I just recently heard about this brave priest Fr Micheal Oswalt. He left the Novus Ordo Church and has sought (valid) ordination with the CMRI. This is the letter he wrote and sent to all the priests in the diocese of Rockford where he was serving as a NO priest. It is well worth a read!
Editor’s note: After a 6-year seminary course at Mundelein, a Conciliar seminary in Chicago, Michael Oswalt was ordained with the new rite of ordination. Although he adhered to traditional Catholic thinking in the seminary, his eyes were really opened to the effects of Modernism on the parish level, when he received his first assignment. By the grace of God, obtained especially through his daily Rosary and total consecration to Jesus through Mary, Michael became convinced that the new Conciliar Church is not truly the Catholic Church. The final ray of light came when his superior one day asked him: “Do you want to be a member of the pre-Vatican II Church or the post-Vatican II Church?” Michael knew he could no longer remain in the Conciliar Church. The following is the letter he sent to all priests in the diocese, in March, 2009, regarding the reasons he abandoned the Novus Ordo. He is now studying to be properly ordained to the priesthood with the traditional rites of the Church.Dear fellow clergy of the Diocese of Rockford:
I have decided to leave the Diocese of Rockford for the reason that I have come to the conclusion that the changes enacted by Vatican II are not compatible with Roman Catholicism.
No one denies that Vatican II imposed deep and vast changes upon the Catholic Church. But all change is either accidental or substantial. If the changes wrought by Vatican II are merely accidental, then there could be no justification in mounting opposition to them, even if one found them to be distasteful. On the other hand, if these changes are substantial, then the changes of Vatican II represent nothing less than the establishment of a new religion which differs essentially from Roman Catholicism. In such a case it would be the duty of every Catholic, and especially priests, to resist these changes and strive to dispel them from Catholic buildings and institutions, as Catholics have striven in the past to drive out Arianism, Nestorianism, Protestantism and the many other heresies which have attempted to overtake the Roman Catholic Church.
For many years I have studied the differences between pre-Vatican II Catholicism and the post-Vatican II religion. These differences appeared to me to be profound. But in all cases I strove as best I could to give the benefit of the doubt to those who were promulgating these changes. In many cases I was driven to denial, that is, to a blinding of myself to facts which I knew in my heart were true, but which I could not face as true.
No one denies, furthermore, that the Faith which was believed and practiced up to the Second Vatican Council was Roman Catholicism, that is, the religion and Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, which we believe to be the one, true Church outside of which there is no salvation. All must concede, therefore, that in order that the post-Vatican II religion qualify as truly Roman Catholic, it must conform substantially in all things with the pre-Vatican II Faith and practice. In other words, in order to legitimately and truthfully claim that we are Roman Catholic priests, it is necessary that there be a substantial continuity between the pre-Vatican II Faith and the post-Vatican II changes. If this substantial continuity is broken, then we as priests lose our link to Our Lord Jesus Christ, to the Roman Catholic Church, to every true Roman Pontiff who ever sat on the throne of Peter, to all of the saints of heaven, indeed to every Catholic who has preceded us in the Faith. We lose our claim to apostolicity, to unity of faith, to catholicity, and to sanctity. Indeed it would be difficult to think of anything more false, more absurd, more useless, nay more dangerous, than a priest who claims to be Catholic, but who has lost continuity with the sacred tradition of Roman Catholicism.
It remains for me, therefore, to prove this claim of discontinuity between present and past, a claim which for some may seem outlandish, but for other some a truth which lies deeply buried in their minds, and weighs heavily on their hearts. The evidence for the position which I am taking is indeed vast. It would require a book of many volumes to do justice to the evidence which must be presented. But I will present these convincing facts and arguments in a condensed manner, and invite at the same time all who may be interested to further reading in various books, web sites, and periodicals.
I will present the evidence in the following manner:
the heresies contained in Vatican II;
the heresy taught in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and the sinful practices sanctioned by it;
how the 1969 New Mass is false and non-Catholic worship, as it is a liturgical expression of the heresies of Vatican II;
the heteropraxis of the Vatican II religion, that is, the confirmation of the heretical nature of Vatican II by the common observances and practices of the Vatican II religion, whether officially sanctioned and practiced by its hierarchy, or merely approved by silence on a universal level;
how the sacraments have been altered substantially, leading in many cases to either invalidity or doubt of validity;
the heresies which are publicly professed by Benedict XVI;
how the four marks of the Catholic Church cannot be found in the new religion of Vatican II.
I will then summarize by pointing out that in the three essential elements of any religion, namely in doctrine, worship, and discipline, Vatican II and its subsequent changes have effected a substantial change of the Catholic Faith. From thence I will draw all of the logical conclusions, both speculative and practical.
To read the rest here is the link, it is not a very long letter:
http://www.cmri.org/02-oswalt-letter-to-rockford-diocese.shtmlLuke
Topic: Fr Oswalts Letter (Read 1896 times)