Le Droit canonique défendait de publier les prophéties nouvelles sans l'Imprimatur; mais le Canon 1,399 qui fait cette défense fut supprimé par la S. Congrégation de la Doctrine de la Foi, le 12 octobre 1966, décision approuvée par le Pape Paul VI, le 14 octobre 1966. -- Il est donc permis maintenant de faire connaître ces apparitions et de reproduire ces prophéties sans imprimatur, à condition de respecter la foi et la morale et de ne pas compromettre le salut des âmes.

http://dieu-sauve.chez-alice.fr/apparitions/bayside/rosesfromheaven.htm

Déclaration préalable

Aucune permission ecclésiastique à demander pour publier révélations, visions, miracles ou se rendre sur des lieux d’Apparitions non reconnus.

Dans les Actes officiels du Saint-Siège 58/16, du 29 décembre 1966, a été publié un décret de la Sacrée Congrégation pour la Doctrine de la Foi.
Par ce décret, les articles 1399 et 2318 du Droit canon son abrogés.

Ce décret d’abrogation a été approuvé le 14 octobre 1966, par Sa Sainteté Paul VI, qui en ordonna en même temps la publication, Cette approbation du Saint-Père se fit dans l’audience accordée à l’Éminentissime Cardinal Ottaviani, Pro-Préfet de la Sacrée Congrégation pour la Doctrine de la Foi.

Le décret fut donné à Rome, le 15 novembre 1966. Il porte les signatures du

Cardinal Ottaviani, Pro-Préfet
P. Parente, Secrétaire.

Le décret entra en vigueur trois mois après sa publication, soit le 29 mars 1967.  

https://books.google.ca/books?id=THJ0fmHtGccC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq="Actes+Officiels+du+Saint-Siège"+(A.+A.+S.)+58/16,+du+29+décembre+1966,+a+été+publié+un+décret+de+la+"Sacrée+Congrégation+pour+la+Doctrine+de+la+Foi".&source=bl&ots=UmA30fpHjR&sig=Ifm4qr0MUtwOkcJwt-iwAOI9mXk&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjFxOCco5nNAhUWXlIKHX3xALcQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=%22Actes%20Officiels%20du%20Saint-Si%C3%A8ge%22%20(A.%20A.%20S.)%2058%2F16%2C%20du%2029%20d%C3%A9cembre%201966%2C%20a%20%C3%A9t%C3%A9%20publi%C3%A9%20un%20d%C3%A9cret%20de%20la%20%22Sacr%C3%A9e%20Congr%C3%A9gation%20pour%20la%20Doctrine%20de%20la%20Foi%22.&f=false
____________________________________________________

le lien ci-dessus de GOOGLE est à propos d'un livre qui s'appelle :

Les Apparitions à Versailles

Marie, Reine de France
Jésus, Roi de France

C'est au début dans le lien de Google...

SACRÉE CONGRÉGATION POUR LA DOCTRINE DE LA FOI
DÉCRET

Après la publication de la « Notification » du 14 juin 1966 concernant l’« Index » des livres interdits, on a demandé à cette S. Congrégation pour la Doctrine de la Foi si demeuraient en vigueur le can. 1399, qui interdit ipso iure certains livres, et le can. 2318, qui impose des peines aux transgresseurs des lois sur la censure et la prohibition des livres.

Ces questions ayant été posées à l’Assemblée plénière du mercredi 12 octobre 1966, les éminentissimes Pères chargés de la protection des matières de foi ont décidé qu’il fallait répondre :

1) Non aux deux questions, en vertu de la loi ecclésiastique ; cependant, il faut inculquer de nouveau la valeur de la loi morale, qui prohibe tout à fait de mettre en péril la foi et les bonnes mœurs ;

2) que ceux qui ont encouru les censures dont il est question au can. 2318 doivent être considérés comme absous de celles-ci, par le fait même de l’abrogation de ce canon.


Au cours de l’Audience accordée le 14 juin 1966 au Cardinal Pro-Préfet de cette S. Congrégation pour la Doctrine de la Foi, le Souverain Pontife Paul VI a daigné approuver ledit décret, et il a ordonné qu’il soit publié.

Donné à Rome, au siège de la Congrégation pour la Doctrine de la Foi, le 15 novembre 1966.

+ A. Card. Ottaviani
Pro-Préfet

+ P. Parente
Secrétaire

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19661115_decretum_fr.html

In one South American province, where disturbances rarely died down, a local Bishop Casaldaliga came out on the side of the Russian-inspired insurgents. He adopted the rough and ready garb of a guerrilla, complete with cartridge belt, and went on preaching and officiating at Mass under the name he gave himself, Monsignor Hammer and Sickle.

But a truly sinister scene was enacted at the basilica of St. Maria de Guadalupe in Mexico City, where a goat was sacrificed in front of the high altar. Now it is not only the fact of an animal being killed, and in church, that excites comment. It seems to have called for none from the people there present who gaped, were astonished, and then walked away no doubt concluding that it was all part of the new order within the Church. And so it was. But Archbishop Gomez, who had charge of the basilica, knew more than that, as did the strange crowd of people to whom he actually rented it for the occasion.

The goat, said to have been created by the Devil, figures in the Satanic lore of those whose secret design has always been the downfall of the Church. The happening referred to resembles part of the old pre-Christian ritual, when a goat was sacrificed at an altar during the Day of Atonement. The sins of the High Priest, and of the people, were transferred to a second animal of the same species, which then became the scapegoat and was driven into the wilderness; or, in demonology, it was forced over a cliff into the hell-fire that was tended by Azazel, a fallen angel.

Hence it was no ordinary Mass but a Black Mass that was celebrated in Mexico City, with the use of an inverted cross, an event that was filmed and recorded by those who arranged it.

But such things marked only a beginning, as did a growing clamour, supported by priests, for abortion, and for sexual aberrations to be recognized as perfectly normal. There were priests who almost shouted from the housetops that they were glad to be homosexual, as it was a privilege that conferred the ‘psychological fulfillment of one’s personality’. It became accepted, in some parts, for perverts of the same sex to be married in church.

In Paris, a man and a woman, minus every stitch of clothing, paraded their nakedness before an altar, where they were married by a priest who conveyed to them what has been called the ‘sublime’ nuptial blessing. Advanced Holland, not to be outdone, reacted with the news that a couple of male homos had exchanged vows and tokens in a church wedding; while an American priest, who was still holding on despite the fact that he had been cited in a divorce case, gleefully smote his breast and affirmed that he too was an emancipated moral pervert, which he afterwards ratified by uniting a pair of lesbians in matrimony.

It was a fruitful time for cranks and opportunists of every kind. An ex-nun, Rita Mary,
joined an American lay community whose members were committed to the ‘new spirit
emerging in religious life’. A breath from that spirit of newness suddenly revealed to her
that ‘God the Father is female’. Others who favoured the cause of women’s liberation
adopted the same slogan, and as part of their campaign cars adorned with stickers
exhorting people to ‘Pray to God, she will provide’ appeared on the streets.

Traders were quick to seize upon it as a good stunt, and Rita Mary’s vehicles were soon
joined by others offering a more material tip: ‘With Jesus on your side you can be a more
successful businessman.’

Still keeping to America, there was a gathering at Stubenville, Ohio, in July 1976, at
which a thousand priests endorsed a novel intention to ‘de-clericalise the ministry’, which
meant, in effect, putting themselves out of work. They were advised to get ready for the
collapse of the social order; then, after prayers, some discovered that they had been given
the gift of healing. A general laying on of hands followed, and from that the mixed
congregation, amid shouting, fell to hugging and kissing each other.

Bursts of spontaneous affection, as we shall see, were fast becoming a feature of the New
Mass, as also was a growing obsession with sex. The ‘exploration of touch’, referring to
bodies, became a new kind of worship.

At a meeting in Philadelphia, where *Cardinal Wright and eight of his Bishops were
present, the main speaker, Father Gallagher, told his audience that ‘touching is crucial’.
And it may be assumed that many suppressed instincts found a relief that had long been
clamoured for in the words that followed: ‘Do not hold hands sexlessly.’ The nine
prelates conveyed smiles and blessings to the ‘love in’, as such displays of emotion were
coming to be called, that followed.

TBC...

*Nota de Javier: el lector perspicaz recordará el nombre de este "cardenal Wright", el cual fue uno de los "observadores vaticanos" enviados por el siniestro Montini-P6 al recién inaugurado seminario de Econe junto con el "cardenal" Garrone; ambos fueron enviados al seminario de Mons. Lefebvre para "supervisar" que la obra iniciada allí no fuera "demasiado católica y radical". Pues bien, este "cardenal Wright" era un depredador homosexual, según he podido leer en el libro de Randy Engel, "The rite of sodomy", lo cual no me extraña en absoluto, habiendo sido nombrado "cardenal" por otro notorio sodomita como fue el inmundo Montini-P6

A variation on the same theme was heard at the National Pastoral Congress at Liverpool
in 1980, where a declaration was passed that, much to the surprise of a representative
English audience, deified the most taken-for-granted of their marital acts: ‘During sexual
intercourse a man and his wife create Christ’: a statement that sounds suspiciously like
Aleister Crowley’s words, that ‘sexual organs are the image of God’.

The latest excursion into the realm of ecclesiastical nonsense (January, 1982) has been
made by Bishop Leo McCartie, the Catholic Auxiliary Bishop of Birmingham. Let
Rastafarians, he urged, the mostly young blacks who wear woolly caps and plait their hair
into strings, be given the use of church premises. They worship the late Emperor Haile
Selassie of Ethiopia as the true god, they believe that Christ was black, and they smoke
cannabis as part of their religious ritual.

The Bishop admits that the Church could not condone the smoking of cannabis on its
premises, but only because it is against the law (my emphasis). But Rastafarianism, he
goes on, is a valid religious experience, and its followers use cannabis like a sacrament,
‘which is comparable to the chalice or communion cup in Christian worship’. So now we
know.

Let us take a few more instances of what the modernistic trend has achieved in America,
all, let it be remembered, without calling forth more than an isolated protest, here and
there, from any of the hierarchy. Moreover it was all approved by Pope Paul as was
shown by the presence of his official representative who passed on Papal greetings to
those who dressed up, cavorted, and made irreligious idiots of themselves to demonstrate
the new freedom.

For the past two years, on June the 28th, St. Patrick’s Cathedral, New York, has been the
finishing point of what is known, to ecclesiastical and secular authorities alike, as a Gay
Parade. In 1981 an estimated crowd of 50,000 marched up Fifth Avenue, led by a figure
with a whitened face, and wearing a frilly ankle-length dress and a bonnet, who spun up
and down the road and pavement in front of the cathedral on roller-skates. At least one of
the lookers-on recognised the figure as being that of a reputable Wall Street broker.

An individual who was hailed as the Grand Marshal of the Parade then stepped from a
black limousine, performed clown-like on the steps then, delicately holding a bouquet of
pansies, made as if to enter the front door. By that time a Mr. McCauley, who practised
as a New York attorney, already sickened by what he had seen, snatched the flowers and
threw them in the faces of those who swarmed after the Marshal. A scuffle broke out, and
police led the objector away.

It took two hours for the parade to pass a given point and gather about the cathedral.
Some were dressed as priests, others were nuns; some were wearing black leather and
chains. There was a group called Dignity, and another known as the North American
Man-Boy Love Association. They carried a large sign announcing that ‘Man-Boy Love is
Beautiful’, the older members walking arm-in-arm with boys, whose average age was
about thirteen, and some of whom wore bathing suits.

The Gay Socialists carried a red banner, and shouted their hatred of God and the Church
as they marched. But their frenzy was more than matched by that of the Gay Militant
Atheists, who roared in unison: ‘Smash the Church! Death to the Church!’ Another cry of
‘Smash the State!’ showed that the real driving power behind the demonstration was
making itself heard.

TBC...

Then came an interlude as a male, in a nun’s habit and trailing a cross upside down,
executed a dance, accompanied by obscene gestures, for a full half-hour. That was
followed by a group that came forward and made as if to light a candle at the cathedral
door. By then Mr. McCauley had returned. He renewed his protest, asked the police to
stop the outrageous performances, and was promptly arrested.

The homosexuals then proceeded to drape a large banner about the barricades they had
erected at the front steps of the cathedral. A captain of the City Fire Department then
came forward and asked a police officer to intervene. The officer turned his back,
whereupon the Fire Chief seized the banner, rolled it up and threw it on the ground.

The yelling mob swarmed over him. He was pulled down, his jacket was torn from his
back, blows rained upon him, his fingers were seized and bent in an effort to break them,
his legs were forced apart and hands reached for and grabbed his genitals. When he could
speak, he told the police officer that he wished to press charges against those who had
attacked him. The policeman sneered: ‘Come back tomorrow at the same time and see if
you can recognise them.’ When the Fire Chief persisted, the policeman gripped his
revolver so tightly and menacingly that his knuckles were seen to whiten.

Only two people were arrested, Mr. McCauley and the Fire Chief, both for disorderly
conduct. They later heard the charges against them being framed. One police official
said: ‘Say that you saw him assault someone.’ Another said: ‘Put in that he broke through
the police line.’

Meanwhile the parade was going on, with the cathedral front being emblazoned with
provocative signs and banners, one announcing that ‘Jesus was a homosexual.’ Doggerel
was chanted. ‘Two, four, six, eight. Do you know if your kids are straight? (heterosexual) ’ Finally a flag
was hung from the cathedral door. It was designed like the American flag, except that in
place of the stars, sex symbols and representations of the penis were substituted.

The demonstrators, followed by a large crowd; made their way to Central Park, where
they engaged in a free-for-all public exhibition of sex acts. Frightened people who had
gone to the cathedral in search of consolation or quiet bunched together throughout the
afternoon in side chapels and corners. When approached on the matter, the members of
the Diocesan Curia said there had been nothing to complain about.

TBC...

https://messe.forumactif.org/t1370p75-the-broken-cross-la-croix-cassee-par-piers-compton#147944

Spoiler:

In Virginia, a priest drove a Volkswagen down the aisle of his church to mark Christ’s
entry into Jerusalem. Later he had a forklift placed in the churchyard and climbed into its
basket, where he stood waving his arms while being lifted up to commemorate Ascension
Day. In Boston, Massachusetts, priests attired as clowns, with red hearts decorating their
foreheads, scrambled and jostled about a church trying to catch balloons. A priest
wearing a singlet and jeans cavorted in church with a girl whose flesh bulged from her
leotard.

In this country (England), one Sunday evening, television went out of its way to show an Auxiliary
Bishop processing up the aisle of one of our Catholic cathedrals. He was led to the altar
by a young girl who danced and skipped about in front of him like a young horse. The
celebration of Holy Mass in another church concluded with the singing of ‘For he’s a
jolly good fellow.’

Similar outbreaks occurred even in Latin countries, where the mysteries of the Church
had long been part of the national consciousness, its blood and bone. Because visitors to a
church near Grenoble, in the Isere department of France, on a day in 1970, were surprised
to see that the ornaments and candlesticks were being removed from the altar, and that
the space before it was cleared. Then ropes were put in place to form a business-like
representation of a ring where, according to the bills, an international boxing contest was
to take place.

At the appointed time, a throng that was far from typical of the usual one seen there, and
mostly male, shuffled, stumbled, or made their way arrogantly into the building where
some of them had been baptised, and some married. As they acquired a more familiar
feeling odds were shouted and bets made, but details of the fight were never recorded.
Whether it was won on points, or by a knock-out; who acted as referee or time-keeper,
and who plied the sponges; how much the church funds profited from the purse or the
takings, none of this appears in the parish register. Neither does a protest from the
Bishop.

On a Friday in early December, 1974, the coronation church of France, Rheims
Cathedral, was given over to a horde of hippies and layabouts for one of their all-night
sessions. The Archbishop and his clergy, who had obligingly provided the setting, may
have noted, with a feeling of envy, as the prematurely aged youth of the district poured
in, that they far exceeded in number those who were seen at High Mass on Sundays and
Holy Days.

Cacophony was provided by the Tangerine Orange Group, and when the mixed
congregation grew tired of waving their arms and shuffling in time to the uproar, they
settled down to an orgy of drugs and hashish smoking.

When this affair became known, angry parishioners demanded that the Cathedral, which
occupies a special place in history, should undergo a service of purification.

But their protests were waved aside by Father Bernard Goreau, who held the always
questionable post of ‘cultural attaché’ of the archdiocese. He agreed that the dancers and
smokers had been left to their own devices for hours in the Gothic darkness. ‘But’, he
added, ‘things might have been worse.’

Indeed they might. We are told that they only urinated and copulated on the stone floor ...
over which the Kings of old France had passed on the way to their anointing, and where
Joan of Arc, holding her blazon, had stood like a soldier home from the war.

Also in France, it was not unknown for a priest to light and smoke a cigarette while
saying Mass.

TBC...

Even Rome was not immune from the sacrilegious parodies that followed the new
religious freedom, the opening of the windows of the Church. The scene of one, in 1975,
was the classroom of a Roman convent. "Pope" Paul was present, but the star turn was
provided by Fred Ladenius, a gentleman from the Middle West who had acquired
celebrity through appearing on Belgian television. He had furthermore been spoken of by
an enthusiast as ‘the born again spirit, whose God updated the Jesus of 1974 by being the
God of 1975.’

Fred set about his task right manfully, stripping off his jacket and giving voice to almost
incoherent ravings for which, he said, he was in no way responsible. What they heard
were some of the truths he had received, that very morning, from the Lord’s mouth. For
the Lord spoke and prophesied through him. Fred accompanied these revelations by
flinging up his arms so violently that he broke into a sweat. But he was by no means
exhausted. He rolled up his shirt-sleeves and invited all those who wished to receive the
Lord, to come up ‘rapido’.

Fred, though still in a state of undiminished perspiration, waved his hands frantically over
the heads of those who accepted the invitation, and accompanied each gesture with a cry
of ‘Hallelujah!’ At the end of these ministrations the school blackboard was moved to
make way for a table, on which were placed two chalices, one holding wine, and the
other wafers of the kind that are used to celebrate Mass.

Then everyone fell into line and followed the example of Fred, who took out a wafer and
dipped it in the wine before transferring it to his mouth. The meeting broke up amid more
and louder cries of  ‘Hallelujah!’ in which "Pope" Montini joined, and with further
manifestations that the spirit was indeed moving amongst them.

Fred was duly rewarded by being sent for by the "Pope", who thanked him warmly for all
the good work he was doing for the Church. Fred stayed on in Rome, where he acted for
a time as the Vicar of Christ’s Press Secretary.

TBC...

In the Church’s calendar, one year in every twenty-five is declared to be a Holy Year. It
is a time of special pilgrimages, when millions do penance to mark their adherence to the
Faith and to obtain what is called the Great Pardon. Throughout that time Rome is
seething with visitors from every part of the world, and on the last occasion of a Holy
Year being declared, in 1975, Pope Paul extended a welcome, couched in the terms of
emancipated religion to the ‘new generation who had come in search of a liberating and
inspiring aid, in search of a new word, a new ideal.’

Those who attended High Mass in St. Peter’s on May the 19th, half-way through Holy
Year, in expectation of those spiritual advantages, were in no way disappointed. They
numbered some ten thousand. Cardinal Suenens officiated at the high altar. "Pope" Paul
was present. Five hundred priests were ranged about them. This is how an experienced
Catholic journalist described what happened when the time came to receive Holy
Communion.

‘It was not uncommon to see what one first thought of as white petals being scattered
among the congregation. Only when I could push my way nearer did I realise that they
were handfuls of consecrated Hosts, that the Cardinal’s hench-priests were scattering
among the crowd.... They fell on the shoulders of men, on the dyed and coverless heads
of women, and as was inevitable, not a few fell on the ground and were trampled upon by
the crowd. *

‘I spoke to a lady standing near me who was gobbling a number of them together. I asked
her where she came from and was she a Catholic. She came from Egypt, she replied, and
in fact had no religious persuasion, but her feelings were in favour of Mohammedanism.’

Tape-recorders were held high above the assembly, that was fast being galvanised into a
state of excitement. Suddenly a voice boomed out through a microphone placed near the
altar that God was not only present but was now, in fact, actually speaking, albeit in a
strong and nasal American accent – one wonders whether the ubiquitous Fred Ladenius was in
action again?

Then "Pope" Paul took up the running. He gathered up handfuls of Hosts, pressed them
upon people whose mouths were already full of the consecrated species, so that they
could only free their hands by passing the Hosts on to others, who either crumpled them
up or dropped them on the floor. The "Pope", beginning to give an address, had to raise his
voice in order to be heard above the growing turmoil, to which he added by exclaiming a
further anachronistic ‘Hallelujah!’ and flinging up his arms.

By now some of the people were dancing. Others squatted or huddled on the floor among
the trodden fragments of what, those same people had been taught, was the body of
Christ. They swayed in time to a low moaning, an expression of the ecstasy inspired by
the occasion, that grew in volume until it filled the basilica.

TBC...

Still in the same year (1975), a visitor to the church of St. Ignatius, in the street that bears the
name of the founder of the Jesuits, in Rome, would have noticed that a heavy curtain was
covering the main altar. Moreover, the seats had been turned round, as though to indicate
that those who attended the service did not wish to be reminded of the lapis lazuli urn
containing the relics of St. Aloysius Gonzaga.

A battery of microphones and loud-speakers was in evidence, and through one of these
the voice of an Irish-American Jesuit, Father Francis Sullivan, was heard announcing, in
the approved style of a follower of General Booth, that they had come together in order to
praise the Lord. He went on to hammer home the fact that religion was in a state of flux,
that everything was changing, and that it was a waste of time to take a nostalgic look
back at things that used to be believed. His statements met with the smiling approval of
Cardinal Suenens, who could always be relied on to patronise ‘way out’ effusions.

By now the Romans were getting used to having their faith supervised by oracles from
the States; and they listened attentively when a second voice, from the same place of
origin as Father Sullivan’s, exhorted them to love one another. People who were packing
the church, thus encouraged, began to use their eyes, exchange looks, and to sidle
alongside the person of their choice. Did they imagine, the voice went on, that the gift of
love was a privilege intended for the early Church only? Of course it wasn’t!

With that, cries of agreement nearly split the roof, and couples fell into each other’s arms,
sprawling on the floor, arms and legs flailing, fingers and mouths giving vent to a passion
that was no longer fearsomely restrained by their surroundings, but which could now find
expression in a freedom akin to that known to lovers in a ditch. Those who were barred,
by age or infirmity, from taking part in the spectacle, savoured it with a lickerish look, or
danced a few steps, or sang the praises of the Host whose house they had turned into a
bedlam. Hallelujah! God was good, and all this showed that churchgoing could now be a
joyous event.

At the height of the uproar, a friar in the brown garb of St. Francis of Assisi somehow
managed to make himself heard. He was in dire physical straits, aware of a strange,
mystical, and maternal sensation. He felt exactly as Mary had done when conceiving the
Son. Full of grace ... more applause ... and Hallelujah again.

What was left of St. Aloysius in his urn remained silent, as also did St. Ignatius who, as a
soldier, had known the cleanly hiss of a sword as it was drawn from its scabbard.

TBC...