Two Churches Compared

(section from the "Conclusion" of the book)

It should be abundantly clear that the 'New' and 'post-Conciliar' Church is both strikingly new and strikingly different from the Church as it has existed through the ages. The old Church was and is unabashedly 'triumphant,' felt it had the fullness of the truth and proclaimed it with a 'militarism' that seemed at times both offensive and arrogant. The new Church, having achieved an Aggiornamento with the modern world, is more 'open,' 'gentle,' 'lovable,' and 'accommodating;' it is one that is 'free of mediaeval rigorism' and 'makes no demands.' The traditional Church saw its function as one of teaching Mankind the truths entrusted to it by Christ as 'a precious pearl'; the new Church is trying 'to define itself' and proclaims it is seeking the truth along with the rest of mankind. The old Church called those who disagreed with her teachings on even a single point 'heretics' while the new Church sees them, even if they deny the very existence of God, as 'separated brethren' having equal 'access to the Community of salvation,' and hence seeks to 'dialogue' with them 'on an equal footing.'

In a similar manner, the old Church saw itself as 'static' and unchanging while the new Church considers itself 'progressive,' 'evolutionary' and 'dynamic.' Hence where the old Church claimed to exist in saecula saeculorum -throughout the ages, the new one repeatedly emphasizes her 'contemporaneous' character and proclaims in the words of her 'popes' that she represents a 'new Advent,' a 'new Epiphany' and a 'new Pentecost'. In a similar manner, where the old Church saw herself (as distinct from her members) as a perfect society - the spotless 'Bride of Christ,' the new one declares she has 'the mark of Cain' stamped upon her forehead, and that she has been deficient in her doctrinal teachings.

Where the old Church saw man as created in the image of God, but deformed and stained with original sin, the new Church sees him as having progressed from some primitive condition, as ever advancing towards some higher state of existence, as more mature, more informed and hence as more intelligent than his predecessors. Where the old Church saw man's dignity as dependent upon his conforming himself to his divine prototype, the new Church declared man was dignified by his very nature. The consequences of this shift are enormous. Where the former view sees man's intellect as clouded by his 'fall,' and hence in need of a Revelation in order to know the truth, the new one declares that man is himself, because of his innate dignity, the source of truth, and that he is, in religious matters, 'to be his own judge.' (This is what 'Religious Liberty' is all about.) But if man is no longer envisioned as fallen in nature and possessed of a 'clouded' intellect, he has no need for Redemption and for a Revelation to know the truth. The 'fall' has been replaced by an 'Ascendency,' and man instead of God becomes the source of truth.

The old Church saw its function as facilitating every individual soul's entry into heaven. She encouraged the faithful to strive for personal perfection: 'be ye perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect.' The new Church while not denying such (that is not her way, for as John XXIII said, 'the Church should not be against anything.') stresses her obligation and desire to be of 'service and fellowship' to the world, of helping mankind to 'to be more human,' and of fostering those elements in the world which are leading towards 'wholesome socialization,' a 'universal culture,' and a 'new humanism.' Her 'internal mission' is one of 'uniting' mankind so that all men of good will can work together towards some utopian future in this world. For her salvation inevitably becomes a 'communitarian' rather than an individual affair. This has its reflection on the social and political plane. Where the old Church was unequivocally against Marxism in all its forms, the new Church clearly favors Socialism and Communism. Where the old Church desired a theocracy in which the spiritual authority, vested in the Papacy, cooperated with the State in the governance of the world, the new one favors some kind of world government under the United Nations or some parallel secular organization. The 'future above' has been replaced by the 'ahead below.' Supernaturalism is replaced by Naturalism, the Kingship of Christ by that of the Kingship of Man.

Similar shifts in attitude occurred in liturgical areas. Where the old Church wished by means of her rites to make the sacred present to man, the new one desires to declare that man himself is intrinsically 'sacred.' This is why in the new 'mass' the priest turns away from God and towards the congregation. This is why the old liturgy 'accommodated' itself to God, while the new one, according to Paul VI 'accommodates' itself to modern man. This is why the old Church so carefully preserved the manner of prayer established for her by Christ and the Apostles, while the new one prefers a liturgy written by a Freemason with the help of non-Catholic 'observers.' In the old Church nothing was more sacred than the Words of Consecration used in the Mass and bestowed on her in detail (in specie) by Christ Himself. In the new Church these words were changed - the very words of Christ were altered, thus rendering the 'Confection' of the Sacred Species dubious if not invalid. All the changes make man rather than God the 'ontological' center of the action. Altars turned into tables, Sacristies into naves, priests into presidents and the true immolative Sacrifice into a Protestant 'memorial.' Similar changes for similar reasons have been made in all the other sacraments. And in order to minimize the possibility of a return to sanity, the new Church has so drastically changed the rite of Episcopal Ordination as to render the Apostolic Succession itself most dubious. Where the old Church was surrounded with the beauty and the mystery of the sacred, the new has has surrounded herself with the ugliness and banality of modern man.