Finally, the critics I am speaking of should ask themselves whether they, not the Pope, have a warped view. It is so easy for justified concern about the aberrations in Catholic affairs to cause an overreaction, with suspicion of quite legitimate changes. It must never be forgotten that Satan, who loves to provoke division, can appear as an angel of light and lead us astray.
We should remember this paragraph whenever there is talk of "reconciliation", "universal indults", and similar topics. The break from Apostolic tradition is likened to Cain breaking from the rest of the first family to do things his way. Is this not how Lucifer operated? He said "non serviam" and eventually was thrown out of heaven.
The offering of Cain is similar to that found in the novus ordo, "the work of human hands". Abel's offering was that which God have given him. Much like at Mass, where Our Lord gives Himself as the sacrifice to God.
It's so easy to recite the post-conciliar party line, always talking about people overreacting to aberrations which are in reality un-Catholic values, teachings, devotions, practices, and beliefs. Some of us would be doing a great disservice here and everywhere else for not constantly pointing out that Lucifer already got his foot in the door - right there with the heretical documents of Vatican II and the illegal novus ordo service.
I've seen all sorts of innovations in the post-conciliar church to the point that I see at least one a day. From the coffee non-Mass and the pontoon non-Mass to the jazz, "black culture", Caribbean, and beach non-Masses, there's division over there that's multiplying like wild fire. And yet there are people who say we should put up with it. Why? Doesn't this attitude put more souls in danger?
When Church teaching condemned the very things the post-conciliar church promotes, you have to wonder why the pot is calling the kettle black. At least I've seen things on both sides of the fence long enough to know who really has the warped minds. God is not the author of confusion. Why do we have to be bound by ambiguous (if not outright heretical) post-conciliar documents? Is the Wanderer going to tell me I have a warped mind because I noticed there was there was something heretical found in an encyclical, namely, that the chalice of the new and everlasting covenant was shed "for you and for all"? It was written that way in Latin, and I when I saw it, I knew one thing. Manifest heretics can not possibly hold office. There's a likelihood someone is in the Vatican pretending to be someone he's not.
When it comes to doctrine, morals, and tradition, it's an all-or-nothing game. The Wanderer would do well to look at it that way for at least a day. If those columnists succeed in doing that one small task, there may be hope.
Faith, morals, Mass, and sacraments go hand-in-hand. Lex credendi, lex orandi dictates that we can not expect our methods of praying and worship to change without altering out beliefs (why do you think Luther and Cranmer "got their revolution on"?). I'm not about to give up what I just found several months ago just to get on some person's right side. And despite disagreements between traditional groups and even between people in a single group, the one big problem we all agree on is still standing. It would be a lot easier if these folks from the Wanderer as well as like-minded people would rise up and say "enough!" to modernism and "enough!" to innovation and novelty. Nothing good came of it, so it should be dumped. Until Rome does a complete 180-degree turn, the status quo will be maintained.
It would be nice to agree on all things regarding faith and morals for once. Maybe Matt, Likoudis, Gutierrez, Hand, and others could join in and do their part in the battle.
Very well said.