HOLY MASS AND THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE: IS IT VALID? By Fr. Noel Barbara TRADITIO Traditional Roman Catholic Internet Site E-mail List: traditio@traditio.com, Web Page: http://www.traditio.com Copyright 1973 Fortes. Reproduction prohibited without authorization. INTRODUCTORY NOTE What follows is a significant part of Volume 1, Issue 4, of Fortes in Fide (Forts dans la Foi in the original French), meaning "Strong in the Faith"), authored by Fr. Noel Barbara, a French Traditional Catholic priest well-known for his valiant resistance to the post-Vatican II "reform" of the Catholic Church. This article is representative of that segment of traditional Catholic opinion which finds the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of Mass), introduced by the post-Vatican II Liturgical Consilium in 1969, essentially flawed on several grounds elucided by the previous popes and councils of the Church. ======================================================================== ORIGIN OF THIS STUDY The publication of the leaflet "The New Mass is Ambiguous" was the occasion of an important observation made to me by certain English and North American friends. In their view, this leaflet was good but timid, because in it I did not dare to proceed to the conclusion of the reasoning I had begun. For these friends, a Mass celebrated in the new rite in English is not only ambiguous, it is invalid because of the change made in the form of the consecration of the wine: "This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven." Their arguments did not convince me at all for, as I then understood the matter, this particular change cannot invalidate the consecration of the chalice, because of the double effect of this consecration, namely THE EFFECT OF PRESENCE, "this is the cup of My blood, etc." and THE EFFECT OF APPLICATION, "it will be shed, etc." At that time my reasoning was as follows: since the form has not been modified in its first part, the effect of Presence is realized, as the words "mysterium fidei" in the traditional form indicate, which are said before the second part of the form is even pronounced. At first sight and before any real study, it seemed to me that there could be no problem there. No doubt, to have modified the finality of application constituted an important change, making it a matter of sacrilege, but it did not invalidate the consecration of the chalice. Therefore, in a letter dated 10 April 1974, I wrote to my correspondents: "... if, in attacking the Novus Ordo, I have confined myself to its ambiguity, it is because on this point no one can make any objection. Now, since this point alone justifies the rejection of the new rite, what is the good of embarking on a discussion which will not win the agreement of all? You know the proverb: "HE WHO PROVES TOO MUCH PROVES NOTHING." What is more, I do not believe, as you maintain, that one can establish the invalidity of this rite of Mass by examining it in light of "APOSTOLICAE CURAE." As soon as I can find the time, I will look again at Leo XIII's letter and I will demonstrate to you that, in spite of the change which you have pointed out to me, a Mass celebrated in the new rite is valid, that is, of course, if the other conditions are fulfilled..." It pleased the Lord that I should find the necessary time to make this study during the nights between the Wednesday of Holy Week and Maundy Thursday and between the Thursday and Good Friday, the days, that is, of the Holy Eucharist and of the Holy Sacrifice. And here, I must emphasize that I undertook to make this study in the light of Pope Leo XIII's letter Apostolicae Curae, in order to demonstrate to my correspondents that, in spite of the change introduced into the form, a Mass so celebrated (other things being equal), was valid. Now, after studying the question, I came to a conclusion quite opposed to the idea which I had conceived of the new rite before this study. Our English and North American friends' views were sound: a Mass celebrated in the new rite was not ambiguous, but invalid. Taught by the heretical form of Cranmer, which their ancestors had suffered, they felt from the time of the first reforms of Paul VI, that the new rite was leading toward Protestantism, that is, to the destruction of the Mass. As the Very Reverend Father Guerard des Lauriers has declared: "In this matter, English Catholics have played the true role of the watch- dogs of Christianity." They "barked" the first against the so- called "New Mass", which in point of fact destroys the Mass. We will explain how. * * * THE APOSTOLIC LETTER ON ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS: DOCTRINAL VALUE OF THIS DOCUMENT Very sensitive about the new reform, which reminded them so much of what their forefathers had experienced (Cranmer's reform), my English and North American correspondents took their stand on the change made in the form for the consecration of the chalice. Viewed in the light of Apostolicae Curae this change appeared to them to be a substantial one in the essential part of the Mass. If they are right, I told myself, Masses celebrated in the new rite are invalid, but if I can prove the contrary, that will show that these Masses, although sacrilegious, are nevertheless valid. I thus began my work by studying the pontifical document. The Letter Apostolicae Curae of Pope Leo XIII, dated 13 September 1896, passes a definitive judgement on Anglican orders. The Pope wrote to this effect to the Cardinal Archbishop of Paris in November 1896: "It was Our intention TO DELIVER A FINAL JUDGEMENT, AND TO SETTLE ABSOLUTELY that most grave question of Anglican ordinations... We resolved the matter with arguments of such weight, and with words of such clarity that NO PRUDENT AND WELL-DISPOSED PERSON COULD POSSIBLY RAISE THE LEAST DOUBT ABOUT OUR JUDGEMENT; all Catholics are BOUND TO RECEIVE OUR DECISION WITH THE UTMOST RESPECT, as being FOREVER VALID, FIRM AND IRREVOCABLE (perpetuo firmam, ratam, irrevocabilem)" (A.S.S., Vol. 29, p. 664)[1] From this Papal document it stands out very clearly that the cause of the invalidity of the ordinations was twofold: defect of form and defect of intention, but that either of these defects was sufficient to render them invalid. Let is look at the text. Defect of form, that is, defect of sacramental signification. "In the rite for the performance and administration of any sacrament a distinction is justly made between its "CEREMONIAL" and its "ESSENTIAL" part, the latter being usually called its "MATTER and FORM". Moreover, it is well known that the sacraments of the New Law, being sensible signs which cause invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they cause and cause the grace which they signify. Now this signification, though it must be found IN THE ESSENTIAL RITE AS A WHOLE, that is, in both matter and form together, belongs chiefly to the form; for the matter is by itself the indeterminate part, which becomes determinate through the form. This is especially apparent in the sacrament or Order, the matter of which, so far as it needs to be considered here, is the imposition of hands. This by itself does not signify anything definite, being used equally for the conferring of certain orders and for administering Confirmation. "Now the words which until recent times have been generally held by Anglicans to be the proper form of presbyterial ordination - "RECEIVE THE HOLY GHOST" - certainly do not signify definitely the order of priesthood or its grace and power, which is pre- eminently the power "to consecrate and offer the true body and blood of the Lord" (Council of Trent) in that sacrifice which is no "mere commemoration of the sacrifice performed on the Cross" (ibid.)...." "These prayers have been deliberately stripped of everything which in the Catholic rite clearly sets forth the dignity and functions of the priesthood. It is impossible, therefore, for a form to be suitable or sufficient for a sacrament if it suppresses that which it ought distinctively to signify...." "But for just and adequate appraisal of the Anglican Ordinal it is above all important, besides considering what has been said about some of its parts, rightly to appreciate the circumstances in which it originated and was publicly instituted. It would take too long to set out a detailed account, nor is it necessary; the history of the period tells us clearly enough what were the sentiments of the authors of the Ordinal towards the Catholic Church, who were the heterodox associates whose help they invoked, to what end they directed their designs. They knew only too well THE INTIMATE BOND WHICH UNITES FAITH AND WORSHIP, LEX CREDENDI AND LEX SUPPLICANDI; AND SO, UNDER THE PRETEXT OF THE RESTORING THE ORDER OF THE LITURGY TO ITS PRIMITIVE FORM, THEY CORRUPTED IT IN MANY RESPECTS TO BRING IT INTO ACCORD WITH THE ERRORS OF THE INNOVATORS. As a result, not only is there in the whole Ordinal NO CLEAR MENTION of sacrifice, of consecration, of priesthood, of the power to consecrate and offer sacrifice, but, as We have already indicated, EVERY TRACE OF THESE AND SIMILAR THINGS REMAINING IN SUCH PRAYERS OF THE CATHOLIC RITE AS WERE NOT COMPLETELY REJECTED, WAS PURPOSELY REMOVED AND OBLITERATED.... "Even though some words in the Anglican Ordinal as it now stands may present the possibility of ambiguity, they cannot bear the same sense as they have in a Catholic rite. For, as we have seen, WHEN ONCE A NEW RITE HAS BEEN INTRODUCED DENYING OR CORRUPTING THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER AND REPUDIATING ANY NOTION WHATSOEVER OF CONSECRATION AND SACRIFICE, THEN THE FORMULA, "Receive the Holy Ghost" (that is, the Spirit Who is infused into the soul with the grace of the sacrament), IS DEPRIVED OF ITS FORCE; nor have the words, "for the office and work of a priest" or "bishop", etc., any longer their validity, being now mere names voided of the reality which Christ instituted." * * * Defect of intention. "With this intrinsic DEFECT OF FORM, then, there was joined a DEFECT OF INTENTION - of that intention which is likewise necessary for the existence of a sacrament. Concerning the mind or intention, inasmuch as it is in itself something interior, the Church does not pass judgement: but in so far as it IS EXTERNALLY MANIFESTED, SHE IS BOUND TO JUDGE OF IT. Now if, in order to effect and confer a sacrament, a person has seriously and correctly used the due matter and form, he is for that very reason presumed to have intended to do what the Church does. This principle is the basis of the doctrine that a sacrament is truly a sacrament even if it is conferred through the ministry of a heretic, or if one who is not himself baptized, provided the Catholic rite is used. But if, on the contrary, the rite is changed with the manifest purpose of introducing another rite which is not accepted by the Church, and of repudiating that which the Church does and which is something that by Christ's institution belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is evident, not merely that the intention necessary for a sacrament is lacking, but rather that AN INTENTION IS PRESENT WHICH IS ADVERSE TO AND INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SACRAMENT. (Leo XIII, op. cit.) * * * Having thus recalled the doctrine set out in Apostolicae Curae, it is not superfluous, in order to better appreciate its importance, to see what the great theologian Franzelin wrote in 1875, when he was consultor of the Holy Office at the time of an earlier inquiry into the same subject: "The Catholic rite was repudiated (i.e., under Edward VI and Elizabeth) and a new one adopted in accordance with a publicly professed heresy, with the aim of deleting from the rite all that signified the priestly power, which is the power of consecrating and offering the sacrifice of the New Testament... Since the sacraments of the New Law are visible efficacious signs, they effect what they signify; and so it is absurd to say that a visible rite in which is excluded the signification of the priestly power which ought to be conferred, can be a sacrament for the conferring of that power."[2] * * * In light of these principles, let us now study the Novus Ordo Missae, or the New Order of Mass, promulgated by Paul VI. To allow readers to follow this study, however, it is indispensable to call to mind certain truths. * * * REMINDER OF CERTAIN TRUTHS First truth. - We are right in the middle of a neo-modernist crisis. By this I mean that we are living in an age when to quote the words of St. Pius X, the number of those "men speaking perverse things" (Acts XX, 30), "vain talkers and seducers" (Tit. I, 10) "erring and driving into error" (2 Tim. III, 13)[3], has notably increased. "By arts entirely new and full of deceit, (they) are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church and as far as in them lies the possibility utterly to subvert the Kingdom of Christ."[4] And these "partisans of error are ... lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, ... are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; but ... in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open."[5] Even at the time when St. Pius X undertook the task of denouncing these men, the danger was not only exterior but "in the very veins and heart of the Church."[6] Since that time, not only have these enemies of the faith proliferated, but they have, also, secured for themselves most of the key posts, in bishoprics, secretariats, commissions, universities and even in Roman Congregations. A rumor has been circulating in Rome, which has not been denied, to the effect that the dismissal of Bugnini, and his sudden departure for the Middle East, was caused by the discovery that he belonged to the Freemasons, Bugnini, the principal deviser of the new liturgy. Then, an issue of the Italian review "Chiesa Viva" carries, on the fourth side of its cover, the Masonic "pedigree" of Cardinal Lienart who, together with Cardinals Frings, Alfrink, Dopfner and Suenens, were the principal movers in the subversion of the Second Vatican Council. Yes, let us be quite sure about it, the enemies of the faith are everywhere, and everywhere under cover. Since the publication of the present study in French, now more than two years ago, I have become quite certain that most, if not all of those who do not admit my thesis, reject it because, in practice, they do not admit this basic fact about the whole problem. For them the new liturgy is not the work of the subversion introduced into and now installed in the Church, but as rather the work of the Church itself. So, we state plainly, that he who does not admit that "adversaries of the Catholic Faith", as St. Pius X called them, or the "wolves in sheep's clothing",[7] as Our Savior designated them, are concealed "in the very bosom and heart of the Church" is not able to understand anything about the crisis through which we are living. It is even useless for him to read the study which we present in this number of Fortes in Fide. But he should realize, if he is engaged in the defense of the faith, that he is like that Don Quixote of whom the Apostle spoke, who fights but "as one beating the air".[8] For myself, I am fully convinced of this truth. The enemies of Christ are indeed inside the Church; we are betrayed by many of our religious leaders and superiors. Second truth - There are two characteristics peculiar to modernism: a) Modernists do not assail particular doctrines, as did the enemies of the past, but direct their attacks "to the very root (of doctrine), that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers".[9] A modernist cannot possess faith, for he inevitably rejects everything supernatural. b) Modernists are heretics, but they are also traitors: more hypocritical than Machiavelli, they possess the cunning of the infernal serpent under an appearance of being good apostles.[10] Third truth. - Confronted with such redoubtable enemies, we must take up again the encyclical "Pascendi" of Pope St. Pius X, study it, and make it our manual in the fight for the faith.[11] Amongst other things, we will learn from it to beware of modernists' declarations, even those which sound most orthodox. As masters of ambiguity, they are capable of utilizing Catholic formulas, whilst giving them a sense which is not Catholic. What is more, in spite of the ambiguous character of certain expressions used, their reformed rites, taken as a whole, are not ambiguous, but heretical. Their works should, thus, not be judged according to their declarations, but in the light of their practical conduct. For, like marxism, with which it has great affinities, modernism is also a "praxis", an action, a subversive manoeuvre. Fourth truth. - These heretics, or rather, as St. Pius X calls them, these "enemies of the faith" are benefitting, in practice, from the protection of Authority, whilst the defenders of the traditional faith are the object of all kinds of petty persecution. Think, for example, of the difference in the treatment of Hans Kung, Schillebeckx, Koenig, Suenens, on the one hand, and that meted out to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on the other.[12] Betraying one of their most imperative duties, those in authority in the Church now no longer issue condemnations, and the wolves which have entered the sheepfold are able, at their leisure, "to kill and destroy" the flock.[13] * * * (Submitter's Note: We jump now to Page 52 of the work, the intervening pages having to do principally with the influence of Masonic and possibly other secret societies now have within the Church. This, while interesting, is not necessary to Fr. Barbara's argument except to better bolster the idea that the intentions of the reformers are indeed perverted and go contrary to the Catholic religion:) CORRUPTION OF THE MASS TO BRING IT INTO LINE WITH THE PROTESTANT SUPPER A. - Defect of Intention The modification of the Mass pursued by the new reformers, this "intention, adverse to and incompatible with the sacrament" of which Leo XIII spoke, we find from the beginning, in the very idea of the Mass which they proposed, an idea embodied in Article 7 of Chapter II, "The structure, component elements and part of the Mass", of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (or General Instruction of the Roman Missal), as follows: CENA DOMINICA SIVE MISSA EST SACRA SYNAXIS SEU CONGREGATIO POPULI DEI IN UNUM CONVENIENTIS, SACERDOTE PRAESIDE, AD MEMORIALE DOMINI CELEBRANDUM. QUARE DE SANCTAE ECCLESIAE LOCALI CONGREGATIONE EMINENTER VALET PROMISSIO CHRISTI: "UBI SUNT DUO VEL TRES CONGREGATI IN NOMINE MEO, IBI SUM IN MEDIO EORUM".[17] "The Lord's Supper (or Mass)[18], is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of a local congregation of the Church: "Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in their midst." And here, let us not be side-tracked by the attempts at explanation furnished by the friends of the reformers, who tell us that "they did not wish to give a definition of the Mass"; or again, that "the pastoral concern of the authors of the Institutio made them leave aside doctrinal precisions in their instruction, but for all that they have not abandoned doctrine." Let us rather recall the statement of St. Pius X, who knew their like only too well: "It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists... to present their doctrines without order or systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are quite fixed and steadfast." Let us also again recall that other declaration of the same holy Pontiff: "There is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method."[19] * * * As all those who have criticized Article 7 of the Institutio Generalis have made clear, the definition of the Mass there given is not in accordance with Catholic doctrine as established forever by the Holy Council of Trent, but is rather in accordance with what has prevailed in the various Protestant churches: - For the authors of the Novus Ordo Missae, as is apparent from this definition, the Mass is simply reduced to the "Lord's Supper." - The expression, the "Lord's Supper", as adopted by the Protestants, is preferred by the new reformers to Catholic expressions, such as: "Mass", "Holy Mass", or "Holy Sacrifice of the Mass", all of which expressions Luther ended by eliminating. - This Supper, this meal, is characterized as being that of "the assembly ... with a priest presiding", gathered together "to celebrate the memorial of the Lord". As Rincelet wrote, "nothing in the formula suggests a sacrificial action, nor a ministerial action reserved exclusively to the priest. Luther would have endorsed all of this".[20] But, the defenders of the new rite will object, you are basing your argument on the first version of Article 7, when this version has been fully rectified in "all the points to which criticism has latterly drawn attention". (Annibale Bugnini) And, in fact, there was a new version of Article 7 which most defenders of the Mass have accepted as orthodox, though in reality it is no more Catholic than the first one. Do these defenders of the Mass, who have been so easily satisfied, not know of the declaration made by Bugnini on the subject of the new version? They certainly take no notice of it. And yet, in the May 1970 issue of Notitiae, the organ of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, Bugnini, the secretary of this congregation declared that after an examination of the "introduction" of the new rite, made in 1969, "the fathers and experts of the CONCILIUM found in it no doctrinal error, and no reason to make any changes," and thus without adding "anything new" all that happened was that "a new version was made in order to make clearer certain expressions".[21] This declaration is of the greatest importance. As Rincelet very judiciously points out[22], it shows most particularly: - That the Concilium has the full approbation of Authority since, though suspect as to its orthodoxy, it did not refer its decisions to the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a body instituted for just such cases, but constituted itself judge in its own cause. - That if "the members of the Concilium found no doctrinal error (in Article 7)[23], and no reason to make any changes", this obliges us to recognize that "it is the orthodoxy of the Concilium that poses a problem, but this was already notably so, because of the scandalous presence in it of the six Protestant members". - That, from the moment that the "new version" was made, neither to correct "any possible doctrinal error" of the first version, nor to "make any changes in it", we must understand the new version of Article 7 in accordance with the previous text". Let us, therefore, read the new version and understand it in the light of the first since, we repeat, on the word of its author, the second version brings no change of a doctrinal nature to the first. Here is the new text. "IN MISSA SEU CENA DOMINICA POPULUS DEI IN UNUM CONVOCATUR, SACERDOTE PRAESIDENTE PERSONAMQUE CHRISTI GERENTE, AD MEMORIALE DOMINI SEU SACRIFICIUM EUCHARISTICUM CELEBRANDUM. QUARE DE HUIUS MODI SANCTAE ECCLESIAE COADUNATIONE LOCATI EMINENTER VALET PROMISSIO CHRISTI: "UBI SUNT DUO VEL TRES CONGREGATI IN NOMINE MEO IBI SUM IN MEDIO EORUM" (Matt. XVIII, 20). IN MISSAE ENIM CELEBRATIONE, IN QUA SACRIFICIUM CRUCIS PERPETUATUR, CHRISTUS REALITER PRAESENS ADEST IN IPSO COETU, IN SUO NOMINE CONGREGATO, IN PERSONA MINISTRI, IN VERBO SUO, ET QUIDEM SUBSTANTIALITER ET CONTINENTER SUB SPECIEBUS EUCHARISTICIS." "In the Mass or Lord's Supper the people of God are called together into one place where the priest presides over them and acts in the person of Christ. They assemble to celebrate the memorial of the Lord, or Eucharistic sacrifice. Therefore, the promise of Christ: "Wherever two of three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them", applies in a special way to this gathering of the local church. For in the celebration of the Mass, in which the sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated, Christ is really present in the assembly itself which has gathered in his name, in the person of his minister, in his word, and also substantially and continuously under the eucharistic species." (C.T.S. translation, with some amendments.) This second version, revised and augmented but not corrected, is no more orthodox then the first. As Rincelet shows (Op. cit. p. 16), several ambiguities have been substantially maintained: 1) The two suspect ambiguities between, on the one hand, "Mass" and "Lord's Supper", and on the other hand, "Memorial of the Lord" and "Eucharistic sacrifice." Since the Latin conjunction "seu" denotes the choice between two equivalent things, the new wording thus re-enforces the error insinuated in the first version, by identifying the "Mass" with the "Lord's Supper", and the "Eucharistic sacrifice" with the "Memorial of the Lord": "In Missa SEU Cena Dominica" = In the Mass, OR WHAT AMOUNTS TO THE SAME THING, in the Lord's Supper; and "Ad memoriale Domini SEU sacrificium eucharisticum celebrandum" = To celebrate the Lord, OR WHAT AMOUNTS TO THE SAME THING, the Eucharistic sacrifice." The new version thus OBSTINATELY PERSISTS in seeing in the Mass only the Lord's meal, and in only speaking of sacrifice in the sense of a memorial. 2) An ambiguity on the subject of the real Presence of Christ: What real presence is in question? Real "physical" Presence, or real "spiritual" presence? Luther also claimed to believe in the "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist; but as he understood it, this real presence was wholly a spiritual one. For him the bread remained bread, and the wine remained wine, to which he added a spiritual presence of Christ, "who being really present everywhere", he said, "can also be present in the Eucharist". Now, mark well, in the version of Article 7 done, it was said, "to make clearer certain expressions", the clarification has not been in a Catholic sense, but in a Protestant sense. In effect, as in the first version, after applying "to the Mass or Lord's Supper", the text of Our Lord in St. Matthew XVIII, 20, which signifies only a real spiritual presence, the new version makes the confusion worse by assimilating the "real presence under the eucharistic species" to the "real presence" "in the assembly itself ... in the person of his minister", and "in his word". How, without further explanation, would the presence "substantially and continuously under the eucharistic species" be taken to denote the Catholic doctrine since, on the one hand, the expression used is not explicitly Catholic, and on the other, there is a manifest refusal to make use of the expressions consecrated by the Church; and lastly, because of the declaration by the author himself that the new version brings nothing new to the first version? It is, thus, in the sense of the first version that this particular expression must be understood. 3) An ambiguity on the subject of the sacrificial character of the Mass: "The celebration of the Mass whereby the sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated." What perpetuation is in question in this text: one by way of memorial or one by way of renewal? The intention of the writer of this explanation is made manifest by the sense of the phrase which gives us his thought. Now, the sense of this phrase depends on the two preceding phrases, since these all form a unity: the second is linked to the first by "Quare = therefore", and the third to the second by "enim = for". The sacrifice of the Cross is thus perpetuated, not by the real physical presence produced by the transubstantiation of the oblations, but is perpetuated in the celebration of the Mass such as it has been described, that is, in the meal of the assembly presided over by the priest, and called together to celebrate the memorial of the Lord, or what amounts to the same thing, the eucharistic sacrifice. Thus, as it is nowhere affirmed, either in the first or the second version of Article 7, that the perpetuation of the sacrifice is brought about in a sacramental manner by the consecration-transubstantiation, it is because the authors of the new rite wished to make us understand that the perpetuation comes about by way of memorial. 4) Ambiguity on the subject of the truly ministerial character of the priesthood of the priest. The new version certainly contains good words about the priest who "acts in the person of Christ", but for "presiding over" the assembly. Regarding his sacrificial action, however, during which he truly "acts in persona Christi", the new version, like the old, obstinately makes no mention, thus allowing the ambiguity to persist about this doctrine which the Protestants in the Concilium rejected. So, from a study of the new version of Article 7 in the light of the declaration of its principal author, it emerges clearly that the idea which the new reformers have of the Mass, and which they teach, is heretical by a carefully calculated dissimulation. And here, we must not forget also, that the first version of the Institutio Generalis, and in particular its Article 7, having given rise to grave doubts, criticisms were made on precise points: -- on the propitiatory character of the sacrifice of the Mass; -- on the real physical presence of Christ under the consecrated species; -- on the efficacy of the consecration-transubstantiation; -- on the ministerial action reserved exclusively to the priest. These criticisms were set out in the "Brief Critical Study" (see Note 16), which was presented to the Pope by two Cardinals, one of whom, Cardinal Ottaviani, was in a sense, the very soul of the one-time Holy Office. Lastly, let us not forget that, when consulted about the faith, on account of THEIR ambiguous text, the authors of that text had to profess clearly the Catholic faith, even had it been at the peril of their lives. Since proper formulas, consecrated by the usage of the Church, exist and were known to them, their obstinacy in not using these to profess the faith clearly and without ambiguity, shows that they pursue a malign purpose: the corruption of the Mass, in order to bring it into accord with the Protestant doctrine of the Lord's Supper, which denies all our eucharistic dogmas. Their obstinacy shows also that they harbor AN INTENTION CONTRARY AND OPPOSED TO THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS such as Christ instituted it and the Church has defined it. DECLARATIONS WHICH CONFIRM OUR OPINION The existence of this intention, contrary and opposed to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, is confirmed by a number of declarations made by bishops, officially Catholic, as well as by Protestants: - Declaration of the Archbishop of Malines, Joseph SUENENS, Primate of Beligium, Cardinal of the holy roman Church, and personal friend of Paul VI: "One could make an impressive list of the propositions, taught as alone being valid by Rome in the past, even very recently, which were eliminated by the Conciliar Fathers of Vatican II." - Declaration of Cardinal WILLEBRANDS, special Envoy of the Pope to the worldwide Lutheran Congress at Evian, in January 1970: "A truer appreciation of the person and the work of Luther is imperative... Did not the Second Vatican Council itself welcome the demands which, amongst others, were made by Luther, and through which many aspects of the Christian faith are at this present time better expressed than they were formerly? Luther, in an extraordinary manner in his time, provided the basis of theology and the Christian life". - Declaration of Archbishop ETCHEGARAY, President of the French Episcopal Conference, to the XVth General Assembly of French Protestants : "You can no longer claim the monopoly of Reform, if you recognize the serious efforts at biblical, doctrinal; and pastoral renewal undertaken by the Church of the Second Vatican Council." - Declaration of Monsieur Roger MEHL (Protestant), after examining a book of the Swedish theologian Vajta: "If account is taken of the decisive evolution of the Catholic liturgy, of the possibility of substituting for the Canon of the Mass other liturgical prayers, of the eclipse of the idea which would make of the Mass a sacrifice, of the possibility of communicating under both kinds, then there is no longer any reason for the Reformed Churches to forbid their members to take part in the Eucharist in the Roman Church." - Declaration which appeared in one of the great Protestant reviews, and was reported by Jean GUITTON in the French newspaper La Croix, of December 1969: "The new Catholic eucharistic prayers have dropped the false perspective of a sacrifice offered to God." - Official declaration of the Superior Consistory of the Church of the Augsburg Confession of Alsace and Lorraine, dated 8 December 1973: "... Given the present forms of the eucharistic celebration in the Catholic Church, and by reason of present convergences in theology, many obstacles which might have prevented a Protestant from participating in its eucharistic celebration seem to be on the way to disappearing. It should be possible for a Protestant today, to recognize in the Catholic eucharistic celebration the supper instituted by the Lord (i.e. the Protestant communion service)... We attach great importance to the use of the new prayers with which we feel at home, and which have the advantage of giving a different interpretation to the sacrifice, than we were accustomed to attribute to Catholicism. These prayers invite us to recognize an evangelical theology of sacrifice." (Emphases ours in these extracts.) The reader should observe that in this last declaration, the Augsburg Protestants say publicly and officially why, in order to participate "in a Catholic eucharistic celebration", they "attach great importance to the use of the new prayers", with which they "feel at home", as Protestants. This is because these new eucharistic prayers of what we call, the New Mass, "have the advantage of giving a DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION to the theology of sacrifice" than they "were accustomed to attribute to Catholicism". In order better to underline the fact that they have perceived the importance of the changes made in the new rite, they emphasize in separate phrases, "the present forms of the eucharistic celebration in the Catholic Church", and the "present convergences in theology". Now "to converge" means "to meet": theologies which converge, are theologies which meet in becoming identical. Unfortunately, we are obliged to declare that, as protestant theology has not become Catholic, it is the theology of the new eucharistic prayers which has become Protestant. Moreover, this protestantization of the theology of the new eucharistic prayers is also emphasized in the clear declaration of these Protestants that they "feel at home" in their use, for these prayers have given "a different interpretation to the theology of sacrifice", or as that other Protestant declaration cited above says more brutally: these eucharistic prayers "have dropped the false perspective of a sacrifice offered to God". Finally, for those who might still have some doubts on this subject, we will quote what the French bishops have included in the "New Sunday Missal" (1973 edition, pp. 382-3), as a "reminder of faith": It is not a question of adding one Mass to another" exteriorly or interiorly so well celebrated that they obtain grace from God. IT IS SIMPLY A MATTER OF COMMEMORATING THE UNIQUE SACRIFICE ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED, the perfect Sacrifice in which Christ offered himself, and of associating ourselves with it, of communicating there together, in making ours the oblation which he made to God in his own person for our salvation." (Our emphasis.) Let us not be surprised at this sliding of the new "Catholic" theology into the Protestant heresy. The former Secretary of the Holy office pointed it out to the Pope at the first appearance of the Novus Ordo Missae, of which he said that it "represents, as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass, as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent". If we may repeat ourselves, we have seen in the Institutio Generalis, and especially in Article 7, the "present convergences in theology" which make it "possible for a Protestant today, to recognize in the Catholic eucharistic celebration the supper instituted by the Lord", in other words the Protestant Lord's Supper. In conclusion, the admissions of certain supposedly Catholic bishops, as well as the declarations of authentic Protestants, confirm our discovery, namely, that THE END PURSUED and in great part already achieved, of the authors of the Novus Ordo Missae was indeed to REPLACE THE CATHOLIC RITE, "so pure from error, that there is nothing contained therein which does not in the highest degree savor of a certain holiness and piety" (Council of Trent), BY A RITE which "represents, as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass", a rite which can be used by all the heretical Protestant sects because BROUGHT INTO LINE WITH THEIR HERESIES. Here we must repeat yet again once more: the heretics with whom we are confronted are double traitors, for in their treachery they take good care not to deny openly the doctrines which they reject, and so, are not to be judged by their declarations, but by their deeds, their "praxis". To them, more than to any other heretics, the criterion of Our Lord applies, that by their works we shall know them. Now, the works which we have discovered are: -- the new definition, heretical by carefully calculated dissimulation, given to the Mass in Article 7 of the Institutio Generalis of the Novus Ordo Missae; -- the admissions of the "new theologians" and the "new style" Catholic bishops, which we have set out; -- the declarations of genuine Protestants; -- the elimination of the ancient traditional Ordo Missae, which has been condemned, and which is hated and persecuted in practice, because it is in absolute opposition to the new eucharist. It is in accordance with this combination of "works", that we judge the new liturgy. And because the whole shows clearly the object aimed at by the new rite, and that this new mass was conceived, worked out and produced according to the new idea which the innovators had elaborated of the Mass, and in accordance with the ends which they pursued, this new liturgy contains within itself and propagates, by the fact alone of its utilization, "an intention contrary and opposed to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, such as Christ instituted it and the Church has defined it". B. - Defect of Form We must now demonstrate how "the present forms of the eucharistic celebration in the Catholic Church", that is to say, "the new eucharistic prayers", or new canons, have been brought into line with the Protestant Supper by a whole collection of innovations which involve a substantial change. FIRST INNOVATION. The new rite imposes new consecration formulae: for, in spite of appearances, there is a real question of new formulae for the consecration being imposed by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (of 3 April 1969). Certainly, the Pope does not say that he is changing the double Eucharistic form, which goes back to the origin of this Sacrament, but, in fact, he changes it in practice. Let us read his text. "ATTAMEN SIVE UT PASTORALIBUS, QUAS NOMINANT, RATIONIBUS CONSULERETUR, SIVE UT CONCELEBRATIO EXPEDITIUS PROCEDERET, JUSSIMUS VERBA DOMINICA IN QUALIBET CANONIS FORMULA UNA EADEMQUE ESSE. ITAQUE IN QUAVIS PRECATIONE EUCHARISTICA ILLA SIC PROFERRI VOLUMUS; SUPRA PANEM; ACCIPITE IT MANDUCATE EX HOC OMNES; HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, QUOD PRO VOBIS TRADETUR; ET SUPRA CALICEM; ACCIPITE ET BIBITE EX EO OMNES; HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI, QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM. HOC FACITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIONEM." "For pastoral reasons, however, and to facilitate concelebration, we have directed that the words of the Lord be identical in each eucharistic prayer, we wish that the words be as follows; over the bread: ACCIPITE IT MANDUCATE, etc.; over the chalice: ACCIPITE ET BIBITE, etc. (ICEL Translation). Several discoveries can be made from the contents of this ordinance. First discovery. Let us not forget that the Apostles celebrated the Holy Sacrifice from the beginning, before writing their epistles, or the Gospels. Now, from the very first days, in consecrating the Eucharist a "pre-Scriptural" formula has always been used, which the Apostles received from Christ, and which they transmitted to their successors. "CREDIMUS IGITUR, QUOD FORMAM VERBORUM, SICUT IN CANONE REPERITUR ET A CHRISTO APOSTOLI, ET AB IPSIS EORUM ACCEPERINT SUCCESSORES. We believe, therefore, that the Apostles received from Christ and transmitted to their successors the formula of words, as it is found in the Canon."[24] Breaking with this tradition, the Constitution "Missale Romanum" substitutes a new formula, scriptural, no doubt, but which has the peculiarity of having always been preferred by the Protestants, since it underlines more the narrative of the supper than the sacrificial action of the Catholic priesthood. Second Discovery. The new arrangement of words given in this Constitution breaks with the immemorial practice of the Church on another point. The Church has always separated the sacramental words, which the priest pronounces "in persona Christi", from the words preceding them, which form part of the narrative of the supper. Now, this joining together of the two parts, which is brought about by the new formula, obliges the celebrant to say these words in the narrative tone of a memorial and not, as our fathers have always done, in the affirmative tone of one who accomplishes a personal action. As the "Brief Critical Study" puts it: In the Novus Ordo Missae "the consecration formulae are now pronounced by the priest as part of a historic narrative, and no longer express a categorical affirmation on the part of Him in Whose person the priest acts: Hoc est Corpus meum, (and not: Hoc est Corpus Christi)". Third discovery. This decision of the Pope changes the essential part of the Mass by introducing an innovation in the very form of the Eucharist: in the form for the consecration of the bread, "Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes", and in that for the chalice, "Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes". These other words do not belong to the form of consecration. As the authors of the Brief Critical Study of 1969 pointed out, in the ancient consecration formula "the punctuation and typographical layout of the formula ... and the giving of the sacramental words in larger type in the center of the page and often in a different color, clearly detached (them) from the historical context. By such skilful means the formula was given a separate, AUTONOMOUS value. The constitution Missale Romanum, however, gives the preliminary words as belonging to the consecration formulae: "illa sic proferri volumus: supra panem: Accipite...supra calicem : Accipite et bibite..." Henceforth, the eating and drinking (the meal aspect) is placed on an equal footing with the consecration itself (the sacrificial aspect), and this, in the present ecumenical climate, will permit the idea of a supper rapidly to supplant the reality of the Mass. Fourth discovery. Let us note also that the last noted innovation leans strongly towards an understanding of the words of consecration in a symbolic sense, and of blurring, nay even of suppressing, the sacrificial aspect of the Mass in favor of a simple memorial or, as the Protestants of Alsace-Lorraine said, of "giving a different interpretation to the theology of sacrifice than they were accustomed to attribute to Catholicism". By this unprecedented innovation, the Pope introduced "in practice" and "objectively" into the very essence of the Mass, the eating, or the meal aspect which, though it is an integral part, is not the essential part. Fifth discovery. Finally, this Constitution changes even the "anamnesis" (or memorial). In the traditional Mass the words are: "Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in mei memoriam faceitis = As often as you do these things, you shall do them in memory of Me". The spirit of this formula, as the Catholic Church has always understood it, is not an invitation to us to recall to mind Christ or the Last Supper, simply to remember Him or be reminded of Him. It is an order to do again what Christ did, and to do it again in the same manner in which He did it Himself. (In Greek: EIS TEN EMOU ANAMNESIN, that is, "directed to My memory". [Brief Critical Study]). Henceforth the new canons, however, will cause to be said: "Hoc facite in meam commemorationem = Do this in memory of Me." As the authors of the Brief Critical Study also note, this formula "proclaimed, as it will be daily, in the vernacular, will irreparably shift the emphasis in the minds of the hearers on to the "memory" of Christ as the END of the eucharistic action, while it is in fact the BEGINNING. The ultimate idea of COMMEMORATION will very soon take the place of the idea of sacramental action". Here it is important for us to recall that in order to impress upon the people the idea of commemoration, or simple memorial, Luther required that the Canon, and above all the words of the Supper, should be uttered in the vernacular and aloud, for "in this way, the people will learn from the words themselves of Scripture that there is no question of making a sacrifice, but only a memorial of Christ". In France, moreover, it is in this way that the Mass is presented in the New Sunday Missal. Those responsible for this book, the French bishops, are thus well in the spirit both of Luther and of the Novus Ordo Missae when they teach, among the "indispensable reminders of faith", that: "There is no question of adding one Mass to another, exteriorly and interiorly so well celebrated that they will obtain grace from God. IT IS SIMPLY A MATTER OF MAKING A COMMEMORATION OF THE UNIQUE SACRIFICE ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED, THE PERFECT SACRIFICE IN WHICH CHRIST OFFERED HIMSELF, of associating ourselves with it, and of there communicating together, by making our own the oblation which He made in His own person for our salvation."[25] All these discoveries oblige me to state that even if these new "consecration formulae" were chosen "for pastoral reasons and to facilitate concelebration", they greatly facilitate, in actual fact, the slide from the Catholic doctrine of the Mass towards the Protestant doctrine of the Supper; or, as the Lutherans of Alsace- Lorraine put it, towards "giving a different interpretation to the theology of the sacrifice than they were accustomed to attribute to Catholicism". SECOND INNOVATION. - A change made in the second part of the consecration of the chalice. In the vernacular formulation in certain languages at least, English, German, Spanish, etc., the new form for the consecration of the wine has undergone a substantial modification. In place of: "...My blood... which shall be shed for you, and FOR MANY, unto the remission of sins", the new formula says: "...My blood. It will be shed for you AND FOR ALL MEN so that sins may be forgiven." Does this substantial change, of itself, render invalid a Mass celebrated with this new form? At first sight it might be thought that it does not, and for two reasons: 1. Because all the manuals of theology [26] teach: "certum est ad validam consecrationem vini, requiri Christi verba: HIC EST CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, vel HIS EST SANGUINIS MEUS. (It is certain that for the valid consecration of the wine, the words of Christ are required: This is the chalice of My blood, or This is my blood.)" 2. Because the form must signify the effect of the Sacrament. Now, in this sacrament the effect is two-fold: The effect of the real corporal Presence of Christ, and the effect of the application of the fruits of His passion. This double effect is clearly expressed in the traditional form: a) Effect of Presence: "This is the chalice of My blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith"; b) Effect of application: "which shall be shed for you and for many, unto the remission of sins". In the new vernacular form, in several languages, a substantial change is introduced into the second part of it. It is the signification of the effect of application which has been substantially changed. It seems, however, that the first part of the form, which still signifies the effect of the Real Presence, must be realized in spite of the change made in the second part. And, if the Presence is realized, the Mass is thus valid. Now, it would seem that it is realized as soon as the words of the first part are pronounced since, in the traditional form, before pronouncing the second part, the priest proclaims the realization of the mysterium fidei, namely the transubstantiation. What consequence, then, would the change made in the second part have? Even if it does not impair the validity of the consecration of the chalice, the substantial change made in the second part of the form constitutes, in itself, a grave fault; for in fact, it is in no one's power the change the finality, or end, for which Christ willed to institute the Mass. Is it quite certain, however, that this particular change does not impair the validity of the consecration? In the sacraments the form expresses the will of Christ, and it is precisely for this reason that it is in no one's power to modify the form of the sacraments because, if the form is modified, we are no longer sure of the validity of a sacrament. Moreover, is not the effect of the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist conditioned by the effect of application? The philosophy of common sense teaches us that, if in the realization of things the means employed comes first and the end, or what is sought after, follows on; in the intention of the agent, however, what is of primary importance, that which he seeks above all, the end which conditions his activity and the choice of means, is what he wishes to effect. In the institution of the Eucharist, what was the dominant intention of Christ? What did He propose and wish to do? Here, we must remember that the will of the God-Man was twofold: a) Antecedent will embracing all the creatures for whom the Redemption was intended. This is the will of the God-Man in itself, which embraces all men. On the side of God, the Redemption brought about on the Cross is universal. "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners"[27]; "(God) Who will have all men to be saved";[28] "(God) that spared not even His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all;[29] "for (Jesus Christ) He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world".[30] b) Consequent will. This is the will of the God-Man, taking into account Man's consent and the pre-destination of the Father: it is the Redemption accomplished. Now, in its accomplishment, the Redemption is not universal, because there are some who are damned. Certainly, the God-Man had in Himself the desire that His sacrifice should profit all men, but He knew that, in fact, His sacrifice would not benefit all. He willed, by a consequent will, that "the fruits and advantages" of the Passion He was about to suffer, of the Blood that He was about to shed for the salvation of all mankind, should be applied to the elect who would profit by it: VOBIS IT MULTIS. This is the traditional doctrine clearly explained by the holy Council of Trent in its Catechism [31]: "The additional words FOR YOU AND FOR MANY, ...serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind has received from it, we shall easily find that IT PERTAINS NOT UNTO ALL, BUT TO MANY OF THE HUMAN RACE. When therefore Our Lord said "For you", He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He spoke. When He added "and for many", He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles. "WITH REASON, therefore, WERE THE WORDS "FOR ALL" NOT USED, AS IN THIS PLACE THE FRUITS OF THE PASSION ARE ALONE SPOKEN OF, AND TO ELECT ONLY DID HIS PASSION BRING THE FRUIT OF SALVATION. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: "Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many" (Heb. IX, 28); and also of the words of our Lord in John: "I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom Thou hast given me, because they are Thine". (Jn. XVII, 9)." To attain this end, this object, to realize this consequent will, namely the application of the fruits of His Passion to the elect who would profit from it, Christ chose as means to make Himself really present in this Sacrament. To change this end, this object, is to change the primordial intention, the consequent will of Christ in instituting this Sacrament and, by that very fact, to render of very doubtful validity a Mass so celebrated. But, certain people will object, since you mentioned earlier that all serious authors teach as certain that, for a valid consecration of the wine, only the words of Christ: "This is the Chalice of My blood" or "This is My blood", are required; how can you maintain that the change in the second part of the form may render invalid the consecration of the chalice, seeing that the words recognized as essential by all theologians have been preserved? The answer is simple. The consecration with the new formula is of doubtful validity, not because the essential words have not been preserved, but because they are not uttered with the same intention as Christ had in mind when instituting the Mass. They are being uttered "pro vobis et pro omnibus", and not "pro vobis et pro multis". Let us not forget that the form of a sacrament being the expression of the will of Christ, it is not in anyone's power to change the form given by Him. Thus, because the form has been changed, there is no longer the assurance of having done what Christ willed. This change renders the consecration of the chalice very doubtful, and even that of the bread, for it is the whole Mass which was instituted "pro vobis et pro multis". A Query. The only case which the partisans of the new form could make against us would be the following. In uttering the new formula "for you and for all men", a celebrant could very well be thinking only of the Passion which Christ suffered for all men, and not of the application of that Passion, which is only "vobis et multis". In such a hypothetical case, would he not have the intention of doing what the Church does? Reply. 1) If, in utilizing the new form, "for you and for all men", the celebrant thinks only of the Passion which Christ suffered for all men, and utters the formula thinking that the Mass, which renews the ineluctable consequence, the suppression of the eternity of hell (an error much in vogue and very widespread in our times), then a Mass celebrated with this intention is certainly invalid, since, in fact, such a celebrant, by this intention, introduces an error into the form which completely vitiates his Mass. 2) If, in saying "for you and for all men", the celebrant has no particular intention, and certainly not the intention of rejecting the eternity of the pains of hell, it could be thought that he had no intention in opposition to that of Christ in instituting this sacrament. In itself, "for all men", which refers to the antecedent will, does not exclude the effect of the consequent will, signified, according to the Catechism of the Council of Trent by "pro vobis et pro multis"; however, the fact of changing the form remains a grave matter: and in effect, in practice, since the new form does not express the primordial will of Christ, His consequent will, a doubt remains as to the validity of a Mass so celebrated. What is more, coming from the modernists, whose aims are subversive, the change is very suspect. The reply of Pope Zacharias to St. Boniface, Apostle of Germany, lends support to this opinion. The latter wondered whether he ought to repeat the baptisms administered by a priest who, little versed in the language of Cicero, had employed the following form: "Ego baptizo te in nomine Patria, Filia et Spiritus Sancti." St. Boniface held these baptisms to be invalid. Zacharias replied: "Sed, sanctissime frater, si ille qui baptizavit non errorem introducens aut haeresim, sed pro sola ignorantia romanae locutionis infringendo linguam, ut supra fati sumus, baptizans dixisset, non possumus consentire ut denuo baptizentur."[*] (But, most venerable brother, if he who baptized introduced neither error nor heresy into the formula, but distorted it only through ignorance of the Latin tongue, as we have said above, we cannot allow these baptisms to be repeated.) The Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique which reports this fact explains: "The form in this case was susceptible of a double interpretation, one orthodox, the other heretical; the intention of the minister gave it its value: in acting in mere ignorance of the language, he conferred the sacrament: had he introduced an error into the form, his intention would have completely vitiated the rite, and it would have no effect.[32] To this explanation I will add only one important remark: in the case of the new form of consecration the plea of ignorance of the language could not be invoked, since it is certain vernacular forms which are in question. Objection by the defenders of the new rite. The defenders of the new rite can object that this important change, even if found in certain vernacular versions, does not exist in the Latin text, the only official text. In consequence, they will attempt to reject the proof which I have adduced against the Novus Ordo Missae because of this particular innovation. It is to forestall this objection that I want to emphasize that in such a manner of proceeding lies a further manifestation of the hypocritical character of the modernist methods employed by the authors of the new rite. However, if we do not lose sight of the fact that modernism is a "praxis", a heresy in action, and that it is in action at the very time when it claims to affirm the contrary; also that, for a modernist, the most orthodox formulas do not necessarily have the Catholic meaning which we recognize in them, then we will easily discover the tactics used. The tactics are, on the one hand, to draw up a passable Latin text which, for the mass of the faithful will, in practice, serve no purpose, or very little, but behind which, when attacked, those in authority can always retreat to dodge an accusation of heresy; on the other hand, to authorize (let us not forget that an authority which is silent is one that consents) for the general use of the faithful, erroneous translations. In virtue of the law "lex credendi, lex orandi", and also "lex orandi, lex credendi", these translations will alter by usage, and practice, the faith of the faithful. Is this not diabolical cunning? But is it not just what we see happening? What is more, Authority, which has taken the initiative in dismantling the "insurmountable barrier", raised by the Council of Trent "against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery" of the Mass (you have doubtless recognized here the words of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, in a letter sent to the Pope with the Brief Critical Study in 1969); and which does not condemn, and thus permits, and leaves a free passage (we even know that it encourages them) to erroneous translations, is the accomplice of all the heresies which it refuses to condemn, in contempt of the "duty" which St. Pius X called "the most sacred duty of the pastoral office". Superior authority is, thus, really responsible for this innovation, and this innovation makes such an important change in the consecration of the chalice, that a Mass so celebrated is, at least, of very doubtful validity. THIRD INNOVATION. - The new rite includes an impressive combination of modifications, all calculated to bring our Mass into line with the Protestant Supper, and entailing a change in the signification of the form. * * * Before proving this accusation, let me recall once again modernist methods. With the aim of maintaining their position in the Church - for their aim is to corrupt her, or as they say, make her evolve from within - the modernists, far from openly denying her doctrines, often make a show of proclaiming them. But, each time they do proclaim them, they always give them a different interpretation from that of the Catholic Church. Thus, for example, in the reform of worship, though it is true to say that certain modernists, as "admirers of symbolism, are disposed to be more indulgent on this head", they always manage to modify the meaning of such traditional forms as they do preserve, because they know "only too well the intimate bond which unites faith and worship"; thus, the meaning of these traditional formulae is distorted in conformity with erroneous and heretical doctrines, under the pretext of bringing them back to their primitive form. The meaning of traditional formulas is most often modified by them by means of apparently insignificant changes of rite; but since these apparently insignificant rites explain and make clear the meaning of the form, their suppression or modification causes the form no longer clearly to signify what it expresses. Thus, by apparently insignificant means, profound, indeed substantial changes are brought about. In consequence, when confronted with modernists, we must not lose sight of the fact that their true intentions become clear from the modifications and innovations which they introduce, when viewed as a whole, for these all converge on the end they have in view. * * * When looking at the Mass, and the multiple changes brought about by a ceaselessly evolving reform, - let us consider, for example, group Masses, youth masses, pop masses, which include the participation and communion of non-Catholics, celebrated by priests without any vestments, seated around little tables, using kitchen utensils in place of sacred vessels, etc. -- we are really forced to the conclusion that all these apparently anarchic changes follow a definite pattern and all tend: -- to blur, to the point of passing over in complete silence, even to deny the sacrificial and propitiatory aspect of the Mass, in order to emphasize only the aspects of a communal meal and that of a sacrifice of praise or thanksgiving; -- to diminish the role of the priest in favor of that of the assembly. There is even talk of "masses without a priest", and experiments in this line are made and encouraged at a time when private Masses without a congregation are tending to disappear, since these are declared to be a nonsense; -- to cause the real corporal presence of Christ, produced by the consecration-transubstantiation performed by the priest, to be forgotten, in favor of the real spiritual presence realized by the assembly gathered together in the name of Jesus. To sum up, in spite of their anarchical appearances, all these changes are perfectly orchestrated and bring about de facto, a substantial change in the essential part of the Mass. Let us study some of these changes. I have chosen the suppression of the genuflection immediately after the consecration of the bread and after that of the wine, and the displacement of the two words "mysterium fidei" in the consecration of the chalice. In reflecting on these things, let us not lose sight of the fact that, in the words of Paul VI himself, there is "a revival of modernism" in the Church. * * * The changes seem, apparently, to be insignificant. We will demonstrate the very grave repercussions which they have on the question of the validity of the Mass. We know that a sacrament must signify the grace which it causes and cause the grace which it signifies. This signification must be found in the essential rite as a whole, that is, in both matter and form; but, as Leo XIII made it clear, "it belongs chiefly to the form", in this case to the formulas of consecration of the bread and the wine. Before the introduction of the two changes which we have called "apparently insignificant", the adoration by the priest and by those assisting clearly manifested that the utterance of the form by the priest had really produced what it signified. As for the "mysterium fidei", included in the consecration of the chalice, it also signified in its own way, but clearly, that the "mystery of faith", the real physical Presence of Christ in place of the substances of bread and wine, which had disappeared, was accomplished. There was no doubt possible; the two formulas uttered by the priest were no simple memorial, but truly made present the reality which they signified. And the proof of this: immediate adoration, and the priest's proclamation of faith at the moment of realization. The suppression of the two first genuflections and the displacement of "mysterium fidei" signify, in themselves and conjointly, that there is not necessarily any sacrament; that although the words of institution certainly recall what the Master did, they do not necessarily produce what they signify; that henceforth, any celebrant will be able to utter the words and remain faithful to his own particular church's ideas. To make my argument clear, I will cite a passage from the Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique: "The matter of a sacrament is, in itself, indifferent as to signifying or not signifying the sacred effect: and ablution, for example, can serve different ends, such as washing or refreshing. Without any doubt, it is the form, or words, which determine the sacramental meaning of the matter, BUT SOMETIMES NOT WITH ALL THE PRECISION AND CLARITY NECESSARY: it is the minister's intention which contributes to making impossible any ambiguity. What is more, although the words of the form have an objective sense THEY ONLY REALLY EXPRESS THIS MEANING IF IT IS GIVEN TO THEM BY THE INTENTION."[35] Let us illustrate this by an example. The words of consecration are uttered in a narrative tone in certain oriental rites, in the new rite and at the Protestant Supper: this means that, when recited in this manner, they can signify either consecration-transubstantiation or memorial; they do not have all the precision and clarity needed to determine the matter without hesitation; it is therefore the intention which gives precision to the form and removes all ambiguity. Now, how is the intention of the various ministers, who recite the same words in the same tone, externally manifested? In the oriental rites, for example, it is manifested with no ambiguity possible, in the first place by all the prayers of the offertory, which makes the intention of the rite itself explicit, and then by the adoration of the celebrant immediately after each of the two consecrations. Yes, the offertory prayers make clearly explicit the intention of the Church to consecrate, and the adoration of the celebrant immediately after each of the two consecrations manifests once more that, as a minister, he has uttered the words with the intention of doing what the Church does, namely, effecting a transubstantiation. Doubtless, as Leo XIII taught us, "concerning the mind or intention, inasmuch as it is in itself something interior, the Church does not pass judgement: but IN SO FAR AS IT IS EXTERNALLY MANIFESTED, SHE IS BOUND TO JUDGE OF IT." Now, one of the effects of the two genuflections is, precisely, to manifest externally the intention which the minister had of doing what the Church does: a transubstantiation. This way of judging the exterior manifestation of the celebrant's intention is so Catholic, that the Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique informs us that, "on the subject of the "BLACK RUBRIC" inserted by Edward VI in the Prayer Book of 1552: THE REFUSAL OF ADORATION IMPLIES THE NEGATION OF THE REAL PRESENCE."[36] * * * From the displacement, in the new rite, of the words "mysterium fidei", the same conclusion can be drawn as that from the suppression of the two genuflections. In the traditional rite, the insertion of these words directly after those which signify the real physical Presence, in the formula itself for the consecration of the chalice, proclaims the efficacy of the words of consecration. Mysterium fidei: the Mystery of faith has just been accomplished; Jesus Christ is there. For what reason, then, have they been displaced? Why does the new rite no longer proclaim the efficacy of the words of consecration as soon as they are pronounced, if not on order to embarrass those who do not believe in their efficacy? For my part, I do not see any other explanation. The reason given by Authority for all these changes, namely, "to give a greater efficacy to the liturgical message", seems to me a mockery, all the more displeasing because it concerns the Holy Mass, and because it emanates from him who, the first in all the Church, should watch over its integrity. * * * These two changes, therefore, though seemingly insignificant, take away from the words of the consecration "all the precision and clarity necessary" to determine without hesitation the matter of the sacrament, and by this fact tend towards a denial IN PRACTICE of the efficacy of the consecration of the bread and wine by the priest, in favor of the Lutheran heresy which dared to teach that the Mass is a mere memorial, a simple recital of what Christ did on the evening of the first Holy Thursday[37]: a Memorial which simply stirs up the faith of those present, which faith produces a spiritual presence of Christ such as He promised when telling His deciples: "Where there are two or three gathered together in My name, etc." By this twofold example (and all other similar things: suppression of the offertory, of the signs of the cross, of the genuflections, of the altar itself; the introduction of saying the canon aloud and in vernacular, of receiving communion standing, in the hand, or dispensed by women, etc., all concur to the same end)[38], we can see how changes, in themselves apparently insignificant, made in the ceremonies of the Mass have brought about, in a disguised (for the modernist is a dissembler), but effective way, a substantial change if the essential part of the Mass: by altering the signification of the form. In order to better appreciate the repercussions which follow of necessity from all these changes affecting the form, let us not forget the judicious observation of Leo XIII concerning the Anglican reform in Apostolicae Curae: (The authors of the new ordinal) "under the pretext of restoring the order of the liturgy to its primitive form, ... corrupted it in many respects to bring it into accord with the errors of the Innovators. As a result, (and the same thing can be said for the Novus Ordo Missae) not only is there in the whole Ordinal NO CLEAR MENTION of sacrifice, of consecration, of priesthood (sacerdotium), of the power to consecrate and offer sacrifice, but ... every trace of these and similar things remaining in such prayers of the Catholic rite as were not completely rejected, were purposely removed and obliterated. The native character and spirit of the Ordinal ... is thus objectively evident." These words are applicable to the Novus Ordo Missae. * * * If, from the moment of its appearance and in its Latin text, and before it had revealed all the deadly fruits which it contained, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci could accuse the Novus Ordo Missae of representing, "as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass", who can now seriously deny its heretical character (even though very cleverly dissimulated), when well- known Lutherans, who deny all Catholic eucharistic doctrines, have officially declared that they can accept it, since they feel at home with it, and certain Catholic (?) bishops have revealed the lutherophile tendencies of the second Vatican Council, its reforms and its new liturgy? Once again, let us repeat that Modernism is not an openly and frankly declared heresy, but a "praxis", that is, a heresy that destroys in practice the very doctrines which it does not deny explicitly. We will set down a remark made by Franzelin, Consultor of the Holy Office, concerning the Anglican ordinal, and then adapt what he said to the Novus Ordo Missae. ANGLICAN ORDINAL The Catholic rite was repudiated, and a new one adopted in accordance with a publicly professed heresy, with the aim of deleting from the rite all that signified the priestly power, which is the power of consecrating and offering the sacrifice of the New Testament.... Since the sacraments of the New Law are visible, efficacious signs, they effect what they signify; and so it is absurd to say that a visible rite, in which is excluded the signification of the priestly power which ought to be conferred, can be a sacrament for the conferring of that power."[39] NOVUS ORDO MISSAE The Catholic rite, that of St. Pius V, was repudiated, and a new one adopted, which was in accordance with the Protesant heresy, with the aim of no longer making manifest all that the Catholic Mass means: its propitiatory character, the efficacy of the words of consecration, the sacerdotal ministry of the priest, and the real corporal presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Since the sacraments effect what they signify, and this new rite distorts the meaning of the Catholic Faith in order to place certain heretics who deny the same Catholic Faith, it is absurd to say that this visible rite, which disguises what is should make manifest, can still effect what it has the intention no longer to signify. Are we not in the spirit of the Church in applying to the Novus Ordo Missae what Pope Leo XIII said of the Anglican ordinal: "If the rite is changed with the manifest purpose of introducing another rite which is not accepted by the Church, and of repudiating that which the Church does and which is something that by Christ's institution belongs to the nature of a sacrament, then it is evident, not merely that the intention necessary for a sacrament is lacking, but rather that an intention is present which is adverse to and incompatible with the sacrament." * * * Objection. - Here I foresee a twofold objection which certain people will make: Pope Leo XIII was speaking of the introduction of another rite not accepted by the Church, and of repudiating that which the Church uses. Now, those who do not agree with me will say: The traditional rite has never been rejected and, in the case of the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI, though it is a matter of another rite, this other rite has not only been accepted by the Church, but has been imposed by her. Reply. - I deny the validity of this objection and, in refuting its second half, I will show that it is blasphemous. First part. - Certainly the traditional rite has never been rejected formally, that is, juridically or canonically, for the Pope knows very well that it is not in his power to do so. I am also well aware that the Swiss bishops as a whole, and their President in particular, knew very well that they were deceiving their flocks shamefully, on the occasion recently when they affirmed falsely that "the rite (of St. Pius V) has been abolished by the constitution Missale Romanum of 3 April 1969". However, modernism being, like marxism, a "praxis", it is what happens in practice which must be considered. Here, unfortunately, it is only too true to say that the traditional rite, called that of St. Pius V, is in practice forbidden and is everywhere driven out. Only those who are voluntarily blind will refuse to acknowledge the truth of this, but let us leave the blind to lead others so afflicted. Second part. - No, the new rite has not been accepted by the Church, and could not be so accepted. How, therefore, could it be imposed by her? And the proof which I put forward to refute the false objection made by the partisans of the Novus Ordo is simple. Here it is: The Bride of Christ, holy Church, our Mother, is she holy or is she not? Does not the Catholic creed affirm: "Credo... Ecclesiam SANCTAM"? But if she is holy, as indeed she is, how can a Catholic have the effrontery to impute to her the begetting of such a monster? Are the words of Jesus no longer true: "Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit ... a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit"?[41] Show us the fruits of sanctity, the "good fruit", I mean, which has come from the liturgical reform. Then, recognizing the goodness of the tree by this fruit, not only will I accept the liturgical reform, but I will make a full public apology for the criticisms which I have dared to make against it. But, if good fruit from this reform cannot be shown to us - and its partisans are not able to do so, or they would long ago have loudly proclaimed them - we can, on the other hand, put under their noses all the stench of the poisonous fruits which it has produced and which it continues to produce.[42] It is thus with strong faith in Our Lord's words that I affirm of this Novus Ordo Missae, which tends towards heresy and towards the destruction of holy Mass, NO, IT DOES NOT COME FROM THE CHURCH AND CANNOT COME FROM HER. To affirm the contrary amounts to blasphemy against the Bride of Christ. Whence, then, does it come, it will be asked? From certain men of the Church, which is not at all the same thing. Explain to us, then it will be asked, how is it that almost all the bishops, priests and faithful have accepted it? One of Our Lord's parables furnishes us with a sufficient explanation: it is that of the enemy who came, whilst the servants of the good man of the house slept, and oversowed cockle among the wheat in his field, which is a figure of the Church.[43] Have not the following been put to sleep - and what a deep sleep! - the Index, the Holy Office, the anti-modernist oath, and all the diocesan Councils of surveillance? Profiting from the slumber of those who should be the natural "overseers" and watchers, the devil has done his work, and caught in his net and made fools of those who have forgotten to keep watch. * * * So, therefore, each of the changes, in themselves apparently minor and following no set pattern, which have been either analyzed or simply mentioned in this present work, are all well in the spirit both of the Constitution Missale Romanum, and of the Institutio Generalis, in particular of its Article 7. We repeat, all these changes, all these deliberate and calculated innovations aim at the same end: to bring it about that the form shall no longer clearly signify what it expresses, with the aim of pleasing heretics who do not admit our eucharistic doctrines, but who would like to make use of the same Ordo Missae as ourselves for the celebration of their Protestant Supper. * * * Some revealing facts about the spirit of the new rite. Apart from the changes which I have already indicated, which all tend to bring our Catholic Mass into line with the Protestant Supper, here are some further facts, which anyone can verify for himself. Since these show clearly that one of the fruits produced by the new rite in those who have completely adopted it is a hatred, like that of Luther, for the traditional Mass, we can see revealed the irreconcilable differences which exist between the two liturgies: the one is, in practice, the negation of the other. 1. In places where the new rite has been adopted, the authorities permit and favor every kind of so-called liturgical experiment, even the most audacious and least Catholic. 2. In places where the new rite is installed, the traditional rite is absolutely proscribed and often actively combatted. 3. This traditional rite, though "so pure from every error, that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savor of a certain holiness and piety, and raise up unto God the minds of those that offer it, for it is composed out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the Apostles, and the devout instructions also of holy pontiffs"[45], is, on the part of the protagonists of the Novus Ordo Missae, the object of a hatred which reveals their criminal intention to destroy, in practice, the Catholic Mass. * * * As in the case of the Anglican ordinal the same conclusion imposes itself regarding the Novus Ordo Missae: "By reason of its original defectiveness" Masses celebrated in this new rite are invalid because of a lack of sufficiently explicit form. What Leo XIII affirmed of the Anglican ordinal, we can say of the Novus Ordo Missae. The adoption of a new rite which, by a carefully calculated deception, either denies or alters the nature of the sacrament of the Eucharist, and which, in practice, insists on repudiating the traditional idea of the consecration- transubstantiation, takes away all their value from the formulas, "this is My Body", "this is My Blood". For this Body and this Blood only become present when it is intended truly to realize the sacrament of the Eucharist as Christ instituted it and the infallible Church has defined it, particularly at the XXII Session of the Council of Trent. CONCLUSION In the section, earlier in this study, on "Defect of Intention", I have shown, on the one hand, that the idea behind the devising of the new rite of Mass is a carefully disguised heretical idea; on the other, that the intention behind the new construction is not a Catholic one, since the result is a rite in which there is an obstinate refusal to give expression to Catholic doctrines. Finally, on the avowal of several heretics themselves, the theology of the new rite has been so "transformed", and has so far "evolved" as to render it, in practice, heretical, since they, who still make a point of rejecting Catholic eucharistic doctrines, now find it suitable for themselves. The new rite thus involves "an intention... which is adverse to and incompatible with" (Apost. Curae) that which Christ had in instituting the Eucharist. In the second part, on "Defect of Form", I have demonstrated how, by a combination, without precedent, of innovations, the makers of the new rite have succeeded, without changing the literal content of the essential part of the form, in modifying its sense in such a way that it no longer clearly expresses, "without hesitation", Catholic doctrine. All this, therefore, fully confirms the conviction which was engendered in my mind by the study of the Novus Ordo Missae in the light of the Apostolic Letter "Apostolicae Curae". The Novus Ordo Missae, the Mass of Paul VI, was conceived, carefully considered, realized and promulgated to be just what it is. And such as it is, it tends fatally, in its use, to destroy the Catholic rite. FROM THIS FACT, AS WITH THE ANGLICAN ORDINAL, IT CONTAINS WITHIN ITSELF "AN INTENTION WHICH IS ADVERSE TO AND INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SACRAMENT" : THIS RENDERS INVALID MASSES CELEBRATED IN THIS RITE. Let Leo XIII explain the matter to us. "If the rite is changed with the manifest purpose of introducing another rite which is not accepted by the Church, and of repudiating that which the Church does and which is something that by Christ's institution belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is evident, not merely that the intention necessary for a sacrament is lacking, but rather that an intention is present which is adverse to and incompatible with the sacrament." * * * I expect that many of those priests and faithful, who have followed my demonstration, will not dare, for fear of the consequences, to accept my conclusions. In that case they will be tempted to refuse to look reality in the face, and will prefer to stop half way, and remember only that the new rite is ambiguous, and that its formulas are uncertain in their meaning, and nothing more. I add therefore a few remarks for their benefit. It "the rite remains, to say the least, ambiguous, this ambiguity must be resolved in the direction of the opinions of those who have composed it and who have made use of it."[46] "The only objection possible against this reasoning is that, according to Catholic theologians, a heretical minister validly administers a sacrament each time that he has "THE INTENTION OF DOING WHAT THE CHURCH DOES BY THIS SACRAMENT"; but this principle is only valid in cases where the matter and form employed are those which the Church uses, or that at least they do not admit of any other sense. If another sense is introduced into the form, with the aim of rendering it capable of a heretical interpretation, the heretical intention of the minister, for the reason given above, is fatal for the validity of the sacrament."[47] "Thus, the rejection of the rite used by the Church, and the adoption of a new rite with the aim of introducing heresy, constitute good proof of the absence, in the minister, of an intention to do what the Church does. THERE IS NOT EVEN ANY NEED, as Cardinal Annibale sees it, THAT ESSENTIAL CHANGES SHOULD BE MADE IN THE FORM: A SUBSIDIARY MODIFICATION, MADE WITH THE OBJECT OF INTRODUCING A NEW RITE OR A HERESY, SUFFICES TO BEAR WITNESS TO THE DEFECT OF INTENTION. Quod autem quidam docent sacramentum non valere si minister immutaverit aliquid accidentaliter, ut novum ritum vel errorem introducat, sic accipiendum est quia is non creditur habere intentionem faciendi quod facit Ecclesiam."[50] After this, how can these priests still use this new rite, which heretical by carefully devised dissimulation? It is no subsidiary or accidental modification which I have uncovered, but a collection of many modifications which, taken together, involve a substantial change in the form. The defect of intention inherent in this rite, or rather the counter-intention which governed the making of it, is thus quite clear. * * * ADDITIONAL REMARKS REGARDING THE INTENTION OF THOSE WHO HAVE USED THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE IN GOOD FAITH To conclude this work, I will reply to a question which those who have utilized the Novus Ordo Missae in good faith will not fail to ask. For, if they accept my arguments, they will be fearful of the practical consequences concerning the Masses celebrated by them in this rite. And indeed, how could such priests, who believed that they did well in accepting the Novus Ordo Missae which was given to them by their legitimate Pastors and who, in following it, always had the intention to effect a valid consecration, not be anxious when learning that the changes made in the ceremonies of this Novus Ordo could render invalid Masses so celebrated? Here is the reply which I believe can be made, though I would first point out to them how much more difficult the hypocrisy of the modernist heresy makes the task of those who would defend the faith. The Lutheran heresy, which could be called a classic heresy, was clear and simple in denying and rejecting altogether the Catholic doctrines of the Mass. The Lutherans have never claimed to say a valid Mass in the Catholic sense. The Anglican heresy, at least among those who claimed to possess a true priesthood, was already a more complicated matter; for, though claiming to have preserved the ministerial priesthood, a form was in use which was substantially modified in its essential part by the Lutherans, who rejected this same sacrament. The modernist heresy is not a "classic" heresy, but a "subversive" one; one, that is, which never declares itself openly, which uses orthodox language but in a heterodox sense. It so perfects confusion, by managing substantially to modify the modus significandi, or signification of the form (which thus becomes so ambiguous that it even suits Protestants who deny our Catholic eucharistic doctrines), as to render the Mass invalid, without any substantial modification of the words used. In such conditions, and looking at things as broadly as possible within the limits of orthodoxy, here is my opinion, in reply to the question of users, in good faith, of the Novus Ordo Missae, whilst awaiting the judgement of the Church, when it shall please our Pastors to "be faithful to the most sacred of their duties" (St. Pius X). Since a sacrament is only valid if it signifies the grace which it causes, Masses celebrated by these priests with the Novus Ordo may well have been valid, but this would have been so because they took steps that their double consecration (of the bread and of the wine) clearly signified the efficacy of the rite performed. So much for the past, which they should leave to the mercy of God, Who knows to what an extent their good faith has been deceived. For the present and for the future, I mean for that length of time during which our actions are still in our own power, I believe that THE USE OF THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE, WHICH TENDS, IN PRACTICE, TO DESTROY THE MASS, MUST BE REFUSED ABSOLUTELY, AT WHATEVER THE COST IN GRAVE TROUBLE FOR THOSE WHO THUS HAVE THE COURAGE OF THEIR FAITH. * * * Some will ask: since the substantial modification of the form has been brought about by the suppression of the offertory, the signs of the cross, the two genuflections, and the displacement of "mysterium fidei", could the priests who have adopted the Novus Ordo Missae ("adopted": reluctantly, under pressure from the authorities, in a spirit of obedience ill understood, for various motives, etc.) not continue to use it, but reintroduce the offertory, the signs of the cross, the two genuflections and the words "mysterium fidei", and thus give back to the form its full signification? I do not think that priests have the right to do this, and here are my reasons: First reason. - Liturgical rites, especially those of the Mass, must be regulated by the authority of Rome; they are not under the jurisdiction of either priests or bishops. Now, to accept the proposed solution would result in a rite which would be neither that of the Church (fixed by St. Pius V), nor that of the reformers. Second reason. - To act in this way would mean, in practice, giving one's support to the new rite, to maintain it instead of hastening its disappearance, and to make oneself, to a certain extent, an accomplice of the perfidy which it conceals, and which we have uncovered. What is more, to support to this new rite, would it not be perjury for the priests? The new rite, as Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci have told us, "represents, as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent." Now, have we priests not sworn to use and to defend these prescriptions, these Tridentine formulations, in the two oaths, so often made until recently, hand on the holy Gospel, in the priestly oath and the anti-modernist oath? What folly it would be for a priest to perjure himself materially in celebrating Mass! As I see it, there is only one answer that can be made to those priests who thought that they did well in accepting the Novus Ordo Missae which is this: Since it is on the one hand, a certain principle that in the administration of the sacraments, and in the celebration of holy Mass, the minister must always follow the safer course, that is, he must always prefer matter, form and rite which are certain, to matter, form and a rite which are doubtful; And since, on the other hand, as Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci told Pope Paul VI, and as I believe I have proved, this new rite does represent "as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent"; These priests have not the right to follow the new rite, which is at the very least doubtful, and should return to the Mass of their ordination, the Mass of before the present reform. They should return to "the sacred Canon, so pure from every error, that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savor of a certain holiness and piety, and raise up unto God the minds of those that offer it. For it is composed out of the very words of the Lord, the tradition of the Apostles, and the pious institutions also of holy pontiffs" (Council of Trent). And, then? Adjuvet nos Deus! quia adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domini. May God help us, for our help is in the name of the Lord. Blere, 11 April 1974 On the anniversary of the institution of the Mass and the Priesthood. Noel BARBARA, priest. [1] The English version of "Apostolicae Curae" used in this study is that published by the Catholic Truth Society, 1968 edition. [2] Franzelin, quoted by F. Clark, S.J. in Gregorianum, Vol. 45, 1964. [3] St. Pius X, Encyclical "Pascendi Dominici Gregis", 8 September 1907. English reprint by Carraig Books, Dublin, 1971, p. 3. [4] "Pascendi", p. 3. [5] Ibid. p. 4. [6] Ibid. p. 4. [7] In the Gospels, the "sheep" designate the Pastors and the Bishops, and thus the "wolves in sheep's clothing", mean in Our Lord's parlance, the bishops who have become heretics. [8] I Corinthians IX, 26. [9] "Pascendi", pp. 4-5. [10] In a coming number we shall expose all the skill, or rather all the hypocrisy, of the modernist tactics used to destroy Catholic dogmas and the Mass. [11] We are preparing an edition of Father Lemius' "Catechism on Modernism". This is nothing less than the Encyclical of St. Pius X, "Pascendi Dominici Gregis", interspersed with questions which make clear the text, and allow the faithful who are not theologians to understand the doctrine better. Our subscribers will receive this Catechism as soon as it appears. [12] Hans Kung and Schillebeckx have published outright heresies. Cardinal Koenig has created a commission to look into the possibility of admitting to Holy Communion divorced persons, who have contracted a new "marriage" contrary to the prohibition of Our Lord in St. Matthew's Gospel. Cardinal Suenens has attacked the Papacy in an interview given in the French review "Informations Catholiques Internationales". Archbishop Lefebvre, on the contrary, defends the faith and the traditional Mass, and undertakes the formation of priests according to the traditional methods and principles. [13] The last time that Cardinal Danielou received me, I said to him: "Eminence, you must certainly recall the exploits of the "Bonnot Gang" at the beginning of the century?" - "Yes." - "What would you have thought of the civil authorities of that time if, during the period when the "Bonnot Gang" was most active, they had decided to suppress the national Gendarmie and the municipal police, and counsel citizens to no longer lock their doors?" - "Why do you ask me this question?" - "Because it is at a time when a "Bonnot Gang" rages inside the Church, that Authority has suppressed the Index, the Holy Office, and the anti- modernist oath, and extols opening up to the world and dialogue with all the enemies of the faith." What did the Cardinal reply? He rose and put an end to our conversation. [17] Matt. XVIII, 20. [18] It is noteworthy that in the original I.C.E.L. English translation the words "or Mass" are missing, thus gratuitously reinforcing the idea that there is only question of the supper. [19] "Pascendi", p. 6, 53. [20] "FORTS DANS LA FOI", No. 25, p. 14. [21] Ibid. p. 14. [22] Ibid. p. 15. [23] Let us observe, in passing, that if Luther and the heretics of all the ages had to pass judgement on their own works, they would also not have found in them any doctrinal errors, nor any reason to make changes in them. True, in former times errors were not passed for judgement to heretics, but were deferred to those who were charged with the defense of the doctrine of the faith, and this is the reason why, in former times, heretics were condemned. [24] Innocent III, in a letter to John of Lyons, 29 November 1202. Denzinger, 415. [25] "Nouveau Missel des Dimanches", 1973 edit., pp. 382-3. [26] Cf. De la Taille, "Mysterium Fidei" Elucidatio XXV; Tanquerey, "Synopsis Theologicae Dogmaticae", T. 3, Nos. 871-882. [27] 1 Timothy I, 15. [28] 1 Timothy II, 4. [29] Romans VIII, 32. [30] 1 John II, 2. [31] "Catechism of the Council of Trent", Marian Publications, U.S.A., reprint 1972, pp. 227-8. [32] "D.T.C.", T. XI. col. 1189-90. [*] Denzinger 297. [33] "Pascendi", p. 47. [34] "Apostolicae Curae", p. 19. [35] "D.T.C.", T. XI, col 2273. [36] Ibid. T. XI, col. 1185. [37] Let us recall that it is this Protestant doctrine which is taught by the French bishops in the "New Sunday Missal", where it is affirmed, as a "reminder of faith", that at the Mass "it is simply a matter of commemorating the unique sacrifice already accomplished". This has already been mentioned in the text. [38] To understand better the significance of all of these changes, consult the article of J. Rincelet, in "Forts Dans la Foi", No. 25, particularly pp. 28-31. [39] Reference as in note 2 above. [40] Since this paragraph was written in April 1974, certain other national Episcopal Conferences have made similar declarations based on the same erroneous grounds. [41] Matt. VII, 17-18. [42] Recently, in a country parish in France, the father of a family, a good Christian, but usually rather timid, declared one day in despair: "Cursed be Paul VI, who has sown division in my family by this new liturgy! We used to be all united in the same faith". [43] See Matt. XIII, 24-30. [44] Refer back especially to the declaration of the Augsburg Protestants, given on a previous page in the text, in which they refer, with approval, to the "present convergences in theology". [45] Council of Trent, "Denzinger" 942. [46] "Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique", T. XI, col. 1190. [47] R, Smith, cited in "D.T.C.", T. XI, col. 1190. [48] See above, reply to the first part of the objection, showing the rejection in practice, of the Church's rite. [49] Is this not the plan we discovered when we made clear the heretical idea, cleverly concealed, which the authors of the Novus Ordo have and teach about the Mass? [50] "D.T.C.", T. XI, col. 1190. 8 December 1973