Replacing the Nicene Creed with the Apostles' Creed every Sunday and the gravity of liturgical abuse

The USCCB instructs that:

"In many Masses, the Nicene Creed follows the homily. The Nicene Creed is a statement of faith dating from the fourth century. In certain instances, the Nicene Creed may be replaced by the Apostles’ Creed (the ancient baptismal creed of the Church in Rome) or by a renewal of baptismal promises, based on the Apostles’ Creed."

See here.

Note the wording: "In certain instances the Nicene Creed may be replaced by the Apostles' Creed.."  Usage of the Nicene Creed remains the norm.

Some priests, motivated often by a false irenicism or even a syncretistic agenda, prefer to use the Apostles' Creed every Sunday.  As Wikipedia explains:

"Because of the early origin of its original form, it [the Apostles' Creed] does not address some Christological issues defined in the Nicene and other Christian Creeds. It thus says nothing explicitly about the divinity of either Jesus or the Holy Spirit. This makes it acceptable to many Arians and Unitarians."

Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand warned that, "False irenicism is motivated by a misconceived charity at the service of a meaningless unity. It places unity above truth. Having severed the essential link between charity and defense of the truth, irenicism is more concerned with reaching a unity with all men than with leading them to Christ and His eternal truth. It ignores the fact that real unity can be reached only in truth. Our Lord’s prayer ‘that they may be one’ implies being one in Him and must not be separated from His words in John: ‘And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice. And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.’"

Many Catholics today, priests and laity as well as consecrated religious, possess a lust for innovation which they use to assault the stability of sacred rites. Referring to these liturgical terrorists who seek to violently replace divine forms with their own reckless innovations, John Henry Cardinal Newman warned that, "No one can really respect religion and insult its forms.  Granted that forms are not immediately from God, still long use has made them divine to us; for the spirit of religion has so penetrated and quickened them, that to destroy them is, in respect to the multitude of men, to unsettle and dislodge the religious principle itself.  In most minds usage has so identified them with the notion of religion, that one cannot be extirpated without the other.  Their faith will not bear transplanting...Precious doctrines are strung like jewels upon slender threads." (John Henry Cardinal Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, Vol. II, Christian Classics Inc, pp. 75-76).

Those who are bent on making their own unauthorized changes to the liturgy often fail to appreciate how such an endeavor can constitute grave sin.  I know this because some have accused me of making a mountain out of a molehill for my opposition to various liturgical abuses.

Dr. Germain Grisez explains: "There are many reasons why it is wrong for priests intentionally to make unauthorized liturgical changes.  Two are especially important.  First, such changes sometimes embody or imply deviations from Catholic faith; even when they do not, they often omit (see here for example) or obscure something of the liturgy's expression of faith.  Thus, the Church teaches: 'The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays.  Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition' (cf. DV 8).  For this reason no sacramental rite may be modified or manipulated at the will of the minister or the community.  Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy.' (CCC, 1124-1125).

Dr. Grisez continues, "..in the Eucharist, a priest acts in the person of Christ, who joins humankind to the Father; but in making unauthorized changes, a priest obscures Jesus' action, focuses attention on himself, and becomes an obstacle to the relationship between God and His People that priests are ordained to serve...Priests are agents ordained to deliver God's gifts to His People.  If they deliver some substitute for what Jesus has entrusted to them, they interpose themselves between - and defraud - both God and His People...

There are five additional reasons why unauthorized changes should not be made in the liturgy.  First, the liturgy is the worship of the Church as a body, and those who are ordained act as Church officials in performing liturgical roles.  So, insofar as a priest makes unauthorized changes, he misrepresents as the Church's what is in fact only his or some limited group's. Even if this misrepresentation deceives no one and is intended for some good end, it is at odds with the reverence necessary for true worship.  Second, this essential irreverence and the obvious arbitrariness of intentional unauthorized changes strongly suggest that the Eucharist is not sacred, and this suggestion tends to undermine not only faith in Jesus' bodily presence in the consecrated elements, but faith that the Eucharist is Jesus' sacrifice made present for the faithful to share in.  Third, a priest who makes intentional, unauthorized changes acts with deplorable clericalism by imposing his personal preferences on the laity and violating the rights of those who quite reasonably wish only to participate in the Church's worship.  Fourth, intentionally making unauthorized changes sets a bad example of serious disobedience to the Church's norms, and this bad example is likely to encourage some people to think and do as they please not only in liturgical and canonical matters, but in matters of faith and morals.  Fifth...unauthorized liturgical changes often become a needless, divisive issue for the faithful, thus impeding the charity that the Eucharist should express and foster."

Still think that liturgical abuse is a small matter of little significance?  If so, this reflects on your own immaturity and not the objective truth that liturgical abuse constitutes grave matter.  How grave?  Again, Dr. Grisez:

"The reasons why priests should not make unauthorized liturgical changes also make it clear..that a priest's intentionally doing so is of itself matter of grave sin.  Of course, many changes are in themselves very minor, and a few perhaps even are real improvements.  But though this kind of sin admits  parvity, such small changes also are scandalous, not only because they give the faithful a bad example of disobedience but because they contribute to a clerical culture in which liturgical abuse is widely tolerated and sometimes even expected, so that some are encouraged to engage in far graver abuses.  Now, even a sin venial in itself becomes grave scandal when one foresees that it is likely to lead others to commit grave sin; thus, the element of scandal makes grave matter of even minor liturgical abuses likely to encourage more serious abuses by other priests.  Due to widespread confusion and negligence of some bishops, many priests undoubtedly lack sufficient reflection regarding this sin."

Serious matter this.

Archbishop Loris Capovilla has "reservations" about Fatima and Marian devotion in general

All around us there are signs in abundance that the Apostasy is spreading.  Parishes are emptying, more and more Catholics who have remained are approving of same-sex "marriage" and other forms of dissent.  Preparation for the Reign of Antichrist is in full swing.  Does this trouble Archbishop Loris Capovilla?  One would wonder.  For instead of addressing the myriad evils of our time, the Archbishop has chosen to address something which does concern him: the Fatima apparition and Marian devotion in general.  As noted here, Archbishop Capovilla has "reservations" about Fatima and what he refers to as "excessive focus on Marian devotion."

God preserve us from such nonsense!

Without rendering judgment on the Archbishop's personal motives, it is very troubling that he should attempt to downplay devotion to Our Lady.  For, as St. Louis Marie de Montfort reminds us in his Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, "An infallible and unmistakable sign by which we can distinguish a heretic, a man of false doctrine, an enemy of God, from one of God's true friends is that the heretic and the hardened sinner show nothing but contempt and indifference for our Lady.  He endeavors by word and example, openly or insidiously - sometimes under specious pretexts - to belittle the love and veneration shown to her.  God the Father has not told Mary to dwell in them because they are, alas, other Esaus....But you, my dear Mother, will have for your heritage and possession only the predestinate represented by Israel.  As their loving Mother, you will give them birth, feed them and rear them.  As their queen, you will lead, govern and defend them." (True Devotion, Nos. 30-31).

Archbishop Capovilla employs the specious argument that devotion to Mary can actually harm ecumenism.  But as Dr. Scott Hahn, himself a convert to Catholicism, reminds us, "Authentic ecumenical progress is not simply the result of our own human energies.  Even more, it is not caused by compromise, on either side.  'Here it is not a question of altering the deposit of faith,' writes Pope John Paul II, 'changing the meaning of dogmas, eliminating essential words from them, accommodating truths to the preferences of a particular age...The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety' (Ut Unum Sint, 18).  Ecumenical unity thus requires a special grace and the word of God, who acts for the sake of his family.  Accordingly, we should not expect him to work apart from but through the Mother he gave us to serve as the symbol and source of family unity."

Archbishop Capovilla, who appears to be full of himself and lacking in humility, says that he would lecture the Mother of God on her own words: Do as He tells you - which she spoke at Cana - and remind her that Jesus Himself told us to repent.  It is entirely true that Jesus is the one Mediator Who brings us the Good News and Who calls us to repentance.  But as Pope John Paul II said in his audience of October 1, 1997:

"Mary's maternal mediation does not obscure the unique and perfect mediation of Christ.  Indeed, after calling Mary 'Mediatrix,' the Council [Vatican II] is careful to explain that this 'neither takes away anything from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator' (Lumen Gentium, No. 62)....In addition, the Council states that 'Mary's function as Mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power' (Lumen Gentium, No. 60). 

Therefore, far from being an obstacle to the exercise of Christ's unique mediation, Mary instead highlights its fruitfulness and efficacy...In proclaiming Christ the one mediator (cf. 1 Tim 2: 5-6), the text of St. Paul's Letter to Timothy excludes any other parallel mediation, but not subordinate mediation.  In fact, before emphasizing the one exclusive mediation of Christ, the author urges 'that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men' (2: 1).  Are not prayers a form of mediation?  Indeed, according to St. Paul, the unique mediation of Christ is meant to encourage other dependent, ministerial forms of mediation.  By proclaiming the uniqueness of Christ's mediation, the Apostle intends only to exclude any autonomous or rival mediation, and not other forms compatible with the infinite value of the Savior's work.

In fact, 'just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold co-operation which is but a sharing in this one source' (Lumen Gentium, No. 62)....In truth, what is Mary's maternal mediation if not the Father's gift to humanity."

In the latter times right up to the Reign of Antichrist, the enmity between the children of Mary and the children of the Devil will intensify.  St. Louis de Montfort:

"Mary must become as terrible as an army in battle array to the devil and his followers, especially in these latter times. For Satan, knowing that he has little time - even less now than ever - to destroy souls, intensifies his efforts and his onslaughts every day. He will not hesitate to stir up savage persecutions and set treacherous snares for Mary's faithful servants and children whom he finds more difficult to overcome than others.


It is chiefly in reference to these last wicked persecutions of the devil, daily increasing until the advent of the reign of anti-Christ, that we should understand that first and well-known prophecy and curse of God uttered against the serpent in the garden of paradise. It is opportune to explain it here for the glory of the Blessed Virgin, the salvation of her children and the confusion of the devil. 'I will place enmities between you and the woman, between your race and her race; she will crush your head and you will lie in wait for her heel' (Gen. 3:15).

God has established only one enmity - but it is an irreconcilable one - which will last and even go on increasing to the end of time. That enmity is between Mary, his worthy Mother, and the devil, between the children and the servants of the Blessed Virgin and the children and followers of Lucifer.

Thus the most fearful enemy that God has set up against the devil is Mary, his holy Mother. From the time of the earthly paradise, although she existed then only in his mind, he gave her such a hatred for his accursed enemy, such ingenuity in exposing the wickedness of the ancient serpent and such power to defeat, overthrow and crush this proud rebel, that Satan fears her not only more than angels and men but in a certain sense more than God himself. This does not mean that the anger, hatred and power of God are not infinitely greater than the Blessed Virgin's, since her attributes are limited. It simply means that Satan, being so proud, suffers infinitely more in being vanquished and punished by a lowly and humble servant of God, for her humility humiliates him more than the power of God. Moreover, God has given Mary such great power over the evil spirits that, as they have often been forced unwillingly to admit through the lips of possessed persons, they fear one of her pleadings for a soul more than the prayers of all the saints, and one of her threats more than all their other torments." True Devotion, Nos 50 - 52).

The Spotless Virgin, the Immaculata, has a special "ingenuity" in exposing the Devil's plans and tactics.  Which is why the Devil often uses others - sometimes other Catholics - to try to influence us to abandon our devotion to Mary, or at least to water it down under the pretext that it is "excessive" or "harmful to ecumenism."  

The Devil knows that those consecrated to the Immaculata will be protected in a special way in this time of Apostasy.  Which is why he attacks their true devotion.  Again St. Louis de Montfort: "Since Mary alone has crushed all heresies, as we are told by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Office of B.V.M.), a devoted servant of hers will never fall into formal heresy or error, though critics may contest this.  He may very well err materially, mistaking lies for truth or an evil spirit for a good one, but he will be less likely to do this than others.  Sooner or later he will discover his error and will not go on stubbornly believing and maintaining what he mistakenly thought was the truth." (True Devotion, No. 167),

In other words, those who practice true devotion to Mary will be better disposed toward the truth and will receive special graces against error.

The Devil knows this.  So he tries desperately to undermine such true devotion: "It's harmful to ecumenism," "It is excessive," "It is too pre-Vatican II," "It is Medeival."

Don't you believe the lies.  Consecrate yourself daily to the Immaculata.  Pope John Paul II, in a General Audience of November 15, 1995, said that to honor Mary is to go to Jesus.  How then can our devotion to Mary be said to be "excessive"?  During the same General Audience, the Holy Father places "such as Lourdes, Fatima, Loreto, Pompei, Guadalupe and Czestochowa" [this list is not exhaustive]...are "a wonderful testimony to God's mercy, which reaches man through Mary's intercession.."

And Archbishop Capovilla has "reservations" about Fatima and Marian devotion?  Now I have reservations about him.

More on Deacon Paul Mello and the Unitarian Universalists in Petersham...

In a previous post, I noted how Deacon Paul Mello of Our Lady Immaculate Parish in Athol, Massachusetts took part in an "Interfaith Thanksgiving Service" held at a Unitarian Universalist church in Petersham which is led by M. Lara Hoke, a Unitarian Universalist minister who promotes the LGBT agenda and who lives with another woman whom she refers to as her "wife."

Lara Hoke authors a Blog which has a link to a Unitarian Universalist Pagan website.  This pagan website explains that, "Some Pagans believe in the Goddesses and Gods of the old religions and others do not. Many Pagans understand deity as immanent, in everything, and believe revelation is found in nature instead of written in scriptures. Some believe in an afterlife and that their actions in this life will determine their place in the next. Others believe only in this life and that their actions here are all that matters. Still others believe in reincarnation. Some Pagans believe in an active Spirit World while others do not. Because Paganism is a non-creedal religion such divergent beliefs can exist together under one religious name – just like in Unitarian Universalism! Many modern Pagans find their beliefs are very much in harmony with Unitarian Universalist Principle..."  I'll bet.  See here for full text.

Pope Benedict XVI has warned that, "There is..a consciously antirationalist response to the experience that 'everything is relative,' a complex reality that is lumped together under the title of New Age. The way out of the dilemma of relativism is now sought, not in a new encounter of the 'I' with the 'Thou' or the 'We,' but in overcoming subjective consciousness, in a re-entry into the dance of the cosmos through ecstasy. As in the case of Gnosis in the ancient world, this way believes itself to be fully in tune with all the teachings and the claims of science, making use of scientific knowledge of every kind (biology, psychology, sociology, physics). At the same time, however, it offers against this background a a completely antirationalist pattern of religion, a modern 'mysticism': the absolute is, not something to be believed in, but something to be experienced. God is not a person distinct from the world; rather, he is the spiritual energy that is at work throughout the universe. Religion means bringing my self into tune with the cosmic whole, the transcending of all divisions...Objectifying reason, New Age thinking tells us, closes our way to the mystery of reality; existing as the self shuts us out from the fullness of cosmic reality; it destroys the harmony of the whole and is the real reason for our being unredeemed. Redemption lies in breaking down the limits of the self, in plunging into the fullness of life and all that is living, in going back home to the universe....The gods are returning. They have become more credible than God. Aboriginal rites must be renewed in which the self is initiated into the mysteries of the universe and freed from its own self. There are many reasons for the renewal of pre-Christian religions and cults that is being widely undertaken today. If there is no truth shared by everyone, a truth that is valid simply because it is true, then Christianity is merely a foreign import, a form of spiritual imperialism, which needs to be shaken off just as much as political imperialism. If what takes place in the sacraments is not the encounter with the one living God of all men, then they are empty rituals that mean nothing and give us nothing and, at best, allow us to sense the numinous element that is actively present in all religions. It then seems to make better sense to seek after what was originally our own than to permit alien and antiquated things to be imposed on us. But above all, if the 'rational intoxication' of the Christian mystery cannot make us intoxicated with God, then we just have to conjure up the real, concrete intoxication of effective ecstasies, the passionate power of which catches us up and turns us, at least for a moment, into gods..." (Truth and Tolerance, pp. 126-128).
What is a Catholic Deacon from Our Lady Immaculate Parish in Athol doing at an "Interfaith Service" held by Unitarian Universalists who identify with paganism?  This is not ecumenism.  It is syncretism: the misguided notion that religious unity can be achieved by ignoring the differences between faiths on the assumption that all creeds are essentially one and the same.

Truculent and truncated...

The following statement was posted at the website of the Saint Benedict Center cult (Richmond, New Hampshire): "There are those who consider us at Catholicism.org truculent for wishing to convert our nation to the true faith. Such talk nowadays is not exactly au courant. Neither does it resonate sympathetic vibrations with the ascendancy of the liberal Comintern whose manual dictates public discourse. But we philosophers tend to transcend all that hokum. (Heck, we don’t even watch Oprah!) Hence, we occasionally have to drink the hemlock."

Nothing could be further from the truth. People do not view the SBC cult as truculent for wishing to convert this nation to Catholicism. Rather, it is the SBC's approach to evangelization which is both truculent and truncated. Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint, reminds us that, "The capacity for 'dialogue' is rooted in the nature of the person and his dignity. As seen by philosophy, this approach is linked to the Christian truth concerning man as expressed by the Council: man is in fact 'the only creature on earth which God willed for itself'; thus he cannot 'fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself.' Dialogue is an indispensable step along the path toward human self-realization, the self-realization both of each individual and of every human community...Dialogue is not simply an exchange of ideas. In some way it is always an 'exchange of gifts.' For this reason, the Council's Decree on Ecumenism also emphasizes the importance of 'every effort to eliminate words, judgments and actions which do not respond to the condition of separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations between them more difficult."*

Authentic Catholics know what SBC cultists refuse to acknowledge: that true ecumenism is impossible without true conversion; a turning away from one's own selfish attitudes and sin toward the Lord Jesus and His holy will. Vatican II emphasizes that the first duty of Catholics is to renew the Catholic Church - beginning with themselves:

"Catholics, in their ecumenical work, must assuredly be concerned for their separated brethren, praying for them, keeping them informed about the Church, making the first approaches toward them. But their primary duty is to make a careful and honest appraisal of whatever needs to be done or renewed in the Catholic household itself, in order that its life may bear witness more clearly and faithfully to the teachings and institutions which have come to it from Christ through the apostles. For although the Catholic Church has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace, yet its members fail to live by them with all the fervor they should, so that the radiance of the Church's image is less clear in the eyes of our separated brethren and of the world at large, and the growth of God's kingdom is delayed. All Catholics must therefore aim at Christian perfection (cf. Jas 1: 4; Rm 12: 1-2), and, each according to his station, play his part that the Church may daily be more purified and renewed. For the Church must bear in her own body the humility and dying of Jesus (cf. 2 Cor 4: 10; Phil 2: 5-8), against the day when Christ will present her to himself in all her glory without spot or wrinkle (cf. Eph 5: 27). (Unitatis Redintegratio, No. 4).





Put simply: If we want to convert others to the fullness of truth which is found in the Catholic Church, we must first see to our own conversion. If we are not living what we preach or at least making a sincere effort to do so, how can we expect others to be attracted to our message?

Meditation: Matthew 7: 3-5


* See here and visit Russell Provost's Blog SBC Watch to read what SBC cultists have had to say about other Christian communities.