The LGBT Political Campaign Behind Pope Francis' Election

By David Martin 

With theologians and bishops aghast over what some are calling ‘the most terrible schism the world has ever seen,’ it behooves the Catholic hierarchy to take a closer look at the 2013 papal election since it appears to have raised to the Chair of Peter “a man, not canonically elected.” 

To recap, on the eve of the 2013 conclave, Cardinal Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga who was one of the key kingmakers for the papal election was busily on the phone with cardinal electors from the Honduran embassy in Rome. His frenzied phone effort was the tail end of an intense lobbying campaign to secure votes for the election of Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio as pope. 

That same day, Maradiaga attended a private meeting of Bergoglio supporters, which included key players in the “St. Gallen Mafia,” and together they garnered pledges for up to twenty-five votes for Bergoglio. Not surprisingly, Bergoglio opened with twenty-six votes on the first day of the conclave, though that number would rise to 77 on the second day indicating that this campaign effort was gaining ground. Three days later the newly elected Pope Francis asked Maradiaga to head his powerful new Council of Cardinals, known as the “Council of Nine.”

Six years later, the pope and his “vice pope” are accused of perpetuating “one of the worst crises in the history of the Catholic Church.” A recent open letter addressed to the bishops of the Church accuses Pope Francis of being “guilty of the crime of heresy” and alleges that “Pope Francis has protected and promoted homosexually active clerics and clerical apologists for homosexual activity” indicating “he believes that homosexual activity is not gravely sinful.”

The letter cites the papal favor enjoyed by Maradiaga, a revolutionary accused of covering up for homosexual bishop Juan José Pineda Fasquelle. Pineda was forced to resign amidst allegations that he sexually abused seminarians and embezzled over $1.3 million to “pay for sexual favors” and “maintain a network” of gay-lovers. Reports have it that Maradiaga has brutally ruined the careers of at least six priests who spoke out against Pineda.

Fruits of Vote Canvassing

Hence Francis—who has abetted anti-life forces, betrayed the underground Church in China, sacked loyal priests, empowered homosexuals, rewarded abortionists, praised Luther, blessed adultery, denied the miracle of the loaves, and professed manifold heresy—occupies the Papal Chair today because of this LGBT canvassing campaign that made the difference in determining the outcome of the 2013 papal election. On August 27, 2018, Vatican correspondent Edward Pentin tweeted concerning this political campaign.

“Cdls Danneels & Ex-Cdl McCarrick campaigned for Bergoglio to be Pope, as did ++Maradiaga on eve of Conclave, phoning up various cardinals from the Honduran embassy in Rome. Despite their pasts, all 3 prelates have since been special advisors of Francis or rehabilitated by him.”

As we know, the late Cardinal Danneels was a public advocate of “gay marriage” and McCarrick was defrocked of his bishopric last February after being indicted for homosexual predation of seminarians and for covering up the sexual-abuse of numerous seminarians perpetrated by some 300 priests under his jurisdiction. 

San Gallen’s Mafia

Danneels confessed on video in September 2015 that he and several cardinals were part of the notorious St. Gallen’s Mafia that had conspired for the ouster of Benedict XVI and the election of Cardinal Bergoglio, and it was this very group that culminated its campaign effort just before 2013 conclave, showing clearly that conspiracy played a key role in the outcome of the election. Danneel’s confession alone stands as irrefutable evidence.  

Austen Ivereigh's book, The Great Reformer, brings to light how Cardinal Murphy O'Connor (a homosexual) along with several key cardinals had spearheaded this intense lobbying campaign, through which they secured pledges from nearly 30 cardinals to get Cardinal Bergoglio elected as pope. https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/the-great-reformer-francis-and-the-making-of-a-radical-pope/

According to Ivereigh, "they first secured Bergoglio’s assent" and then "they got to work, touring the cardinals’ dinners to promote their man." This was confirmed, in the case of Cardinals Murphy-O’Connor and Cardinal O'Malley, in the Wall Street Journal report from August 6, 2013. As the conclave neared, they held a series of closed meetings, known as congregations, one of which featured Cardinal Bergoglio as the keynote speaker, thereby proving that Bergoglio was colluding in this plan. 

Ecclesiastical Law Violated

The foregoing warrants episcopal inquisition into Pope Francis’ election since it contained multi-violations against Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution Unversi Dominici Gregis, which governs papal elections. The Constitution makes it clear that political vote canvassing on the part of cardinal electors is forbidden and incurs automatic excommunication upon those involved. Consider the following. 

“The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. (81)

Unwritten Rule

While the pope here speaks of the election itself, we should not rule out that this prohibition also applies to that time before the election when preparations are underway, since it is during this time that illicit political activity would exert its greatest influence on the vote. "Any form of pact" obliging electors "to give or deny their vote to a person" would be secured before the election. 

We should also consider that violations not mentioned in the Constitution could also criminalize the election. Crimes like extortion or LGBT bribery committed before the election would certainly render the election illicit if their influence carried into the election. 

The pope also says in his Constitution:

“Confirming the prescriptions of my Predecessors, I likewise forbid anyone, even if he is a Cardinal, during the Pope's lifetime and without having consulted him, to make plans concerning the election of his successor, or to promise votes, or to make decisions in this regard in private gatherings.” (79)

A clique of cardinals did “make plans” to force Benedict XVI’s resignation and to campaign for “the election of his successor,” with up to 25 cardinals “promising votes” the day before the election, this having come about through “private gatherings,” thus revealing the illicit conduct of those cardinal electors to be.

Under the pain of excommunication latae sententiae, the pope forbids “each and every Cardinal elector, present and future, as also the Secretary of the College of Cardinals and all other persons taking part in the preparation and carrying out of everything necessary for the election” to allow “all possible forms of interference, opposition and suggestion whereby secular authorities of whatever order and degree, or any individual or group, might attempt to exercise influence on the election of the Pope.” (80)

It was through Judas cardinals that are allied with the infamous LGBT network and who were "taking part in the preparation" of the election that the secular powers were enabled to "exercise influence on the election of the pope."

Section 76 of John Paul II's Constitution states 

“Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void, without any need for a declaration on the matter; consequently, it confers no right on the one elected." (76)

There is much being said at this time concerning Francis’ errors and heterodoxy but little is said about the election that launched his revolution. Has it not occurred to Catholics that his election could have been null?

It indeed behooves the Church’s episcopal body to take a closer look at the 2013 papal election, since we may very well be witnessing the fulfillment of the prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi concerning a false shepherd. 

"At the time of this tribulation, a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error…. Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true pastor, but a destroyer." (1226) 

(Taken from Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis of Assisi, R. Washbourne Publishing House, 1882, pp. 248-250, with imprimatur by His Excellency William Bernard, Bishop of Birmingham) 

Pope Paul VI vs. Bugnini

 

By David Martin

If the engineers of the Neo-Reformation were able to advance their plans and bring forth a new Mass for the Church in defiance of centuries of divine guidance, it means they weren’t being watched too carefully. While John XXIII and his men were busy at work preparing for the Second Vatican Council in the years preceding the Council, there lay hidden in the Vatican a secret cabal of liturgical planners whose work would bring discredit to the Church and to the one appointed to lead it, Pope Paul VI.

At the helm was the infamous Msgr. Annibale Bugnini who had long been suspected of conspiracy. He and his clique formed the eye of this ecclesial hurricane that would later uproot the Faith and blow the Bark of Peter off its course.

Bugnini’s work as a liturgist goes back to 1947 when he began a twenty year period as the director of Ephemerides liturgicae, one of Italy’s best known liturgical publications. He contributed to numerous scholarly publications, wrote articles on the liturgy for various encyclopedias and dictionaries and had a number of books published on the subject. But there was a hidden agenda at work from the beginning that slowly began to reveal his perfidious tracks.

Every indication is that Bugnini was Masonic, but Pope John XXIII obviously wasn’t aware of this he made him Secretary of the Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy for the Second Vatican Council that was formed in June 1960. Cardinal Heenan of Westminster even said in his autobiography that “Pope John did not suspect what was being planned by the liturgical experts.”

Pope Paul’s Interview with Fr. Bouyer

As a little example of Bugnini’s deceptive workings in the Vatican, we cite you this little anecdote from 1974. The Consilium for the Reform of the Liturgy had in its ranks a number of liturgists including a Father Louis Bouyer who was opposed to the changes in the Mass. Bugnini argued his cause with Father Bouyer by telling him that Pope Paul VI wanted new changes in the Mass, and then Bugnini told Pope Paul that Bouyer and the ‘Consilium experts’ had decided in favor of these changes. Obviously, it was Bugnini who wanted the changes and Pope Paul later acknowledged to Fr. Bouyer that Bugnini had deceived both of them. The following is an interview that took place between Pope Paul and Fr. Bouyer in 1974.

(Father Louis Bouyer)—I wrote to the Holy Father, Pope Paul VI, to tender my resignation as member of the Commission charged with the Liturgical Reform. The Holy Father sent for me at once and the following conversation ensued:

Paul VI: Father, you are an unquestionable and unquestioned authority by your deep knowledge of the Church’s liturgy and Tradition, and a specialist in this field. I do not understand why you have sent me your resignation, whilst your presence, is more than precious, it is indispensable!

Father Bouyer: Most Holy Father, if I am a specialist in this field, I tell you very simply that I resign because I do not agree with the reforms you are imposing! Why do you take no notice of the remarks we send you, and why do you do the opposite?

Paul VI: But I don’t understand. I’m not imposing anything. I have never imposed anything in this field. I have complete trust in your competence and your propositions. It is you who are sending me proposals. When Fr. Bugnini comes to see me, he says: “Here is what the experts are asking for.” And as you are an expert in this matter, I accept your judgment.

Father Bouyer: When we have studied a question, and have chosen what we can propose to you, in conscience, Father Bugnini took our text, and, then said to us that, having consulted you: “The Holy Father wants you to introduce these changes into the liturgy.” And since I don’t agree with your propositions, because they break with the Tradition of the Church, then I tender my resignation.

Paul VI: But not at all, Father, believe me, Father Bugnini tells me exactly the contrary: I have never refused a single one of your proposals. Father Bugnini came to find me and said: “The experts of the Commission charged with the Liturgical Reform asked for this and that.” And since I am not a liturgical specialist, I tell you again, I have always accepted your judgment. I never said that to Monsignor Bugnini. I was deceived. Father Bugnini deceived me and deceived you.

Father Bouyer: That is, my dear friends, how the liturgical reform was done! (translated from the original French by Fr. Anthony Chadwick.) http://www.leforumcatholique.org/message.

What is noteworthy is that Pope Paul reposed complete confidence in Fr. Bouyer’s judgment on liturgical matters and was happy to let him exert his influence on the Consilium for the retention of tradition in the Mass. Unfortunately, Fr. Bouyer yielded to pressure from other liturgists and eventually dropped out of the Consilium.

Cardinal Müller Criticizes Curial Reform: Theologically Clueless

The description of the tasks of the new authority for the doctrine of faith shows "a shattering theological ignorance of the authors of this section.”

Rome (kath.net) Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, sharply criticized the draft for the Roman Curial Reform. In the interview with the PNP Müller speaks of "theological ignorance". In the various media is "no conclusive concept of the origin, nature and mission of the Church is recognizable.” Instead of orienting itself more clearly to the concept of the Church of the Second Vatican Council, "the Curia remains lost in the air, because it is no longer clearly assigned to the service of the Pope for the Universal Church." The document was approved by the Pontifical Council of the Pope and is currently available to leading Church offices for consideration.

Müller is also critical that the special role of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith is being relativized. "The draft is a haphazard juxtaposition of 16 ministries that are somehow in the service of the pope, the individual bishops and the episcopal conferences." Evangelization comes first "although it is a task of the whole Church and not specific to the Pope.” Müller finds clear words: "This sketch is for a future Apostolic Constitution to a conglomeration of subjective individual ideas, pious wishes, moral appeals with individual quotations from Council texts and statements by the current Pope."

The former bishop of Regensburg also criticizes the fact that the draft for the curia reform "does not clearly distinguish" between the secular and spiritual tasks of the pope. The secular tasks were "only secondary and by no means significantly connected with the papacy.” The "highest mission of the Pope" was "his teaching as a member and head of the episcopal college.” But even though "the universal teaching of the Church is the basis of existence of the papal primate,” the doctrine of faith now appears only as "any task of the pope among many others.”

Especially in the description of the tasks of the new authority for the Doctrine of Faith shows, says Müller, "there is a shattering theological ignorance of the authors of this section". Thus, basic concepts of Catholic theology such as Revelation, Gospel or Magisterium are being employed “disjointedly or incorrectly.” It remains to be hoped that "this section will be formulated from scratch by a proven theologian and canonist."

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

“Rome Needs to Answer the Heresy Charges Against Pope Francis”

P. Joseph Fessio SJ and Mark Bromley: Open letter to the bishops with heresy allegations against Pope Francis is an "important document".

(Rome) Fr. Joseph Fessio and Mark Bromley, as representatives of Ignatius Press, have published a video statement in which they ask Rome to respond to the Open Letter of Catholic Intellectuals.

On April 30th, an international group of Catholic intellectuals published an open letter. The detailed document raises detailed heresy allegations against Pope Francis. There has never been anything like this in Church history.

Rome has reacted with silence so far.

The document has since been signed by other personalities. They address the letter to all Catholic bishops in the world with a call to examine the allegations of heresy contained in the document. Anyone who concludes that the allegations are justified, says the appeal, should be active.

The US Jesuit P. Joseph Fessio is a student of Joseph Ratzinger, from whom he received his doctorate at the University of Regensburg in 1975. In 1978, he founded the publishing house Ignatius Press in San Francisco, which became the most important Catholic publishing house in the United States.

Together with Mark Bromley, he spoke as a representative of the publishing house in a video to open letter Catholic intellectuals to word, which was published by LifeSiteNews.

They ask the Vatican not to ignore the open letter, but to comment on the allegations. In the video, P. Fessio describes the Open Letter as an "important document".

To unpleasant writings and requests, such as the 2016 Dubia of four cardinals, the Correctio filialis of 2017 or the Viganò dossier of the former Apostolic Nuncio in the United States, Francis has neglected of an answer.

Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Bild: Ignatius Press/LifeSiteNews
AMDG

Did Bishop Williamson Lie About Bishop Huonder at SSPX Episcopal Consecration?

Edit: Interestingly, there is no mention of this in the American or German Society pages.  Also, to be fair, Bishop Williamson only said it was “fairly certain” Bishop Huonder would be the consecrator.

"The Roman Catholic corporation of the Canton of Zurich, with its unjust attack on Bishop Huonder, is more likely to have damaged the concern to influence the Chur bishop election in its own right." 

By Roland Noé

Zurich (kath.net/rn) The Roman Catholic Corporation of the canton of Zurich (a structure created by the state, independent of the bishop, which collects and administers the Church-tax) has been publishing for some time verbiage against the diocese of Chur, which belongs to the Canton of Zurich. The existing bodies in other cantons are interested in remaining socio-politically in the majority in order not to jeopardize the Church-tax system. They fight, therefore, against Catholic positions like the celibacy or the Chrich’s teachings on sexual morality, which are not within the society’s majority. And they wish for the same reason a bishop willing to adapt to the spirit of the times, as in the diocese of Basel and St. Gallen.

In the run-up to the upcoming election of a new Bishop of Chur, the Zurich corporation had published several articles on its homepage in which the Holocaust denier [Oh, no!] Richard Williamson, who is excluded from the Society of St. Pius, spreads falsehoods, for example the assertion that the Bishop of Chur would serve on the past White Sunday to consecrate two bishops for the Society of Saint Pius X.

Now Williamson is spreading new falsehoods, and the Zurich Corporation is publishing these again on their homepage, which also serves as the mouthpiece for the Canton of Zurich Bishop Vicar of the diocese of Chur, Josef Annen.

This time, the Corporation homepage and the episcopal vicar  are claiming that the Bishop of Chur is an opponent of Pope Francis and wants to bring the Society back to the Catholic Church to harm the Holy Father.

At the request of kath.net, the diocese of Chur explains: "We are not commenting on the conspiracy theory of a Holocaust denier. We note, however, that Pope Francis wants to accompany and integrate rather than to exclude. In this sense, the Holy Father also wants to proceed with the Society of Saint Pius X and seek rapprochement. This wish is fulfilled by the Bishop of Chur through his contacts with the Society. Theories that construct a contrast between the wishes of the Pope and the diocese of Chur have no foundation.”

In the Vatican, it is an open secret that Pope Francis has maintained personal relations with the Society since his time in Argentina.

The Zurich corporation is therefore ill-informed and likely to have hurt with their attack on Bishop Huonder, rather with the intention to influence the episcopal election of Chur. The question remains whether the bishop vicar responsible for Zurich is behind the attack on his superior.

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

THE TRUE ORIGIN OF THE NEW MASS

By David Martin

While Pope Paul VI today is seen as the father of the New Mass of Vatican II, it’s important to note that the outline for the New Mass was in the works before Paul VI was even pope, i.e. since 1960. The infamous new draft was principally the work of Msgr. Annibale Bugnini who had long been suspected of Freemasonry, and unfortunately his draft was approved by the Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy early in 1962. (Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, the Rhine Flows into the Tiber)

The outline, known also as the “Bugnini Draft,” would dominate the discussions in the opening session of Vatican II, after which it would formally be adopted as the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy on December 7, 1962. The Constitution (later called Sacrosanctum Concilium) would serve as the blueprint for the New Mass to be implemented later, which would be dubbed the Mass of Pope Paul VI.

Hence the blueprint for the “Mass of Pope Paul VI” was finalized and adopted six months before Paul VI was even elected! (Michael Davies, How the Liturgy Fell Apart: The Enigma of Archbishop Bugnini)

Pope Paul Never Abrogated the Old Mass

It should also be pointed out that while Paul VI is often accused of imposing the New Mass, he never forbade the Old Mass. In 1986, a panel of nine Vatican cardinals concluded that Pope Paul VI never abrogated the Mass of Pius V, nor did he mandate the New Mass, nor did he grant bishops the right to forbid or restrict priests from saying the Tridentine Latin Mass. Pope John Paul II had commissioned the cardinals to look into the legal status of the Old Mass, as it was his intention to bring its legality to light.

If Pope Paul had truly mandated the New Mass, he would have specified this, but this was never done. Nowhere in the 1969 Missale Romanum does it mandate that the New Mass must be said. The document merely mandates the publication of the new missal, ordering that “the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect [are validated] November 30th of this year” and that it “be firm and effective now and in the future.” But there is no mention of its use.

The decree then validates and makes available the new missal for those who want it, i.e. it is an indult. A Traditionalist priest of the Society of St. Pius X, Father Francois Laisney, points out that “Pope Paul VI did not oblige the use of his [new] Mass, but only permitted it.... There is no clear order, command, or precept imposing it on any priest.”

According to Fr. Laisney, the same applies to subsequent decrees on the New Mass, including the 1971 Notification from the Congregation of Divine Worship, of which he says: “One cannot find in this text any clear prohibition for any priest to use the traditional Mass nor an obligation to celebrate only the New Mass.”

Be that as it may, Pope Paul did sign for the New Mass in 1969, which was a mistake on his part. He unfortunately gave in under duress and yielded to the wishes of those who had ¹ proposed and designed the Novus Ordo, namely, Msgr. Bugnini and his Protestant clique.

The pope on occasion had been briefed about Bugnini’s affiliation with the Freemasons, but he didn’t give it much credence. Unfortunately, Bugnini had managed to dupe the Holy Father, as he [the pope] would later admit to his liturgist Fr. Louis Bouyer in 1974.

Conspiracy Unveiled

In July 1975, Pope Paul was forced against his will to learn of Bugnini’s affiliation with the Freemasons. Bugnini had attended a meeting with the Secretariat of State where he accidentally forgot his briefcase. A dossier obtained from Bugnini’s briefcase was personally brought to the Holy Father by a reputable high cardinal who had obtained it from a priest who had opened the briefcase to see who it belonged to. The dossier contained private instructions from the Italian Masonic Grand Master to Bugnini, which convinced the pope beyond any doubt that he was a Freemason. The following is part of what Pope Paul VI read in the dossier and is dated June 14, 1964.

Dear Buan [Masonic code-name of Bugnini]:

We communicate the task appointed to you by the Council of Brothers, in accordance with the Grand Master and the Assistant Princes to the Throne. We oblige you to spread de-Christianization by confusing rites and languages and to set priests, bishops and cardinals against each other. Linguistic and ritualistic babel means victory for us, since linguistic and ritual unity has been the strength of the Church…. Everything must happen within a decade.”

Note the satanic strategy proposed for defeating Christians: To divide is to conquer. The following now is a letter from Bugnini to the Grand Master of the P2 Lodge updating him on the progress of his mission. This is dated July 2, 1967.

Peerless Grand Master:

The de-sacralization is rapidly taking place. Another Instruction has been issued, which took effect on June 29. We can already sing victory, because the vernacular is now sovereign in the whole liturgy, even in the essential parts…. The greatest liberty was given to choose between the various formulas, to individual creativity, and to chaos! ... In short, with this document I believe to have spread the principle of maximum licentiousness, in accordance with your wishes.

I fought hard against my enemies from the Congregation for the Rites, and I had to use all my astuteness so that the Pope would approve it. By luck, we found the support of friends and brothers in Universa Laus [International Association for the Study of Liturgical Music], who are faithful. I thank you for the funds sent and am waiting to see you soon. I embrace you,

Your Brother Buan

This correspondence is taken from Andrea Tornielli’s Dossier: Freemasonry and the application of the Liturgical Reform, which appeared in the June 1992 issue of 30 Days magazine. In commenting on the two missives, the author admits that “the outcome of Bugnini's reforms fully matches the intention expressed in them.”

The letters coincide with Tito Casini’s book of April 1976, “In the Smoke of Satan-Towards the Final Clash,” in which the author states: “The reform has been conducted by this Bugnini who has been unmasked at last; he is indeed what we long suspected: a Freemason.” Casini was reporting on the ‘dossier’ incident of July 1975 which caused Bugnini to be expelled from the Vatican.

Traditionalist Catholic writer Michael Davies investigated the allegations against Bugnini and made contact with the priest who had discovered the dossier in Bugnini’s briefcase and who had “this information placed in the hands of Pope Paul VI by a cardinal.”

The matter is discussed in his book, How the Liturgy Fell Apart: The Enigma of Archbishop Bugnini, wherein he shows how the pope at this point was convinced of Bugnini’s affiliation with the Masonic lodge.

The story about the briefcase also appeared in Piers Compton’s 1981 book The Broken Cross. Therein he states that Bugnini’s Masonic membership was recorded in “The Italian Register” on April 23, 1963, “and that his code-name was Buan.”

Moreover, the June 1976 issue of the Italian publication SI, SI, No, No, and four months later, the October edition of the French journal La Contre-reforme catholique, among others, carried the news about the Bugnini dossier.

As a result of Pope Paul’s shocking discovery, Bugnini was suddenly dismissed as the head of the Congregation of Divine Worship, whereupon the Congregation itself was dissolved and merged with a new Congregation for the Sacraments, which Bugnini wasn’t even permitted to join. This occurred in July 1975. Thereupon, a plan was in motion to send him into a sort of exile  by making him ‘papal nuncio’ of Iran, which was announced in the press shortly thereafter.

Shortly after Bugnini’s expulsion, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre declared in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors: "Now, when we hear in Rome that he who was the heart and soul of the liturgical reform is a Freemason, we may think that he is not the only one. The veil covering the greatest deceit ever to have mystified the clergy and baffled the faithful, is doubtless beginning to be torn asunder."

The Freemasons of course are a satanic secret society committed solely to destroying the Roman Catholic Church. Their practice of witchcraft, murder and devil worship is no secret, for which reason the Church has always forbidden association with them. Those who join them are accursed.

1. This does not invalidate the New Mass, since the essentials for a valid Mass remain present in the new rite. If the priest is duly ordained and he pronounces the words of consecration, “This is My Body-This is My Blood, the Sacrifice of Calvary is reenacted as in the old Rite. The difference between the old and new liturgy is that the former renders honor to Christ’s Sacrifice while the latter detracts from it, but Christ is present in both.