ORTHODOX SECT?
by
Eberhard Heller
(transl. by Gladys Resch)
These are the facts: More than l0 years ago the so-called "NOM" was introduced, and since that 2 years the official Holy Mass has been forbidden. Directly after the obligatory promulgation of the so-called "NOM", however, one began also to expose and publish the decisive reasons for its objective invalidity. This also happened (and is still happening) since 20 years - one must almost say in a penetrating and incessant way because again and again there have been (and still are) faithful who finally succeeded in finding out about the outwardly ambigious and crafty play of the "Reformed church", and who wish to gain retrospective clearness regarding the real destruction caused.
Since after the official prohibition of Holy Mass it was practically impossible to say it in public churches, a number of chapels and Mass-Centers were established, first in Munich at Baaderstreet 56 (St. Michael), specially dedicated to secure the celebration of the sacrifice of Holy Mass. Anyone, who has a fair view of the work involved, knows that one does not do it for fun.
Hence one should presume that at least in this regard clearness respectively unanimity of opinion would prevail in the groups of the truly faithful. One would also expect that those, who continually profess to be true Traditionalists would all be in agreement that a hierarchy, which promulgates and rushes through invalid and dubious or ambigious rights of sacraments and thus offers stones in lieu of the bread of life, is apostate and has forfeited a power of the keys. (See papal bull of Paul IV dated 15/3/1559; printed in EINSICHT II (2) l ff)
Nevertheless, it is also a sad fact that - in spite of many efforts - confusion prevails among Traditionalists and a great number of visitors of the Mass-Centers. With regard to the "NOM" one can, quite often, hear such opinions expressed as:
(1) The new "Mass" although failing in dogmatic value, is valid.
(2) Although Lutheran it is however not invalid or heretical but ambigious. (3) The so-called Mass; of course one does not doubt the validity of the new "Mass"; above all one has to obey the bishops.
(4) The "NOM" is not quite as valid as the old Mass.
(5) It would appear that the new "Mass" is invalid but since it was introduced by the Holy Father Paul VI. it cannot be invalid.
Obviously the great majority is unwilling to take the hierarchy to be apostate and heretical. Otherwise it could not happen that one asks permission to say Holy Mass from those who deliberately destroy it. This is as nonsensical as if the Jews had looked to Hitler as the one to guard them against the Nazi Regime. Also it made no sense to recognise the apostate (and meantime deceased) Paul VI as the legitimate Pope when his declarations were for once true and correct, but to refuse obedience when he prescribed rules offensive to one self. A pope, who has become heretical, can ipso facto not be a legitimate pope. Of course, also can a pope not be half-legitimate as suggested just before - a half-legitimate pope is an absurdity.
The reasons for these ambigious attitudes are many. Here no reference is to be made to those whose point of view is as yet not clear and are still earnestly endeavouring to find a solution. One cannot force insight on anyone, insight is also always an act of God's grace.
But in many cases the opinion prevails that one could agree with both sides because one fears the consequences and is not willing to acknowlege the true extend of the religious catastrophe. In the end one does not want to perish like a dog but still wants to be burried by the church. After having come initially to a clear understanding of the issue most people become again confused by the professional intimidators who work among the "Conservatives" and the "Traditionalists" and, of course, also the "Progressives": Some thus excuse, respectively cover up, openly their inconsistency, claiming that this should be the general rule -; the others propagate cleverly their poor piece of work - and this one expects of them anyhow. (To-day, for instance, the reformed "Church" cunningly diverts the attention from the sacrilegious acts on the altar by an enormous effort to provide church music and Latin as of old. (And who would not be enchanted by a mass from Haydn.) Many also turn away from the whole dispute because they are too lazy: "the Lord knows my attitude" - of course He knows it. Confusion is also caused by the many pseudo-messages: Our dear Saviour personally has handed and warmly recommended the "NOM" to the Holy Father Paul VI; and so on. The same applies to the recognition of the legitimacy of the hierarchy which in fact has become apostate long ago or supports the onerous game out of opportunism. If one pretends to defend the true faith one should, of course, also know who destroys it. And it is absurd to ask for the blessing of one's work precisely from those who seek its destruction. (This would be the same as if the member of the plot of July 20th would first have asked Hitler's permission to organise the movement of resistance against the horrors of the Third Reich.)
Those Traditionalists who take such an ambigious and inconsistent position (thus rendering their concern over the true faith and true church to the level of qualification, good enough for a Folklore club) must justly expect to answer from their subjective point of view such questions as: Why then don't you accept the new rite if you say yourselves that it is valid? Why do you resist orders of an authority of which you say that it is legal? Why then don't you obey? Why do you cling to the old forms if you say yourselves that you do not want to be formalists? Why do you erect altars against the Church to which you want to belong? - Just imagine what would have happened if, after the modification of the East Liturgy by Pius XII, Mass-Centers had been organised to celebrate the old Easter Liturgy. - Such faithful would rightly be exposed to all the reproaches of the modernists: refusals to obey, disturber of unity, obstinacy, formalism, defiance of church law, undermining of authority, dissension, schism. The litany of reproaches that the modernists cleverly and untiringly chant, is well known. In the end these Traditionalists dissenters should be glad that they are so "mildly" treated.
In fact our whole resistance against these "innovations" introduced with the unfortunate Council is only legitimate if we are convinced that these so-called reforms are heretical, and our desobedience against the (would be) authority is only justifiable because we have good reasons to say that a hierarchy has become apostate. If this were not the case we would be obliged to obey, also if the innovations were not to our liking. The erecting of Mass-Centers would then really be a schismatic arbitrariness, that the Church could not tolerate. Also Mgr. Lefèbvre would have to bow down.
Are, however, the reforms heretical and the hierarchy apostate respectively heretical, then we orthodox Catholics christians must publicly separate from this reformed "Church". Some earnestly believe to be able to ignore the problem of the true and visible Church: only the administration of valid sacraments is important - even in this respect one is not narrow-minded: what else can one say of a young regent who without scuple allows a (probably not legally ordained) priest to say Mass and reacts only after the massive protestations of the faithful? - (The excuse) The existence of the true Church, as an institute of ecclesiastical salvation, were not so important, therefore also it is not necessary to separate from the reformed "Church". And one duly continues to pay the Church tax. If, by chance, persons who hold such views, come into conflict with the "Reformed Church", they mostly overcome the difficulties by trickery.
Those, wdo support such point of view, should then reflect, respectively make up their minds, that for them the work of Mgr. Lefèbvre, which as they pretend, is their last hope, must become rather insignificant. For, if only the administration of valid sacraments for the present is to be considered, one can turn right now to the schismatic orthodox, who, of course, have valid sacraments. Then one has also partly to worry about lack of priests, the apostolic succession and so on, quite apart that one has saved oneself a lot of annoyance.
However, the faith is not lived in an empty space but only in the true Churc that is established and authorised by Jesus Christ. Those who wish the co-existence of the pre- and postconciliar rites, deprive themselves of the true legitimacy for their pretended resistance. By recognising the apostate Rome as the real authority and wishing to dwell under the same roof with the heresy, they discard the point of view of the true Church and - although they desire to keep the faith - they are swallowed up by the reformed "Church" as an orthodox sect.
(November 1978, pag.131-133) |
