Every age has its problems. The necessary first step toward solution is identification—diagnosis. You can’t cure a brain tumor by removing an appendix. Our problem is UNITY. Everyone fights everyone because no one seems to know what it is or where it lies. But this has always been easy: with the priests, the bishops, the pope. All we need is agreement among them. That’s the problem! Priests no longer agree; many turn schizoid in trying to reconcile what they were taught with their bishops’ orders and policies. Bishops no longer run dioceses. They convene periodically to discuss interminably what Rome tells them to discuss, before voting as Rome indicates. But surely the papacy is the standard of unity? The Catholics of Japan kept the faith more than two hundred years without priest or bishop, without contact with the popes. When priests were again admitted to Japan, these isolated Catholics recognized them by their identical doctrine and tradition. Suppose such a group were found today, isolated for only fifty years, how would they recognize a priest? Where is the identical doctrine? What has become of tradition? A standard is necessary. Trains travel on tracks gauged a uniform distance apart. If this gap varies trains will leave the rails and halt in screeching confusion. If the tracks won’t take the gauge no one asks for a new gauge; the tracks must fit the existing gauge. The Church has left its rails and careers in utter confusion because we no longer have a standard gauge. We could survive without bishops, priests, or popes, as the Japanese Catholics did. The papacy has been vacant before. The problem is that we appear to have a pope, unfortunately a faulty standard to which mutually exclusive groups adhere on different days, a four-foot yardstick, a collapsible gauge. This journal has but one purpose: complete recovery of our Church. We will never dodge an issue, refuse a pertinent question, or pull a punch. We will never shade, hide, or bury truth as too strong for the stomach. Any stomach unturned by Paul VI’s postconciliar “Church” can stand even the truth. We accept no responsibility for the chaos and heresy we fight. If neither existed, obviously we could fight or describe neither. This journal is primarily polemic. We intend not to report all the news unfit to print, nor all views found in print. We are here for the war, which is necessary for our purpose. Complete recovery entails complete destruction of the postconciliar “Church” and its bases in fact and fancy, especially Vatican II, its “spirit,” and the novus ordo “mass.” We seek no awards for urbanity or politeness. We will not pretend that all the “Catholic” priests, religious, bishops, cardinals, or “pope” act or omit in good faith. We shall accord respect to none of these. We believe that most are cowardly, stupid, or both—the charitable view. The sole alternative classes them with Judas—they betray Christ in His Mystical Body, actively or by non-interference with activists. We shall waste neither time nor space placating fools and traitors. Nor shall we waste them on visions, seers, pious phrases, or calls to prayer. Only a fool requires exhortation to constant prayer in our time. We demand return of the Catholic Church to parish, monastery, seminary, papacy. For only through the Church can we be saved. To any who impede, to all who promoted the current deviation, through act or omission, we most heartily wish the infernal end they have freely chosen. OUR FIRST ISSUE ATTEMPTED TO CLEAR DECKS FOR ACTION, to base our strategy, to express an attitude, to explain why we neither mince words nor avoid frankness. If a pious hope that destroyers of our means of salvation benefit most abundantly from their own machinations be grievous matter, what shall we say of Quo primum, which invokes the wrath of Almighty God and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul upon those who violate its provisions? Or of the synoptic Gospels? “But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin.” (Mark iii. 29) “He that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.” (Matthew xii. 32) “To him that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven.” (Luke xii. 10) Or of St. Paul? “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice ..... who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator ..... and as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense ..... filled with all iniquity ..... deceit, malignity ..... hateful to God ..... proud, ..... inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents ..... without fidelity, without mercy.” (Romans i) Or of St. John? “There is a sin unto death” (I Ep. v. 16-7). Challoner comments: “..... it cannot be supposed that St. John would say this of every mortal sin, but only of some heinous sins which are very seldom remitted because such sinners very seldom repent. ..... interpreters commonly understand a wilful apostasy from the faith, and from the known truth, when a sinner, hardened by his own ingratitude, becomes deaf to all admonitions, will do nothing for himself, but runs on to a final impenitence.” Or is the sin unto death the unforgivable sin?—unforgivable because no sin is admitted! The innovator has done no wrong; he has merely improved—on Christ! Who would dare question God’s mercy? Is not our own continued existence its proof? Do we not all hope for its continuing overflowing benefits? Yet which of us expects at the Last Judgment to encounter St. Arius, St. Mohamet, St. Martin Luther, St. Thomas Cranmer, St. Karl Marx? Modernist innovators, more culpable than all these if only for their example, have rejected the known truth, have changed the truth of God into a lie, have served the creature rather than the Creator, have blasphemed the Holy Ghost in calling upon His Authority for their lies. They lead those who believe them—because they masquerade as Catholic priests, bishops, and pope—to destruction. They have needlessly, deliberately, maliciously alienated others who believe the legitimacy of their position but cannot choke down their loathsome innovations. Should the despoiled be damned without their despoilers? God desires the salvation of all men. But are these men? Or devils? “They are the enemies of the Cross of Christ: whose end is destruction.” (Phil. iii. 18-9). “My people have been silent, because they had no knowledge. Because thou hast rejected knowledge I will reject thee, that thou shalt not do the office of the priesthood to Me.” (Osee iv. 6) The Church has preached and sponsored wars and crusades. It has conducted inquisitions, and burned incorrigible propagators of heresy as the worst of criminals—murderers of souls. Christ Himself said that such scandalizers were better drowned with a millstone necklace in the depths of the sea. St. Paul said of Alexander the coppersmith (2Tim. iv. 14-15): “the Lord will reward him according to his works: whom do thou also avoid: for he hath greatly withstood our words.” These modernists have greatly withstood the truth as they know it has been taught and understood by all generations of the whole Church. They have deliberately chosen the reward according fully with their works. They have steeped the Church in idolatry. They have stolen from God. Let them answer. They cannot escape the charge of apostasy on the grounds that the current majority has followed them. What conceivable approval can render lies true? Did not St. Paul prophesy (2Thess. ii. 3) an apostasy before the end? Is an apostasy any less an apostasy for being reluctant or misled? Is not the ignorance which permits our present situation in itself culpable? Has history not shown us enough examples, even in the highest places? How many serious splits in Christendom have been led by laymen? How many rifts were necessary? How necessary is the current “papal” opposition to traditional Catholicism? Who was forced to qualify for my “curse?” If the slightest chance exists that this “curse” will give any destroyer or replacer of tradition pause, will make him at least reflect upon or examine his actions or motives, then I will curse him before and after every meal—till he realizes that a changeable religion is a useless religion. I must love my enemies, not the enemies of the Cross of Christ. Such an obligation would tie me to Satan himself. Where is it prescribed: Thou shalt not curse or criticize evil; or Thou shalt love the devil? THE CROWNING DISLOYALTY TO GOD IS HERESY. It is the sin of sins, the very loathsomest of things which God looks down upon in this malignant world. Yet how little do we understand its excessive hatefulness! It is the polluting of God’s truth, which is the worst of all impurities. Yet how light we make of it! We look at it, and are calm. We touch it, and do not shudder. We mix with it and have no fear. We see it touch holy things and we have no sense of sacrilege. We breathe its odor and show no signs of detestation or disgust. Some of us affect its friendship; and some even extenuate its guilt. We do not love God enough to be angry for His glory.