State of Necessity?

My Analysis of the video clip is as follows with due respect to individuals concerned: The "Master of Equivocation" speaks in effect saying that God's Mercy trumps all things and while in one sense this is true but in another sense it does not apply to the Governor of NY giving undeniable and widespread SCANDAL to signing the Abortion Bill while "celebrating" his Catholicity and refusing to REPENT. He also did not accurately describe what the penalty of excommunication is designed to do, saying it's imposed when there is "reasonable expectation" that the individual targeted will repent. WRONG! That is indeed the HOPE this will happen but it is not the reason for the excommunication. The reason is a clear renunciation of the doctrine, dogma and teachings of the Catholic Faith as well as to avoid scandalizing the Faithful. (2272 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae, by the very commission of the offense, and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.") (Canon 1398 is a rule of canon law of the Catholic Church which declares that "a person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication.") And, he gave an indication of the misuse of the term "Mercy" when he said that the penalties for Abortion were relaxed for the last "50 or so years." Does that ring a bell?. Is he talking about the usurpation of Vatican II by the Modernists? You have it, my friends. God help us!

Some time ago, Michael Voris of Church excoriated Cardinal Dolan for his lack of action relative to the abuses prevalant in the church at that time. Question is: Do the same remarks apply today?

Well, one might ask the question: How did we get to this point? So, once again Michael Voris gives a possible answer:

The date was August 31, 2018 and the internet was filled with reports of sexual abuse by clergy, the details being so horrendous that I refuse to print them here. Let's just say that if ever there was a STATE OF NECESSITY it is NOW! Pray, my dear friends, that we will survive this period of unimaginable filth and perversion in the very halls of our Church. Pray that the members of the hierarchy responsible for this scandal will resign and seek forgiveness from Almighty God before it is too late.

Advice to Parents from a Traditional Catholic Bishop. "Bishop Schneider recounted how his parents were overjoyed to move to a location in the Soviet Union where there was a Catholic Church within 100 kilometers. “I think that in the Western world, in the United States, you will find a Church maybe closer than 100 kilometers where there may be a good priest. So, avoid these churches [where error is preached]. [Such places] are destroying the faith of the people. These churches are destroying. We have to avoid them. [Such people] are traitors of the faith, even when they have the title of priest or bishop,” he said. ( -as-a-catholic-family-in-a-heretical-wasteland/)

The Truth? I've been holding off on this post for going on two years now but I cannot hold off any longer. From the 12/17/2015 edition of we have the following: "Francis: When you walk through my MercyDoor it's a sign that you trust in Jesus who doesn't judge, that your heart is converted and remains open excluding no one, ok. ..." And, in this so-called Year of Mercy we continue to have this "Declaration" posted on the website of the Diocese of Colorado Springs and it's been there for over two years. Hypocrisy anyone? Justice demands that I speak out in defense of a group that has steadfastly maintained Tradition in liturgy, practice and belief since their formation in 1977. The breaking point for me is the continued calumny directed against this group by the publishing of a Statement against them on a diocesan website at DECLARATION

The one question the modernists cannot answer to my satisfaction is why people born in the Faith and educated in Catholic schools according to the Baltimore Catechism before 1962, why have they been disenfranchised from practicing the Faith and why there is such division over faculties and jurisdiction of the priests? Look, if a priest has been validly ordained, he can administer the sacraments period. And don’t feed me this horse-hockey that Paul VI changed things in 1969 by mandating the Novus Ordo. That means that Quo Primum of 1570, a papal bull by St. Pius V which decreed the TLM to be valid IN PERPETUITY is no longer valid? So, you’re telling me that popes can pick and choose what is valid from mandated Catholic teachings, as they have done from Paul VI on down. They can but we cannot? Ah, I don’t think so and when they put Man in the place of God, not only in the Liturgy but in Practice and Belief, they lose me, my friends. And about faculties and jurisdiction, you're going to tell me it's not about doctrine and dogma but whether a particular bishop LIKES those validy ordained priests coming into his diocese? NO! It's about the SALVATION OF SOULS! Don't you think the suppression of the Traditional Mass has a great deal to do with the errors prevalent in our society?

In response to this so-called Declaration which cannot even get Fr. Ward's ordination date correct, I would like to quote a Bishop in full communion with Rome, Athanasius Schneider, a prelate with obvious ties to Tradition, who said recently: "When the SSPX believes, worship and conducts a moral [life] as it was demanded and recognized by the Supreme Magisterium… and recognizes also the validity of the sacraments according to the editio typica of the new liturgical books, this should suffice for a canonical recognition of the SSPX on behalf of the Holy See. Otherwise the often repeated pastoral and ecumenical openness in the Church of our days will manifestly lose its credibility and the history will one day reproach to the ecclesiastical authorities of our days that they have“laid on the brothers greater burden than required” (cf. Acts 15:28), which is contrary to the pastoral method of the Apostles." (Taken from

First of all, I have known members of this group since 1988 when I searched for a place where the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) and other sacraments were being offered to Catholics formed in the Faith before Vatican II. (Nowhere in the diocese of Colorado Springs were these pre-Vatican II rituals being offered at that time.) As a matter of fact, I had a meeting with the then-bishop of the diocese Richard Hanifen, and I asked him if he would please authorize celebrations of the TLM in the diocese. His response to me was :"No, not unless my presbyter council asked me to."

I could not believe my ears but the words rang clear - here was a Catholic lay person asking the Bishop for the TLM and his response was no, not unless his priests asked him. (Allow me to say that my formation in the Faith was 16 years of parochial education in Catholic schools during the 40s, 50s and 60s prior to Vatican II and having served as an altar boy during elementary school.) The novelties introduced in the liturgy after Vatican II had a profound deleterious effect on me as we were trying to bring up our young children in the stormy decades of the 60s, 70s and 80s when "the everything goes" philosophy was prevalent in secular society.

After this meeting with the bishop I happened to look in the local phone book (yes, we had them at that time) and looked in the "yellow pages" under Catholic Churches. There I found an add: for Traditional Latin Mass and Catechism at "Servants of the Holy Family," the exact-same group being anathematized by the Declaration on the diocesan website mentioned above by the current local bishop, Michael Sheridan, the successor to Richard Hanifen. In the time that I have known them, the Servants have always stuck to the pre-Vatican II rubrics, doctrine and dogma and have had three of their priests ordained by a visiting bishop in full communion with the Holy See. Ironically, the ordaining bishop is from Watertown, Massachusetts, a mere stone's throw from my high school home in Brighton, a suburb of Boston, MA.

Now, let us return to the "Declaration" on the diocesan website. It says the the founder of the group, Fr. Anthony D. Ward, was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre on February 14, 1974. In actual fact, Fr. Ward was ordained by the Archbishop on April 14, 1973, given faculties which have never been revoked and subsequently given permission by the-then local bishop to travel.

He was first situated in the US headquarters of the SSPX at Armada, Michigan and I have it on good authority that Archbishop Lefebvre intended to have him serve as the Superior of the SSPX in the US. However, in the intervening years Fr. Ward became disillusioned with the vision of the Archbishop vis-a-vis his relationship with Rome. So, he decided to accept a request from local families in Colorado Springs to minister to them. It was then in 1977 that Servants of the Holy Family were formed (a small group consisting of Fr. Ward and a few seminarians). They packed up their meager belongings and headed west to Colorado. To say that they were NOT welcomed with open arms by Bishop Hanifen would be a vast understatement.

There have been several interventions by members of the hierarchy to bring this group into what they call "full communion" with the novus ordo church. Most recently, it was Bishop James Conley, formerly an Assistant in the Denver Archdiocese and currently Bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska. Even the Bishop of Colorado Springs, who now through his "Declaration" anthematizes them, has visited the group's premises, granted faculties and then withdrawn them almost immediately, and has written to the lay people who attend their services to cease supporting this group and return to the local diocese. In the mid 90s he even established a parish staffed with priests from the FSSP to draw people away from this group's influence.

But this group and the people who support them are committed to Tradition and they know that under canon law, the primary canon being the "salvation of souls", they are living in a state of necessity. Therefore, under the doctrine of supplied jurisdiction (ecclesia supplet) they can save their souls where they are - with priests who are similarly committed to Tradition.

This tiny group and the 150 or so people who attend their services, along with a small Carmel of cloistered Carmelite Sisters, desire only to live and pray in concert with the time-honored traditions of the Church, according to the doctrine revealed by Christ to his apostles, and codified in Church documents throughout the 2,000 yr history of the Church. They receive support not only from the people who attend their services but from many donors who are aware of their apostolate both at home and abroad. Indeed, some of the support, liturgically speaking, has come from tradition-friendly bishops in full communion with Rome who have stayed a short time with them while in travel status.

The allegation made in the previously-mentioned "Declaration" that an ordaining bishop was brought in via subterfuge is patently false. In fact, this group has avoided any relationship with bishops not in full communion with Rome. For this, they are anathematized? It boggles the mind. I can testify to the fact that they mention the current pope and local bishop in the canon of their masses.

Now. what are we to make of this situation? The local bishop, at the time of this group's location in Colorado, is now the Bishop Emeritus, Richard Hanifen, who still resides in the diocese. He and Fr. Ward come from different backgrounds and have been at odds over the changes in the Church since day-one. Fr. Ward is from Brooklyn, NY, the son of a career noncommissioned officer in the Army, who brought up his son fully in accord with Tradition, the pre-Vatican II catechism and a no-nonsense attitude. As a result, when Fr. Ward expressed his desire to become a priest, he was naturally attracted to the Traditional Movement being then spear-headed by Archbishop Lefebvre and eventually found his way to the SSPX seminary at Econe where he finished his studies and was ordained by the Archbishop on April 14, 1973. All I know about Bishop Hanifen is that which can be read on the diocesan website but that he is, and was, clearly a "son of Vatican II."

Bishop James Conley, who I mentioned previously, has not spoken publicly about Fr. Ward or the group that he leads. However, being aware of his leanings toward the Traditional Rite I would imagine he is rather dismayed by this seeming rupture in the fabric of the church. But, the chickens of Vatican II have come home to roost, so-to-speak, and the hierarchy must blame itself I believe for, in effect, trying to "square-the-circle" in liturgy, practice and belief since 1962. I think it's up to them to explain to us precisely why faculties and jurisdiction are being withheld from these validly-ordained priests. In fact, while they're at it, perhaps they can explain why this same injustice is being perpetrated against so many so-called "independents" who choose to stay with Tradition and reject the "novelties" of the novus ordo church. I know of no legal case brought before the highest ecclesiastical courts in the Church that levies any sort of penalties against these groups.

The final point I'd like to make is that the Servants of the Holy Family, unlike the "Declaration" published on the diocesan website, have never made any public statements against anyone in the hierarchy, including the local bishop. Indeed the "Declaration" itself makes mention of private statements made to the bishop during their meeting. For this they are stigmatized and anathematized? It not only doesn't make any sense it is unjust to the extreme. Is this the way the Modernist church operates? Saint Basil the Great stated of that situation the following: “Only one sin is nowadays severely punished: the attentive observance of the traditions of our Fathers. For that reason the good ones are thrown out of their places and brought to the desert” (Ep. 243).

Still not convinced? How about this matter of promises not kept by the hierarchy? With the permission of the Latin Mass Magazine, I refer the readers to what I believe is the central issue at play in the treatment of Traditional Roman Catholics by those in power in Rome. It is the main point of contention between Archbishop Lefevbre, the reigning Pope in 1988, John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, the Ecclesia Dei Commission and others. It rears its ugly head even today in the conflict that exists between the FSSP and the FSSPX. It is known as Protocol 1411/99 and although it was never published it stands to illustrate the duplicity that exists among those charged with the salvation of souls. Just click on the highlighted word to go to the article in question. DUPLICITY

You, the reader, must answer the question for yourself! For myself, I see what is going on in the Church today with the "supposed" retirement of Pope Benedict XVI to the sidelines and the election of Jorge Bergoglio, former Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina, as Pope Francis I and ask myself: "Can this really be happening to the Church in which I was borne and educated from 1941 - 1962? Are we being chastised for the failure of the recent popes to follow the instructions of the Holy Mother of God at Fatima? I refer you to some posts which I wrote in Jun 2015, in abject frustration at what is happening to our Church and nation:

Who is right? The Holy Mother of God who appeared at Fatima in 1917 to three Portuguese children or the Modernists in the Vatican who seem to proclaim that Mercy trumps Justice in all instances? Well, it seems that Our Blessed Lord would answer this question with a resounding voice in favor of His Mother as the following text reveals. "You heave seen the vision of Hell where poor sinners go. Later at the request of the Bishop of Leiria, Lucia described the vision this way: As Our Lady spoke these last words, she opened her hands once more, as she had done during the two previous months. The rays of light seemed to penetrate the earth, and we saw as it were a sea of fire. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke now falling back on every side like sparks in huge fires, without weight or equilibrium, amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair which horrified us and made us tremble with fear. It must have been this sight which caused me to cry out, as people say they heard me). The demons could be distinguished by their terrifying and repellent likeness to frightful and unknown animals, black and transparent like burning coals. Terrified and as if to plead for succour, we looked up at Our Lady, who said to us, so kindly and so sadly: "You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace."
He remembered “that Lucia gasped in sudden horror, that her face was white as death, and that all who were there heard her cry in terror to the Virgin Mother, whom she called by name,” wrote Father de Marchi. “The children were looking at their Lady in terror, speechless, and unable to plead for relief from the scene they had witnessed.” She told them when she would reveal her identity and what way she would provide for people to accept the apparitions as true. “You must come here every month, and in October I will tell you who I am and what I want. I will then perform a miracle so that all may believe.” Then, Our Lady set the scene and gave the children — and us, — a way to help others so they would not end up as part of the vision she was going to show them. Make sacrifices for sinners, and say often, especially while making a sacrifice: O Jesus, this is for love of Thee, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the offenses committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary. "You have seen the vision of Hell where poor sinners go."

The evidence is on these pages and it is voluminous.

"Common Sense" - it's the most uncommon sense of all!"And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine."


The Guestbook has been removed. If you need to contact me, use my e-mail at

About navigating back and forth on this page. There are links which are underlined in color near the left margin of the page. If you mouse-click on the link, it will take you directly to that part of the page. If you want to go back, use the back button at the top of your browser window. If you want to see more than what's viewable in what you're looking at, use the scroll arrows at the far right and bottom of this page. Or you can click on the bar within that column and drag it to make the page move in the direction you wish - right or left, up or down, etc. Have fun!

Father, forgive them for they know not what they do! Espescially forgive our candidates for the Presidency of the U.S., Mssrs Rubio and Bush, who do not follow Your fifth commandment which says: "Thou shalt not kill", meaning one cannot take an innocent human life in whatever stage it may be. The only instance, in fact, when another's life may be taken is when one's own life is threatened and only to the degree necessary to protect one's own life or the life of one's family.

This has been the consistent teaching of Your Church in Moral Theology since the beginning and no amount of obfuscation by the candidates for political office can change it.

State of Necessity

I’m sorry but I just cannot accept the thesis proposed by some that there is no state of necessity as defined in canon law or, at least since 2000 for the SSPX, and I submit the following in rebuttal.

Today, May 30, 2015, on at KASPER Sorry, Walter, your views are in stark contrast to Our Lord and Savior and you have proven yourself to be a heretic. Meanwhile, Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro-Mayer are classified as having "left the Church" in the website. Who has really left the Church? I ask you: is this not diabolical disorientation?

What state of necessity? Post 1965, priests and nuns left their orders in droves and got married, oftentimes to each other. Other members of religious orders discarded their habits for secular dress and lived in “apartments” rather than religious communities.

Masses are being celebrated by priests wearing clown costumes and all manner of makeup and theatrical dress. They aim to be “relevant” at all costs. Ad-libbing during the liturgy is almost a cardinal rule.

Lay people, including women in inappropriate attire, are all over the sanctuary performing functions previously reserved for the ordained clergy. Meanwhile the tabernacle is shunted off to some obscure place in the church building. The red light signaling the presence of the Eucharist is nowhere to be found.

Profane music is being used in liturgical celebrations and liturgical dancing is quite the fad in some churches. Gregorian chant and polyphony takes a back seat, if any seat at all.

The sacrament of Penance is renamed and the penance aspect is placed in the background. Actions previously considered sinful are now not seen as such by some clergymen. Attendance at the confessional, if you can find one, dwindles down to a trickle in most parishes.

Extreme Unction is renamed to "Anointing of the Sick" and what was previously considered the “Last Rites” is now for anyone who is sick. Priests are seldom to be found in administering this sacrament as lay ministers have taken over the function in many places.

The Mass of the Dead in which prayers for the soul of the deceased were said is now the Mass of the Resurrection. Most of the old prayers are no longer said. The beautiful and sorrowing Dies Irae is relegated to the dust-bin.

The altar is now a table and turned around so it faces the people. The meal aspect of the Mass is emphasized over the sacrificial aspect; people are all over the pews hugging and kissing each other at the “Sign of Peace”.

Manner of dress has changed from reverent and respectful to mundane and worldly. People receive the body of Christ standing rather than kneeling at the altar rail. It is said by Kenneth C. Jones in his book, Index of Leading Catholic Indicators, that up to 70% of Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence.

High ranking prelates seem to be teaching that anyone can be saved without belonging to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Ecumenism has taken precedence over evangelization; missionary orders are almost extinct.

Latin is hardly ever heard in church anymore despite the fact that it was to be given “pride of place” in Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Charter Document of Vatican II.

The Bishop of Rome,John Paul II, the Vicar of Christ on earth, visited a mosque and kissed the Koran giving scandal to millions of true believers. This same pope invites non believers to pray at the Holy Shrine of Assisi raising questions about indifferentism and what are the core beliefs of Catholicism. Meanwhile a group of SSPX followers is denied permission to celebrate Mass at the Mother Cabrini Shrine outside Denver, forcing them to celebrate Mass in a highway cut-out just outside the main entrance to the Shrine.

Millions of dollars are spent by dioceses to pay claims for clerical sexual abuse while Catholic schools and churches are being closed. The most horrendous crimes by clerics are seemingly covered up by bishops who simply transfer the offending clerics to another assignment in the diocese.

Homosexuals are allowed to parade their “lifestyle” in Catholic churches and parades in honor of saints like St. Patrick. Event organizers are forced to allow such demonstrations. Catholics brought up in the Faith prior to 1965 are marginalized for their views are no longer considered “in communion” and they have a right to ask the question: “Are the foxes guarding the hen-house?”

FREIBURG, Germany April 21, 2009. The Archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch, known for his liberal views, publicly denied the fundamental Christian dogma of the sacrificial nature of Christ's death in a recent interview with a German television station. Zollitsch said that Christ "did not die for the sins of the people as if God had provided a sacrificial offering, like a scapegoat." Instead, Jesus had offered only "solidarity" with the poor and suffering. Zollitsch said "that is this great perspective, this tremendous solidarity."

At a time when Roe v Wade might have been reversed, instead, the Catholic vote, reportedly including the votes of many Bishops, elected the most pro-abortion President in history. Most recently a Bishop in Italy forbids even the Discussion of the Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, in one Sardinian diocese.

SOUTH BEND, Indiana, September 4, 2009 ( - The president of a pro-life public interest law firm has issued an open letter to University of Notre Dame president Rev. John Jenkins, insisting that the school seek to drop the charges against 88 pro-lifers who await sentencing of up to one year in jail and a $5,000 fine for protesting the school's honoring pro-abortion President Obama.

FRONT ROYAL, Virginia, September 4, 2009 ( - Human Life International president Rev. Tom Euteneuer has fired back at Politics Daily writer David Gibson for his column disparaging the pro-life leadership of Scranton's former bishop, Joseph Martino, following his retirement earlier this week. Euteneuer said that Martino's insistence upon fidelity to the teachings of the Catholic Church, and his subsequent early retirement, symbolized, if anything, that "the battle for orthodoxy is iterally ferocious in today's Church, and it will be the dividing point between the sheep and the goats."l

TORONTO, September 4, 2009 ( - The decision to permit a grandiose public funeral celebrating the life of pro-abortion extremist Senator Ted Kennedy has caused a rift in the Catholic Church in North America. Several prominent Catholic priests in the pro-life movement, as well as other Catholic pro-life leaders criticized the decision, and instead advocated a more subdued private funeral. Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley shot back Wednesday defending his actions with some fairly strong words for his critics. After the funeral and burial Saturday, Raymond Arroyo of EWTN issued a blogpost highlighting the devastating effect of the prelate's involvement in the funeral. On his blog Arroyo wrote, "The prayer intercessions at the funeral mass, the endless eulogies, the image of the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston reading prayers, and finally Cardinal McCarrick interring the remains sent an uncontested message: One may defy Church teaching, publicly lead others astray, deprive innocent lives of their rights, and still be seen a good Catholic, even an exemplary one."

From we have the following: Cult of Environmentalism Takes Over Catholic Elementary School Date: Saturday, August 29, 2009 at 05:11AM The cult of environmentalism is being preached at St. Mary’s Resurrection Elementary School in New Jersey. In this Fox Report you’ll see Catholic school children start their day by pledging “allegiance to the earth and all Her sacred hearts”, an allusion to the Sacred Hearts of Mary and Jesus. You’ll also hear them sing their song, “Whose the greatest mom of all? Earth Mama!”

In some dioceses there are what are called earth-masses designed to equate Catholicism with the "Green" movement. In what follows below you will find an image of one of these masses to be contrasted with the Mass of My Youth which follows the article entitled "Another Perspective".

If you do a search for "Catholic Liturgical Abuses" at, there are a number of videos available that will document just how far the Church has fallen since Vatican II. I urge you to view these videos with the caution that it may literally turn your stomach but, it will serve as an indictment of the liberalclergy that masquerades today as Catholic priests. God help them is all I can say.

From Catholic News Agency we have this report: Phoenix, Ariz., Sep 6, 2009 / 04:23 am (CNA).- Three churches have filed a lawsuit against the city of Phoenix, charging that its noise ordinance which prohibits the ringing of their church bells is unconstitutional and suppresses a long American tradition. One pastor was sentenced to jail for violating the ordinance, which allows an exception for ice cream trucks but not for churches. St. Mark Roman Catholic Parish, First Christian Church, and Christ the King Liturgical Charismatic Church have challenged the ordinance in a lawsuit filed by attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF).

WASHINGTON D.C., Sep 16, 2009 (CNA).- Charging that the traditional definition of marriage is “discriminatory,” U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) has announced that he will reintroduce a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). One critic of the measure is warning that it will lead to discrimination against those who support marriage between a man and a woman. (Incredible buffoonery at work here, folks!)

Archbishop Nichols (of Westminster), what were you thinking? Your own press office has reported that you offered flowers at the altar of Hindu deities during a visit to a temple. (UPDATE: since this post went up, the relevant sentence has been removed from the Westminster diocesan website.) The visit took place on Saturday 21 November 2009 during Interfaith Week and on the birth anniversary of the worldwide spiritual leader of the Hindus who pray at the Mandir (Hindu Temple) at Neasden, His Holiness Pramukh Swami Maharaj.

It gets worse, folks, as the following indicates regarding recent papal actions. Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, the newly-appointed Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), has said: On the Perpetual Virginity of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary:

From his 900-page work "Katholische Dogmatik. Für Studium und Praxis der Theologie" (Freiburg. 5th Edition, 2003), Müller denies the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary claiming that the doctrine is "not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not having been opened, the hymen not being broken, or the absence of birth pangs), but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature."

On the Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Lord in the transubstantiated Eucharistic species. In 2002, bishop Müller published the book "Die Messe - Quelle des christlichen Lebens" (St. Ulrich Verlag, Augsburg). In this book, he speaks of the Sacrament of the Altar and warns against using the terms "body and blood" in this context. These terms would cause "misunderstandings", "when flesh and blood are considered to mean the physical and biological components of the human Jesus. Neither is it simply the transfigured body of the resurrected Lord that is being designated."

Bishop Müller continues: "In reality, the body and blood of Christ do not mean the material components of the human person of Jesus during his lifetime or in his transfigured corporality. Here, body and blood mean the presence of Christ in the signs of the medium of bread and wine." This, despite the many Eucharistic miracles that have been documented concerning the actual body and blood of the Savior.

Say what? Is this formal or material heresy by the New Prefect of the CDF? You must decide for yourself. But remember,we are not the final judges and it certainly gives us pause.

State of Necessity…what state of necessity? The Modernist or Progressive would say: "you must have a schismatic mentality."

Some would even say: "We don't have a state of necessity...we have a diabolical disorientation!"

Would that the Holy See would recognize our legitimate complaints and act to restore the Faith in practice and belief throughout the Christian world! Oh, I see, that's not PC anymore. Cardinals Mahony, Kasper, Sodano, Bertone, O'Malley and McCarrick would not approve. No state of necessity? Give me a break! Have we lost our collective minds?

So, what do we do? My suggestion is that we pray and pray hard using the best tool at our disposal, the Holy Rosary, as well as, and the following prayer which I composed just for this situation:

Dear St. Joseph, Protector of Holy Church, inspire our holy father, Francis, to govern the Holy Church with a firm and resolute hand, to remove those who openly preach and practice against the Holy Faith, to reject any and all heresies, to welcome without delay those who have for years fought to retain Tradition in practice and belief, to render Justice to those who have been mistakenly identified as outside the church, and to provide for the continuation of Holy Tradition in liturgy, practice and belief among all those who your Son has won for His Father in Heaven.

Sit beside Francis, and watch and inspire his every move that he may accurately and faithfully govern the Church here on earth. Give him the courage to do what must be done as you did when you left everything and went with your beloved spouse Mary and the Holy Infant, Jesus, to the safety of Egypt. Do not allow the enemies of Holy Church to influence him in any way with the heresies of Modernism so accurately described by the saintly St. Pius X in the encyclical Pascendi Domenici Gregis, a warning given to us over 100 years ago.

Inspire all our spiritual fathers to do what must be done to set on proper course our Holy Church on earth and together with Francis to proclaim the truth throughout the world and gain many souls for your Beloved Son. St. Joseph, you have never failed us and we ask for your special attention and concern now with the enemy of the Cross at our doorstep. Together with the Holy Angel, St. Michael, fight those enemies with every weapon in the heavenly arsenal and preserve us in our faith now and forever, Amen.

We Have Met the Enemy and It Is Us!

In November 2008 Americans desperate for a change elected to the U.S. presidency a man who voted against life saving measures for those babies surviving botched abortions. This egregious action took place while he was a member of the Illinois State Legislature. This same individual said he would not want to burden his daughters with unwanted, unplanned pregnancies by urging them to carry the babies to term. This same individual recently had a photo-op meeting with the then Head of the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI. This same individual appointed as a “science Czar” a man named John Holdren who has said: “"The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being. Where any of these essential elements is lacking, the resultant individual will be deficient in some respect.”

The text of the Declaration of Independence says the following: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Now, the word “men” above means both men and women in the collective sense as in the word mankind. But, apparently, according to Barack Hussein Obama, it does not include babies in the womb. This, despite the fact that the US Constitution states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Furthermore, the Presidential Oath of Office (Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight of the US Constitution) says: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

This same individual has proposed Health Care “Reform” which purports to include mandatory "end-of-life counseling", whatever that means, to any individual pass the age of 65 who elects coverage via the so-called at public option (Medicare). In fact, he has said the Congress must pass this legislation before the end of the current session. Actually, he had demanded that Congress act before the Summer Recess on 2009 but that demand fell flat due to the grass-roots uproar over the 1,000 plus pages of draft legislation being considered in committee.

Who’s responsible for this mess, one might ask? We are - those of us who went to the polls in November in 2008 and elected this self-proclaimed prophet of “Change”. The only alternative at the present moment is to convince our elected senators and representatives to vote against the proposed legislation being offered by the Obama administration and in November of 2012 to throw this bum out of office.

Smiley Faces

Another Perspective (Why the Abuses)

This article is hyperlinked with recognition of its authorship and copyright. It provides answers why clerical abuse exists and why we need more “vertical” prayer (the TLM) rather than “horizontal” prayer. Please ensure proper credit is given to:

Copyright © 2002 All Rights Reserved.

Liberal Catholicism's Just Deserts

By George Neumayr

Published 3/1/02 12:04:00 AM

Another Perspective

The very liberals who wanted the sexual revolution to enter the Catholic Church are suddenly shocked at its effects on the priesthood. After Vatican II, the American Catholic church very stupidly took the advice of the secular culture and adopted a permissive attitude toward sexuality. "Loosen up," "Don't be judgmental," "Accept nontraditional types into the priesthood," the secular culture outside and inside the church told the American bishops. And they did.

Seminaries soon became havens for sexual oddballs. Conservative Catholics predicted that this collapse in seminary admissions standards would lead to tragedy. But liberal Catholics -- heady with the "fresh air" in the church and scoffing at the old morality -- dismissed these traditionalists as cranks out of touch with the Zeitgeist.

True, the introduction of moral liberalism into the American Catholic church is not the only cause of the pedophilia problem in the church. Man's power to choose evil freely is the primary explanation for scandal. But moral liberalism -- which tends to rationalize and even sanctify the effects of Original Sin -- abets the spread of sexual sin in the church.

Psychologist William Coulson knows this well. In the 1960s, he counseled priests and nuns to "get in touch with their feelings," as he told me in an interview for a 1997 story in the "San Francisco Faith" newspaper. "My theories made priests and nuns feel good about being bad."

Working with his mentor Carl Rogers, an icon of 1960s relativistic non-directive therapy, Coulson conducted "sensitivity" training and "self-esteem" workshops for the Jesuit Order and several other religious groups eager to absorb the New Morality. "

Once we began to peel the onion at these workshops, there was no end to the shocking things people would say," he said. "They became persuaded of this subjective theory of morality which says that the highest morality is the one you locate within you. And after a while these religious forgot about the teachings of the church."

"After our workshop at Alma [the Jesuit seminary then in California], one of the young Jesuits wrote, 'Never in my life before that group experience had I experienced ME so intently," he said.

"The Franciscans were so enamored with our psychology that they introduced it to Saint Anthony's seminary in Santa Barbara. Years later, 11 or 12 friars were accused of molesting 34 high school boys. I'm afraid we planted the seeds and they carried the seeds to the next generation and they germinated."

Both Coulson and Rogers later repudiated their relativistic theories. "I greatly underestimated the reality of evil," said Rogers. "I hope Rogerian theory goes down the drain."

But the liberal culture in the American Catholic church -- aping the moral collapse in the secular order -- did not reject those theories. The bishops continued to accept deviants into the seminaries, telling appalled conservative Catholics that God wants the church to use "broken people" as instruments.

Now the church is paying for its betrayal of Catholic tradition. The remedy to its problems is to recover that tradition, not further weaken it. But that is precisely what the liberal elite -- with crocodile tears blurring their vision -- are demanding of the church. They call on the church not to enforce the priestly vow of chastity with pre-Vatican II gravity, of course, but to abolish it.

"Celibacy is an onerous burden that can easily distort a person's psyche," says writer Andrew Sullivan in "Time" magazine. No, it is sexual immorality that distorts psyches. The pedophiles who entered the priesthood weren't celibate before ordination or afterwards.

Sullivan says "many sexually conflicted men gravitate to the priesthood precisely because it promises to put a straight-jacket on their compulsions and confusions." No, they gravitated to the post-60s priesthood because the newly liberated church wouldn't put a straight-jacket on their compulsions. Cultured deviants flocked to orders like the Jesuits because they knew the American church's new "enlightened" ethos was forgiving toward sexual irregularity.

"How can a church that preaches the impermissibility of so many forms of consensual, adult sex simultaneously tolerate, ignore or cover up the sexual abuse of children by its own priests?" asks Sullivan. Very easily: It hasn't preached the impermissibility of "so many forms of consensual, adult sex" for decades. Rather, it largely accepted the anything-goes sexual revolution and is now facing the consequences of that corruption.

George Neumayr was recently a media fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Link To Traditional Latin Mass - the Mass of My Youth

Hypertable of Contents:

Document - Contrasting the Old & New Forms of the Roman Rite

Document - Words Have Meaning

Document - Another Perspective (Why the Abuses)

Documents - Quo Primum & De Defectibus

Document - A Recapitulation of the Arguments Against the "New Mass"

Document - Dare to Dream

Document - Reclaim the Supernatural

Document - Development of the Mass Since 1960

e-Book - Veritas & Sapientia (Truth & Wisdom)

Photos and Miscellany


"Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it."

Pope St. Felix III


Cicognani observes: If equity among the pagans was not unimportant, much more ought equity to obtain in ecclesiastical discipline, in canon law, and in the Church. For the Church, apart from the fact that she is a mother, merciful, holy, and indulgent, has as her end the salvation of souls, the supreme law, which frequently requires the correction of certain other laws.


Cicognani here has alluded to an old adage in church law: Salus animarum suprema lex the salvation of souls is the supreme law. It is divine law God's will and goal for us that souls be saved. And if, in seeking our own salvation we disobey a particular bishop, then:

Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept: acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls. (1983 Code of Canon Law)

This webpage contains documents available for download to anyone interested in the subjects offered. All I ask is that you give credit where credit is due.

The first document is my own essay intended for Traditional Roman Catholics:

Words Have Meaning

Words Have Meaning

This is a short essay on the topic of the Novus Ordo Mass, a liturgy imposed by the Roman Catholic hierarchy following Vatican II.

First of all, we must know what the term Novus Ordo means. Taken from the Latin it means "New Order". There can be no debate about this and if the reader has any doubt, ask any Latin scholar and the answer will be the same. The Novus Ordo is a striking departure from the liturgy of the Mass, mandated in perpetuity by Pope St. Pius V in 1570, which had been in use in Roman Catholicism for centuries (not my words by the words of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci in their letter to Pope Paul VI).

Recall to mind, if you will, the New Testament passage wherein Saul, as he was then known, was knocked off his horse on his way to Damascus (to persecute the Christians). Saul was known as a very intense persecutor of the early Christians. Christ who said: "Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecutest me"... was getting the future apostle's attention in a most dramatic and effective way.

Well, after his conversion St. Paul as we now know him, the Apostle of the Gentiles, in his Epistle to the Romans says: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." [Rom 1:8]

Strong words wouldn't you say? Read what follows about the term "anathema":

All the councils, from the Council of Nicæa to that of the Vatican, have worded their dogmatic canons: "If any one says (thus and so) let him be anathema". (An example would be: "If anyone says that Christ is not the Son of God, let him be anathema."

At a late period, Gregory IX (1227-41), bk. V, tit. xxxix, ch. lix, Si quem, distinguishes minor excommunication, or that implying exclusion only from the sacraments, from major excommunication, implying exclusion from the society of the faithful. He declares that it is major excommunication which is meant in all texts in which mention is made of excommunication. Since that time there has been no difference between major excommunication and anathema, except the greater or less degree of ceremony in pronouncing the sentence of excommunication. [Source: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight]

But that's not all. In his second Epistle to the Thessalonians Paul says: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." [Thess 2:14]

Would not anyone who believes St. Paul was under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit in his writings maintain that the "Novus Ordo", as it represents something drastically new, and in the mode lex orandi,lex credendi (the rule of prayer is the rule of belief) is in direct contradiction to the foregoing? But don't take my word for it, take the words of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci in their letter to Pope Paul VI as implementation of the Novus Ordo was being considered: "The accompanying Critical Study is the work of a select group of bishops, theologians, liturgists, and pastors of souls. Despite its brevity, the study shows quite clearly that the Novus Ordo Missae--considering the new elements widely susceptible to widely different interpretations which are implied or taken for granted--represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent."

Now folks, really, there can be no denial of the fact that the Novus Ordo, as it is seen in many churches today, is a striking departure from the traditional Latin Mass, sometimes termed the Tridentine Mass. There also can be no denial of anyone who is intellectually honest that "Novus Ordo" means new order and imposes many new liturgical deviations from the past. It would seem, then, that it is in direct opposition and contradiction to the warnings of St. Paul previously quoted.

Does this mean all Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo are going to Hell and the Bishops who prescribe it going along with them? Of course not - we are not to judge another's intention; that is for the Supreme Judge. Hopefully, He will sort things out in His own way and in His own time. What we can say, however, is that for us, the traditional Latin Mass is the safest and most secure option in this incredibly evil world and the same criticisms applied to the Novus Ordo cannot be ascribed to the traditional Latin Mass.

What about the fact that the Novus Ordo emanated from an ecumenical council of the church, Vatican II. The following should dispel any doubt as to whether Vatican II was "pastoral" in nature or promulgating doctrine and therefore infallible. The most explicit confirmation that Vatican II was not promulgating infallible doctrine was given by Pope Paul VI, himself, in a locution on Jan.12, 1966, when he stated that: "Given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extra- ordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility." (A. de Lassus, Vatican II: Rupture or Continuity, (French publ.), p. 11).

Does this mean we can completely disregard the documents of Vatican II and that which flowed from it (i.e., the Novus Ordo)? The answer is no for we are obliged to consider carefully all that emanates from an ecumenical council (Vatican II) just as we are obliged to consider carefully all the statements made by the Pope and Bishops whether together in council or not. But, and here is the key difference, we are not obliged to accept all pronouncements and changes as infallible unless they fit the criteria of infallibity as defined in Vatican I.

Indeed, we are bound to consider them and apply to them Tradition, our doctrinal training and education, our catechetical development, statements of past councils and, if our conscience is moved to disobey such pronouncements, we must do so with the greatest reluctance and regret, always striving to give affirmation whenever possible. So, in the end the responsibility is a grave individual one, one which we must exercise very carefully and with due reflection and investigation.

We must always remember that we will be judged on whatever path we choose to take. It is a solemn and awesome responsibility and one we dare not take lightly.

Now, on the subject of sedevacantism and why I do not hold to that view. We all know the words of Our Lord that He will be with His church for all time. And, we know that He also gave to Peter the keys of binding and loosing. Further, we know that the First Vatican Council proclaimed the dogma of papal infallibility, defining it in a very limited sense. But, we also know that Our Lord is All-Good and can not countenance evil. So, we must assume that in binding and loosing He would sustain or bind only that which is good. In other words, it is impossible for an All-Good, Triune God to confirm evil or untruth. And, we also know that there have been bad popes in the history of the church (thankfully, not too many bad popes). But, we also know that not one pope, ever, tried to proclaim, ex cathedra, a dogma to be held by the universal church using his authority as Supreme Pastor and Vicar of Christ on earth that was untrue. Then too, there is the matter of judging others and their motives which we leave up to the All-Knowing power of Almighty God. We judge their actions yes, but only when necessary for our own spiritual welfare. Christopher Ferrara has a much more erudite and scholarly critique of sedevacantism in the Remnant newspaper but I wanted to express my thoughts in a concise manner so everyone would know where I stand.

That's Not a Rash Deduction, It is actually The Only Solution.

Quo Primum & De Defectibus

Quo Primum Tempore

"Quo Primum is no "merely ecclesiastical law" (can. 11) that can be revoked, but has been enacted into law and declared Ex Cathedra to be irreformable, and is therefore a solemnly defined moral doctrine which is also of itself infallible and irreformable (DB 1819). Quo Primum has been infallibly declared to be irreformable because the rite of Mass codified (canonized) in the Tridentine Missal is the "received and approved rite" (the rite of Sacred Tradition) [Iniunctum nobis] of the Roman Church that has been "handed down by the Holy Roman Church" (a sacrosancta Roman Ecclesia ... tradita) [Quo Primum]. The statutes of Quo Primum, therefore, pertain to Divine Law insofar as they constitute a particular application of the divine law that has been expressed in its general formulation in the Tridentine Profession of Faith [Iniunctum nobis]." --Fr. Paul L. Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div., A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism (Nazareth, India: Apostle Publications, [1997]). "I do not, of course, accept that an Indult is needed for the celebration of the Tridentine Mass, and maintain that every priest of the Roman Rite is entitled to celebrate it whenever he wishes." ---Michael Davies, President of UNA VOCE International, letter to Fr. Laisney. We are grateful to the Holy Father, John Paul II, for the Indult and urge a broader application of it per his wishes. Still, we know that an indult, if denied, is not necessary per Quo Primum, reflecting the Holy Tradition of the Church, which we present here. In the year 1570 St. Pius V, then Pontiff and Vicar of Christ, promulgated the following:

Pius Bishop Servant of the Servants of God For a Perpetual Memorial of the Matter

Upon Our elevation to the Apostolic throne, We gladly turned Our mind and energies, and directed all Our thoughts, to the matter of preserving incorrupt the public worship of the Church; and We have striven, with God's help, by every means in Our power to achieve that purpose.

Whereas amongst other decrees of the holy Council of Trent, We were charged with revision and re-issue of the sacred books, to wit, the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary; and whereas We have with God's consent published a Catechism for the instruction of the faithful and thoroughly revised the Breviary for the due performance of the Divine Office, We next, in order that the Missal and Breviary might be in perfect harmony, as is right and proper (considering that it is altogether fitting that there should be in the Church only one appropriate manner of Psalmody and one sole rite of celebrating Mass), deemed it necessary to give Our immediate attention to what still remained to be done, namely the re- editing of the Missal with the least possible delay.

We resolved accordingly to delegate this task to a select committee of scholars; and they, having at every stage of their work and with the utmost care collated the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and reliable (original or amended) codices from elsewhere, and having also consulted the writing of ancient and approved authors who have bequeathed to us records relating to the said sacred rites, thus restored the Missal itself to the pristine form and rite of the holy Fathers.

When this production had been subjected to close scrutiny and further amended We, after mature consideration, ordered that the final result be forthwith printed and published in Rome, so that all may enjoy the fruit of this labor; that priests may know what prayers to use, and what rites and ceremonies they are to observe henceforward in the celebration of Masses.

Now therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us; this ordinance to apply to all churches and chapels, with or without care of souls, patriarchal, collegiate, and parochial, be they secular or belonging to any religious Order, whether of men (including the military Orders) or of women, in which conventual Masses are or ought to be sung aloud in choir or read privately according to the rites and customs of the Roman Church; to apply, moreover, even if the said churches have been in any way exempted, whether by indult of the Apostolic See, by custom, by privilege, or even by oath or Apostolic confirmation, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them in any other way whatsoever, saving only those in which the practice of saying Mass differently was granted over 200 years ago simultaneously with the Apostolic See's institution and confirmation of the Church, and those in which there has prevailed a similar custom followed continuously for a period of not less than 200 years; in which cases We in no wise rescind their prerogatives or customs aforesaid.

Nevertheless, if this Missal which We have seen fit to publish be more agreeable to these last, We hereby permit them to celebrate Mass according to its rite, subject to the consent of their bishop or prelate, and of their whole Chapter, all else to the contrary notwithstanding. All other churches aforesaid are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be wholly and entirely rejected; and by this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in perpetuity. We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein.

We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator and all other persons of whatsoever ecclesiastical dignity, be they even Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church or possessed of any other rank or preeminence, and We order them by virtue of holy obedience to sing or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herein laid down by Us, and henceforward to discontinue and utterly discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, howsoever ancient, which they have been accustomed to follow, and not to presume in celebrating Mass to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal. Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used. Nor shall bishops, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious of whatsoever Order or by whatsoever title designated, be obliged to celebrate Mass otherwise than enjoined by Us.

We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal and that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall for ever remain valid and have the force of law, notwithstanding previous constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the usage of the churches aforesaid, established by very long and even immemorial prescription, saving only usage of more than 200 years.

Consequently it is Our will, and by the same authority We decree, that one month after publication of this Our constitution and Missal, priests of the Roman Curia shall be obliged to sing or to read the Mass in accordance therewith; others south of the Alps, after three months; those who live beyond the Alps, after six months or as soon as the Missal becomes available for purchase.

Furthermore, in order that the said Missal may be preserved incorrupt and kept free from defects and errors, the penalty for non-observance in the case of all printers resident in territory directly or indirectly subject to Ourselves and the Holy Roman Church shall be forfeiture of their books and a fine of 100 gold ducats payable by that very fact to the Apostolic Treasury. In the case of those resident in other parts of the world, it shall be automatic excommunication and other penalties at Our discretion; and by Our Apostolic authority and the tenor of these presents, We also decree that they must not dare or presume either to print or to publish or to sell, or in any way to take delivery of such books without Our approval and consent, or without express permission of the Apostolic Commissary in the said parts appointed by Us for that purpose. Each of the said printers must receive from the aforementioned Commissary a standard Missal to serve as an exemplar and agree faithfully therewith, varying in no wise from the first impression printed in Rome.

But, since it would be difficult for this present Constitution to be transmitted to all parts of the world and to come to the notice of all concerned simultaneously, We direct that it be, as usual, posted and published at the doors of the Basilica of the Prince of Apostles, at those of the Apostolic Chancery, and at the end of the Campo dei Fiori; moreover, We direct that printed copies of the same, signed by a notary public and authenticated with the seal of an ecclesiastical dignitary, shall possess the same unqualified and indubitable validity everywhere and in every country that would attend the display there of Our present text.

Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree and prohibition. Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Given at St. Peter's, Rome, in the year of Our Lord's Incarnation one thousand five hundred and seventy, on the fourteenth day of July in the fifth year of Our Pontificate.




1. The priest who is to celebrate Mass should take every precaution to make sure that none of the things required for celebrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist is missing. A defect may occur with regard to the matter to be consecrated, with regard to the form to be observed and with regard to the consecrating minister. There is no Sacrament if any of these is missing: the proper matter, the form, including the intention, and the priestly ordination of the celebrant. If these things are present, the Sacrament is valid, no matter what else is lacking. There are other defects, however, which may involve sin or scandal, even if they do not impair the validity of the Sacrament.

II - Defects of the matter
2. Defects on the part of the matter may arise from some lack in the materials required. What is required is this: bread made from wheat flour, wine from grapes, and the presence of these materials before the priest at the time of the Consecration.

III - Defect of bread
3. If the bread is not made of wheat flour, or if so much other grain is mixed with the wheat that it is no longer wheat bread, or if it is adulterated in some other way, there is no Sacrament.
4. If the bread has been made with rose-water or some other distillation, the validity of the Sacrament is doubtful.
5. If the bread has begun to mold, but it is not corrupt, or if it is not unleavened according to the custom of the Latin Church, the Sacrament is valid but the celebrant is guilty of grave sin.
6. If the celebrant notices before the Consecration that the host is corrupt or that it is not made of wheat flour, he is to replace that host with another, make the offering at least mentally and continue from where he left off.
7. If he notices this after the Consecration, or even after having consumed the host, he is to put out another host, make the offering as above and begin from the Consecration, namely from the words Qui pridie quam pateretur. If he has not consumed the first host, he is to consume it after taking the Body and the Blood, or else reserve it somewhere with reverence. If he has already consumed the first host, he is nevertheless to consume the one that he has consecrated, because the precept of completing the Sacrament is more important than the precept of fasting before Communion.
8. If this should happen after the Blood has been consumed, not only should new bread be brought, but also wine with water. The priest should first make the offering, as above, then consecrate, beginning with the words Qui pridie. Then he should immediately receive under both species and continue the Mass, so that the Sacrament will not remain incomplete and so that due order will be observed.
9. If the consecrated host disappears, either by some accident such as a gust of wind or by some animal's taking it, and it cannot be found, then another is to be consecrated, beginning from the Qui pridie quam pateretur, having first been offered as above.
10. In the cases referred to in paragraphs 5-9 above, the elevation of the Sacrament is to be omitted, and everything is to be done so as to avoid, as far as possible, any scandal or wonderment on the part of the faithful.

IV - Defect of wine
11. If the wine has become mere vinegar, or is completely bad, or if it has been made from sour or unripe grapes, or if so much water has been mixed with it that the wine is adulterated, there is no Sacrament.
12. If the wine has begun to turn to vinegar or to become corrupt, or if it is souring, or if it is unfermented, being made from newly pressed grapes, or if it has not been mixed with water, or if it has been mixed with rose-water or some other distillation, the Sacrament is valid, but the celebrant is guilty of grave sin.
13. If the celebrant notices before the consecration of the Blood, even if the Body has already been consecrated, that there is no wine in the chalice, or no water, or neither wine nor water, he should immediately put in wine and water, make the offering as above and consecrate, beginning with the words Simili modo, etc.
14. If after the words of the Consecration he notices that there was no wine in the chalice, but only water, he is to pour the water into some vessel, put wine and water into the chalice and consecrate, starting again from the words Simili modo, etc.
15. If he notices this after consuming the Body, or after drinking the water in question, he is to set out another host to be consecrated, together with wine and water in the chalice, offer both, consecrate them and consume them, even though he is not fasting.
16. In the cases referred to in paragraphs 13-15 above, the elevation of the Sacrament is to be omitted, and everything is to be done so as to avoid, as far as possible, any scandal or wonderment on the part of the faithful.
17. If he finds out, before or after the Consecration, that the wine is completely vinegar or otherwise corrupt, he is to follow the same procedure as above, as if he were to find that no wine had been put into the chalice, or that only water had been put in.
18. If the celebrant remembers before the consecration of the chalice that there was no water added, he is to put some in at once and say the words of the Consecration. If he remembers this after the consecration of the chalice, he is not to add any water, because the water is not necessary to the Sacrament.
19. If a defect either of bread or of wine is discovered before the consecration of the Body, and the material needed cannot be obtained in any way, the priest should not continue any further. If after the consecration of the Body, or even of the wine, a defect in either species is discovered, and the material needed cannot be obtained in any way, then the priest should continue and complete the Mass if the defective material has already been consecrated, omitting the words and signs that pertain to the defective species. But if the material needed can be obtained with some little delay, he should wait, in order that the Sacrament may not remain incomplete.

V - Defects of the form
20. Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are: Hoc est enim Corpus meum, and Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.
21. If the celebrant does not remember having said the usual words in the Consecration, he should not for that reason be worried. If, however, he is sure that he omitted something necessary to the Sacrament, that is, the form of the Consecration or a part of it, he is to repeat the formula and continue from there. If he thinks it is very likely that he omitted something essential, he is to repeat the formula conditionally, though the condition need not be expressed. But if what he omitted is not necessary to the Sacrament, he is not to repeat anything; he should simply continue the Mass.

VI - Defects of the minister
22. Defects on the part of the minister may arise with regard to the things required in him. These are: first of all the intention, then the disposition of soul, the bodily disposition, the disposition of vestments, the disposition in the rite itself with regard to the things that may occur in it.

VII - Defect of intention
23. The intention of consecrating is required. Therefore there is no consecration in the following cases: when a priest does not intend to consecrate but only to make a pretense; when some hosts remain on the altar forgotten by the priest, or when some part of the wine or some host is hidden, since the priest intends to consecrate only what is on the corporal; when a priest has eleven hosts before him and intends to consecrate only ten, without determining which ten he means to consecrate. On the other hand, if he thinks there are ten, but intends to consecrate all that he has before him, then all will be consecrated. For that reason every priest should always have such an intention, namely the intention of consecrating all the hosts that have been Placed on the corporal before him for consecration.
24. If the priest thinks that he is holding one host but discovers after the Consecration that there were two hosts stuck together, he is to consume both when the time comes. If after receiving the Body and Blood, or even after the ablution, he finds other consecrated pieces, large or small, he is to consume them, because they belong to the same sacrifice.
25. If, however, a whole consecrated host is left, he is to put it into the tabernacle with the others that are there; if this cannot be done, he is to consume it.
26. It may be that the intention is not actual at the time of the Consecration because the priest lets his mind wander, yet is still virtual, since he has come to the altar intending to do what the Church does. In this case the Sacrament is valid. A priest should be careful, however, to make his intention actual also.

VIII - Defects of the disposition of soul
27. If a priest celebrates Mass in a state of mortal sin or under some ecclesiastical penalty, he does celebrate a valid Sacrament, but he sins most grievously.

IX - Defects of the disposition of body
28. If a priest has not been fasting for at least one hour before Communion, he may not celebrate. The drinking of water, however, does not break the fast.
29. The sick, even though they are not bed-ridden, may take non-alcoholic liquids as well as true and proper medicine, whether liquid or solid, before the celebration of Mass, without any time limit.
30. Priests who can do so are earnestly invited to observe the ancient and venerable form of the Eucharistic fast before Mass.

X - Defects occurring in the celebration of the rite itself
31. Defects may occur also in the performance of the rite itself, if any of the required elements is lacking, as in the following cases: if the Mass is celebrated in a place that is not sacred, or not lawfully approved, or on an altar not consecrated, or not covered with three cloths; if there are no wax candles; if it is not the proper time for celebrating Mass, which is from one hour before dawn until one hour after noon under ordinary circumstances, unless some other time is established or permitted for certain Masses; if the priest fails to wear some one of the priestly vestments; if the priestly vestments and the altar cloths have not been blessed; if there is no cleric present nor any other man or boy serving the Mass; if there is not a chalice, with a cup of gold, or of silver with the inside gold-plated; if the paten is not gold-plated; if both chalice and paten are not consecrated by a bishop; if the corporal is not clean (and the corporal should be of linen, not decorated in the middle with silk or gold; and both corporal and pall should be blessed); if the priest celebrates Mass with his head covered, without a dispensation to do so; if there is no missal present, even though the priest may know by heart the Mass he intends to say.
32. If, while the priest is celebrating Mass, the church is violated before he has reached the Canon, the Mass is to be discontinued; if after the Canon, it is not to be discontinued. If there is fear of an attack by enemies, or of a flood or of the collapse of the building where the Mass is being celebrated, the Mass is to be discontinued if it is before the Consecration; if this fear arises after the Consecration, however, the priest may omit everything else and go on at once to the reception of the Sacrament.
33. If before the Consecration the priest becomes seriously ill, or faints, or dies, the Mass is discontinued. If this happens after the consecration of the Body only and before the consecration of the Blood, or after both have been consecrated, the Mass is to be completed by another priest from the place where the first priest stopped, and in case of necessity even by a priest who is not fasting. If the first priest has not died but has become ill and is still able to receive Communion, and there is no other consecrated host at hand, the priest who is completing the Mass should divide the host, give one part to the sick priest and consume the other part himself. If the priest has died after half-saying the formula for the consecration of the Body, then there is no Consecration and no need for another priest to complete the Mass. If, on the other hand, the priest has died after half- saying the formula for the consecration of the Blood, then another priest is to complete the Mass, repeating the whole formula over the same chalice from the words Simili modo, postquam cenatum est; or he may say the whole formula over another chalice which has been prepared, and consume the first priest's host and the Blood consecrated by himself, and then the chalice which was left half-consecrated.
34. If anyone fails to consume the whole Sacrament aside from cases of necessity of this kind, he is guilty of very grave sin.
35. If before the Consecration a fly or spider or anything else falls into the chalice, the priest is to pour out the wine in a suitable place, put other wine into the chalice, add a little water, offer it, as above, and continue the Mass. If after the Consecration a fly or something of the kind falls into the chalice, he is to take it out, wash it with wine, burn it after the Mass is over, and throw the ashes and the wine which was used for washing into the sacrarium.
36. If something poisonous falls into the chalice after the Consecration, or something that would cause vomiting, the consecrated wine is to be poured into another chalice, with water added until the chalice is full, so that the species of wine will be dissolved; and this water is to be poured out into the sacrarium. Other wine, together with water, is to be brought and consecrated.
37. If anything poisonous touches the consecrated host, the priest is to consecrate another and consume it in the way that has been explained, while the first host is to be put into a chalice full of water and disposed of as was explained regarding the Blood in paragraph 36 above.
38. If the particle of the host remains in the chalice when he consumes the Blood, he is to bring it to the edge of the cup with his finger and consume it before the purification, or else he is to pour water in and consume it with the water.
39. If before the Consecration the host is found to be broken, it is to be consecrated anyway, unless the people can see plainly that it is broken. But if there may be scandal for the people, another host is to be taken and offered. If the broken host has already been offered, the priest is to consume it after the ablution. If the host is seen to be broken before the offerings however, another complete host is to be taken, if this can be done without scandal and without a long delay.
40. If the consecrated host falls into the chalice, nothing is to be repeated on that account, but the priest is to continue the Mass, performing the ceremonies and making the usual signs of the Cross with the part of the host that is not moistened with the Blood, if he can conveniently do so. But if the entire host has become wet, he is not to take it out; he is to say everything as usual, omitting the signs of the Cross that pertain to the host alone, and he is to consume the Body and the Blood together, signing himself with the chalice and saying: Corpus et Sanguis Domini nostri, etc.
41. If the Blood freezes in the chalice in winter time, the chalice should be wrapped in cloths that have been warmed. If this is not enough, it should be placed in boiling water near the altar until the Blood melts, but care should be taken that none of the water gets into the chalice.
42. If any of the Blood of Christ falls, if it is only a drop or so, nothing need be done except to pour a little water over the spilled drops and dry it afterwards with a purificator. If more has been spilled, the corporal or the altar cloth or other place is to be washed in the best way possible, and the water is then to be poured into the sacrarium.
43. If, however, all the Blood is spilled after the Consecration, the little that remains is to be consumed, and the procedure described above is to be followed with the rest which has been spilled. But if none at all remains, the priest is to put wine and water into the chalice again and consecrate from the words Simili modo, postquam cenatum est, etc., after first making an offering of the chalice, as above.
44. If anyone vomits the Eucharist, the vomit is to be gathered up and disposed of in some decent place.
45. If a consecrated host or any particle of it falls to the ground or floor, it is to be taken up reverently, a little water is to be poured over the place where it fell, and the place is to be dried with a purificator. If it falls on clothing, the clothing need not be washed. If it falls on a woman's clothing, the woman herself is to take the particle and consume it.
46. Defects may occur in the celebration of the rite itself also if the priest does not know the rites and ceremonies to be observed, all of which have been fully described in the above rubrics. [John Warrington Translation]

Why, you say, did I include the document De Defectibus here? To show that rubrics for the celebration of Mass were most specific and demanding for the Traditional Latin Mass. I will leave it up to you, the reader, to decide whether the same attention to detail and reverence is shown in the New Order of Mass as it is celebrated in many churches today. One must wonder why this is so!

A Recapitulation of the Arguments Against the "New Mass"
by Carey J. Winters

What follows is An Analysis of the Novus Ordo Missae (NOM) presented as food for thought rather than an authoriatative discourse. About all a layperson can say about the NOM is what has been said before by eminent scholars of the Church - i.e., it is a striking departure from the past.

The Novus Ordo Missae:
A Recapitulation of the Arguments Against the "New Mass"
by Carey J. Winters
Taken from Real Catholicism, 6/7 Volume I


Introduction: The Mass The Canon of the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church goes back to the time of the Apostles. By the year 600 or so it was firmly fixed so much so that, when Pope St. Gregory the Great added a few words to the Hanc Igitur, the people of Rome were outraged. According to Canon Hesse, they threatened to kill the Pope because he had dared to touch liturgy. In 1570 Pope St. Pius V codified the existing liturgy, in his Bull, Quo Primum. Purified of accretions, the Traditional Mass was established, in that Bull, as the Latin Rite Mass in perpetuity; it was not to be altered, nor was a new rite to be constructed. Pius did not promulgate a new Order of Mass; the Missale the Pope and the Tridentine Fathers endorsed was the one then in use in Rome the one that formed, according to Michael Davies,[1] "the basis for most of the Mass rites in use throughout Latin Christendom" (The Tridentine Mass, p.9).

Faced with the Reformation's heresies, the Council of Trent had as its first priority the codification of Catholic Eucharistic teachings. Davies notes that "it seems reasonable to conclude that the Council Fathers intended the reformed Missal to be investigated with the same permanence as their doctrinal teaching, because the Missale would give liturgical expression to what they had defined by their dogmatic decrees" (The Tridentine Mass, p. 19).

Pius XII revised the rubrics for Holy Week. The next change to the canon of the Mass (that portion between the Sanctus and Communion) came when John XXIII added the name of St. Joseph in 1962. At the time that those changes were made, they seemed relatively unimportant. They were, however, 'warm-up exercises' for the revolution to come.

In April of 1969, the Vatican published the New Order of the Mass, a Mass which represented a great departure from the one mandated by St. Pius V and the Council of Trent. "To tell the truth," said Joseph Gelineau, SJ, one of the experts involved in its formulation, "it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed." (Cited in The Tridentine Mass, p. 39). Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, whom Davies calls the 'chief architect of the liturgical revolution,' has made similar comments. He boasted that the New mass is "a major conquest of the Catholic Church," referring to it as "a new song" to which other verses will be added later.The altered nature of the Mass was not lost on some orthodox Catholics. The New mass found among its earliest and sternest critics Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, whose Critical Study and letter to the Pope on the subject charged that the New Mass "teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith."

Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani had served as head of the Holy Office under three Popes and in that position was charged with protecting the purity of the Catholic faith. (In America, the Cardinals' letter and accompanying study are published together as The Ottaviani Intervention.) The Cardinals' letter notes that "the Novus Ordo Missae... represents a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent, which by fixing definitively the 'canons' of the rite, erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery."The Novus Ordo, according to its formulators, was intended only as a provisional rite. Rumors are now circulating regarding yet another New Mass, the Ordo Simplex, reportedly due to make its appearance soon. Many Catholics, though uncomfortable with the obvious reduction of reverence and belief in their Churches, are not yet clear on what was lost with the introduction of the current Novus Ordo. They rail against what they view as 'abuses' without recognizing the underlying theological treachery in the rite itself. What follows is a very brief capsulization of the major arguments that have been advanced against the New Mass.

Part I: The 'New Mass' Itself - The General Instruction:
From the General Instruction:Traditional Latin Mass (Council of Trent) The Mass is the true and special sacrifice of the New Law. In it Jesus Christ, by the ministry of the Priest offers His Body and Blood to God the Father under the appearances of bread and wine by a mystical immolation in an unbloody manner for a renewal and memorial of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

Novus Ordo Missae (Pope Paul VI) The Lord's supper, or Mass, is the assembly, or gathering together, of the people of God with the priest presiding to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of the local congregation of the Church: "Where two are three are gathered in My Name, there I am in the midst of them."

The General Instruction for the New Mass makes clear a theological shift. Commenting on one particularly riveting portion (see above), Fr. Wathen points out that "the New Mass is a memorial meal. This instruction does not say that the priest offers a sacrifice. He merely presides over the assembly. Christ's presence is not physical but spiritual, as when any group of 'Christians' gather. The French writer, Edith Delamare, comments: 'Here the [Protestant] Lord's Supper and the [Catholic] Mass are merged into one ... In the present ecumenical context, it is as if neither Luther nor the Council of Trent ever happened.'" (Who Shall Ascend, p. 534).[2]

So much criticism was received regarding this particular passage that it was somewhat modified it now reads "with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ..." Although this was sufficient to quiet conservative concern, the essential errors and ambiguities remain.The priest is still a 'presider;' the Novus Ordo steadfastly refuses to speak of the priest as a 'celebrant.' Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy quotes Fr. Martin Patino, a member of the Concilium who assisted in the preparation of the Novus Ordo: "The [new] mass is not an act of the priest with whom the people unite themselves, as it used to be explained. The Eucharist is, rather, an act of the people, whom the ministers serve by making the Savior present sacramentally .... This former formulation, which corresponds to the classical theology of recent centuries, was rejected because it placed what was relative and ministerial (the hierarchy) above what was ontological and absolute (the people of God)" (The Problems with the New Mass, p. 72).

The Mass is still referred to as the Lord's Supper. Cardinal Ottaviani's Critical Study noted that the Mass "is designated by a great many different expressions, all acceptable relatively, all unacceptable if employed as they are separately and in an absolute sense."The studied ambiguity of the General Instruction is found throughout the New mass; its use allows a muddying of the theological waters without the formal denial of any Catholic beliefs. The Ottaviani Intervention charged that the purposes of the reformers were served through omissions, implicit denials (of the Real Presence) and the fragmenting of the Church's unity of belief through the introduction of countless options.

The Penitential Rite - The Traditional Roman Mass begins with what are called "the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar," in which the priest offers personal prayers of reparation to God. In the Novus Ordo, these prayers have been replaced by a Penitential Rite, which the priest and people recite together. As Cardinal Ottaviani charged, there is a blurring, in the New Mass, of the distinction between priest and laity evident in this change (one also instituted by 16th Century Protestant reformers).

The Offertory - In the Traditional Roman Mass, the first part is the Offertory, which very clearly expresses the sacrificial, propitiatory character of the Mass. The Novus Ordo effectively abolishes the Offertory; of the 12 Traditional Offertory prayers, only two were retained in the New Mass. The term 'Offertory' itself has vanished; there remains only something called "The Preparation of the Gifts," the instructions for which lay heavy emphasis on procession. The deleted prayers are the same ones removed by Luther and Cranmer. It was, as Davies points out, "the doctrine of the Mass as a sacrifice of propitiation which outraged the Protestant Reformers" (Pope Paul's New Mass, p. 320). "The abomination called the offertory," remarked Luther, "and from this point on almost everything stinks of oblation."

Fr. Wathen notes that "practically all the prayers of the Offertory ... were deemed useless ... The given reason ... is that all these prayers are recent insertions into the Mass; none of them were in the Mass before, say, 1100 or 1200 A.D." (The Great Sacrilege, p. 71). Citing as an example the deleted Suscipe, Sancte Pater both Fr. Wathen and Dr. Coomaraswamy demonstrate the incompatibility between the Catholic theology expressed in that prayer and the new religion of 'Catholic' modernists. The prayer itself reads:Receive, O Holy Father, Almighty and Everlasting God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for mine own countless sins, offenses, and negligences, and for all here present, as also for all faithful Christians, living and dead, that it may avail for my own and their salvation unto life everlasting.

"What a marvel of doctrinal exactitude!" exclaims Coomaraswamy. "Along with the actions of the priest, this prayer makes it clear that what is offered at the Mass is the 'spotless host' or victim. Second, the propitiatory (atoning) nature of the Mass is explicit and it is offered for our sins. Third, it reminds us that the Mass is offered 'for the living and the dead,' and fourth, that it is the priest who offers the Sacrifice as a mediator between man and God ... In the New Mass this prayer, needless to say, has been entirely deleted" (The Problems with the New Mass, p. 34).

In addition to the acknowledgment of unworthiness and the clear sacrificial language, Fr. Wathen notes that the prayer "was said silently by the celebrant ... If there are two things we cannot abide in the 'new age,' it is silent prayers during the communal prayer service, and the priest's acting as if he were about to do something in virtue of his own priesthood, which the laity cannot participate in" (The Great Sacrilege, p. 72).

The prayer that has replaced the Suscipe, Sancte Pater is a modified Jewish table grace:Blessed are you, Lord, God of all Creation, Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life. The offering of Cain has been substituted for that of Abel; the new prayer makes no reference to the propitiation for sin. Patrick Henry Omlor notes that "where Catholics humbly beseech God's acceptance the prayer of the Jew audaciously says 'Here we made it, You take it.' Without humility. No contrite heart. No respect for the Divine. Rudely imposed upon the Catholic ear and mind is a 'prayer' of unbelievers in Christ, rejecting the Sacrifice, Redemption and Salvation wrought by Christ, the God-Man" (The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Knox Query, p. 18).

Davies notes that the new prayer is "fully compatible with the Teilhardian theory that human effort, the work of human hands, becomes in a certain way the matter of the Sacrament. Thus we have a rite that is not simply compatible with Protestantism but with the Cult of Man" (Pope Paul's New Mass, p. 322). Davies also finds that the prayer "would certainly fit in with the ethos of a Masonic hall" (p. 320). He sees in the "We offer" another example of the systematic blurring in the Novus Ordo, of the distinction between priest and laity; it is now possible to interpret it as a service concelebrated by the entire congregation.

The Ottaviani Intervention charges that the prayer in question "alters the nature of the sacrificial offering by turning it into a type of exchange of gifts between God and man. Man brings the bread, and God turns it into 'the spiritual drink.' ... The expressions 'bread of life' and 'spiritual drink,' of course, are utterly vague and could mean anything. Once again we come up against the same basic equivocation: According to the new definition of the Mass [in the General Instruction], Christ is only spiritually present among His own; here bread and wine are only spiritually and not substantially changed" (pp. 37-38).

The new "Invitation to Prayer" deserves mention. In the Traditional Mass, the Priest asks "Pray, Brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable...." This has been changed to "our sacrifice" in the New Mass. While it may at first reading sound equivalent, it is not. The Catholic Church teaches that it is the priest who offers the sacrifice to God; the laity offers penance, prayers, personal sacrifices, true, but only the priest, acting in the person of Christ, offers the Body and Blood. Pius XII remarked in Mediator Dei that "in this most important subject, it is necessary in order to avoid giving rise to a dangerous error, that we define the exact meaning of the word 'offer.' The unbloody immolation, at the words of Consecration, when Christ is made present upon the Altar... is performed by the priest and by him alone, as the representative of Christ and not as the representative of the faithful."

For Protestants, of course, the presider is the one chosen to represent the people, rather than Christ. Pius XII's 'dangerous error' is codified in the Novus Ordo. Hearing the words of the New Mass 'Invitation to Prayer' often enough will probably make of the congregation de facto Lutherans.

Eucharistic Prayer I - Fr. Wathen points out that the word Canon means rule, or standard of measure. "It refers, therefore, to something fixed, unchangeable, and irreplaceable ... Eucharistic Prayer, Form Number One [subtitled The Roman Canon] is not the Roman Canon because it has been changed, or rather, mutilated both in the Latin and in the translation" (The Great Sacrilege, pg. 82). Furthermore, three additional Eucharistic Prayers are offered as alternatives to its use. Davies notes that the Concilium had originally planned to forbid the use of the Roman Canon, but it remained, in severely modified form, at the insistence of the Pope (Pope Paul's New Mass, p. 329).

Dr. Coomaraswamy notes that Eucharistic Prayer I "is merely modeled on the traditional Canon, but contains several significant differences ...With the destruction of the traditional Offertory, with its prayers that state precisely what occurs during the Canon, and with the modern mistranslations, Eucharistic Prayer Number One is totally capable of being given an entirely Modernist and Protestant interpretation" (The Problems with the New Mass, p. 37).That Eucharistic Prayer, for example, asks that the offering "may become for us the Body and Blood..." Coomaraswamy notes that such a phrase is understandable in the Cranmerian/Protestant sense, which denies that the bread and wine are transubstantiated themselves. As Davies explains, "the addition of 'for us' does facilitate an interpretation in line with the theory of transignification, where the Presence of Christ in the Sacrament is really only for the believer and not in the order of objective reality. Transignification is a doctrine fully in line with that of the Protestant Reformers" (The Roman Rite Destroyed, p. 37).

Davies maintains that, although the so-called 'Roman Canon' is not obligatory on a single day throughout the year, its inclusion "enabled the majority of orthodox priests to accept the New Mass without doing too much violence to their consciences" (The New Mass, p. 15). Most of the priests who would have been expected to protest were mollified by the first Eucharistic Prayer a pattern, once again, that Davies find parallel to the staged technique of Cranmer's liturgical revolution.

Eucharistic Prayer II - Davies states that Eucharistic Prayer II, "[designated] the Canon of Hippolytus, was written by a third-century anti-pope with views of dubious orthodoxy ... It never formed a part of the official liturgy of the Church, its original version has been lost, and the text we have has certainly been modified" (Pope Paul's New Mass, p. 347).

Dr. Coomaraswamy points out that it "is said to have been taken from Hippolytus' Apostolic Tradition ... However, to this already questionable document, the innovators have made significant changes" (The Problems with the New Mass, page.139).

Edward T. Snyder's web article, 'Distorting Hippolytus,' compares the Hippolytus document and the Eucharistic Prayer line by line. Snyder notes omissions, in Eucharistic Prayer II, of phrases that serve to describe Our Lord's divining role and to link Him with the Mass, or to point up the role of the priest (Lex orandi, lex credendi web page). Reformers suppressed a specific reference to Hell and the chains of Satan and they added 'for us,' making, according to Coomaraswamy, their heretical intent more than clear. "All pretense of a Catholic interpretation is eliminated .... There is absolutely no preparation (build-up or development) in Eucharistic Prayer 2 for the 'Consecration' of the species ... Sneeze and you will miss it" (Problems, p. 40).

Davies notes that the word hostia, victim, appears nowhere in Eucharistic Prayer II. "The chief value of the Canon of Hippolytus from the ecumenical standpoint is that its sacrificial phraseology is minimal; it was composed at a stage in the third century when there was still a long way to go before matter which was implicit in the Mass was made explicit in its prayers. Bringing this prayer into the Mass in the twentieth century is precisely the type of liturgical archaelogism condemned as pernicious by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mediator Dei" (The New Mass, p. 21)According to Davies, "the Liturgical Establishment makes no secret of the fact that the new Eucharistic Prayers are modeled on the Jewish berakah, a prayer of praise and thanksgiving. This is a point which they repeat ad nauseam in their books, articles and lectures ... The fallacy here is that although Our Lord may have used the berakah format at the Last Supper this no more makes the Eucharistic Prayer a berakah than it makes the Mass a Passover meal. The Last Supper was a propitiatory sacrifice he would offer on the Cross the next day" (Pope Paul's New Mass, pp. 333-334).

Davies quotes Fr. J. D. Crichton, whom he describes as England's arch-liturgist; Fr. Crichton finds great merit in Eucharistic Prayer II, because of its clear berakah pattern. Coomaraswamy maintains that the Novus Ordo's creators exhibit a clear preference for Eucharistic Prayer II. "The official documents from Rome instruct us that Eucharistic Prayer 2 can be used on any occasion. It is recommended for Sundays 'unless for pastoral reasons another Eucharistic Prayer is chosen.' It is also particularly suitable "for weekday masses, or for the mass in particular circumstances'... It is recommended for 'masses with children, young people and small groups,' and above all for Catechism classes..." (Problems, p. 41).

Eucharistic Prayer III - Eucharistic Prayer III says to Our Lord that "from age to age You gather a people to Yourself, in order that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory and honor of Your name." Coomaraswammy notes that, according to this prayer, "it is the people, rather than the Priest, who are the indispensable element in the celebration:" (ibid). Davies states that "in not one of the new Eucharistic Prayers is it made clear that the Consecration is effected by the Priest alone, and that he is not acting as spokesman or president for a concelebrating congregation." (The Roman Rite Destroyed, p. 39). This, to Davies, is further evidence of the Protestantization of the Mass, since, for Protestants, the minister possesses no powers denied to a layman.

Eucharistic Prayer IV - This prayer, according to Dr. Coomaraswamy, was composed by Fr. Cipriano Vagaggiani. Coomaraswamy finds the Latin itself innocuous, but notes that the approved translation in American use was open to heretical interpretation. "In the Latin version... the words unus Deus ("One God") are to be found, and no explicit heresy is taught... The mistranslation of unus Deus by 'You alone are God' clearly departs from the traditional norm. In the absence of any other reference to this prayer to the Son or the Holy Ghost, the use of the word 'alone' appears to be an explicit denial of the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity... It is for this reason that some have referred to this Eucharistic Prayer as the 'Arian Canon'" (Problems, p. 42).

The 'Institution Narrative' - Coomaraswamy points out that "in the Novus Ordo Missae, as in the Lutheran service, the words of Consecration, the very heart of the Traditional Rite, are now part of what is called the 'Institution Narrative,' an expression not found in the traditional Missals of the Church. In the Traditional Missal, the words of Consecration are capitalized and set apart from the remaining text, making clear the form (words) of the Sacrament. In the American Novus Ordo missalettes, they run together, undifferentiated, with the remainder of the text. The tacit implication is that the priest is merely telling a story, in the accepted protestant tradition, rather than acting in the person of Christ to confect a Catholic Sacrament.The Church has always taught that, for the Sacrament to be valid, there must be 1) a properly ordained priest, 2) who intends to do at the altar what the Church intends, 3) using the proper matter (bread and wine), and 4) using the proper form (words). Coomaraswamy notes that "the form of the Consecration in the Traditional Mass has been fixed since Apostolic times. It has been 'canonically' fixed since the so-called Armenian Decree of the Council of Florence (1438-1445)" (The Problems with the New mass, p. 47). That form, according to the Council of Trent, is:FOR THIS IS MY BODY.***FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT THE MYSTERY OF FAITH:WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.***

Changes in the Consecration: "pro multis" - Although the official Latin text of the Novus Ordo Missae retains the words "pro multis," "for many," in the words of Consecration, that is a version of the Mass which Americans will rarely if ever experience. When the Novus Ordo was translated into the vernacular, those words were rendered: "for all men"; then "for all." An identical 'error' occurs in a number of languages: Italian, French, German, Spanish, Croatian, suggesting that there was a decision made within the Congregation for Divine Worship in this regard.The innovation was defended in an unsigned article in Notitiae, the Congregation's official journal. Readers were told that, in Aramaic (presumed to be Our Lord's language), the expression "for many" means "for all." Such is not the case, however; Davies points out that both Aramaic and Hebrew have different words to express both concepts. Patrick Henry Omlor gives kol or kolla as the Aramaic word for 'all'; 'saggi'an is the Aramaic word for 'many.' "Three months later Notitiae published a signed article admitting this" (Pope Paul's New Mass, p. 623). There has, of course, been no correction made.

Omlor points out that it is "an unquestionable fact that throughout 19 centuries and right up to the very present (i.e., before the vernacular craze became epidemic) not a single rite of the Catholic Church, not the schismatic Eastern Orthodox Churches, not a single heretical Church, even, ever used the words 'for all men' in this place. Eight Eastern Rites there are in communion with the Holy See, and, as the first part of this century at least, there were eleven different languages used by these eight rites. Now in all these rites and all these languages, and also, of course, in the Latin of the Roman Rite, the formula reads 'for many'" (Insights into Heresy, p. 15).

Omlor argues convincingly that the change in ICEL's form involves basic change in theological meaning. There is a blurring, he maintains, of the distinction between the sufficiency and the efficacy of Christ's death. "There are some men who, through their perverse failure to cooperate with God's grace, thereby nullify for themselves the benefits of this Purchase.... Christ's death was sufficient for all, but it is effective... only for those who avail themselves of the necessary graces God gives hem for salvation" (The Ecumenist Heresy, p. 4). As the Council of Trent explained, "Though He died for all, yet not all receive the benefit of His death, but only those unto whom the merit of His Passion is communicated" (Session VI, Chapter 3). Omlor cites the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, the authors of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus, Pope Innocent III, Pope Benedict XIV and others, all of whom expounded upon the vital distinction between sufficiency and efficacy.

Joachim Jeremias, a German Protestant, was the first in modern times to suggest the change to "for all." According to Hugh Ross Williamson, Jeremias, "at the time a professor at the University of Gottingen... attacked the Divinity of Christ" (The Great Betrayal, cited by Omlor). Jeremias first advanced the theory that 'for many" meant "for all" in his 1966 book, The Words of Jesus. According to Fr. Wathen, "the reason for mistranslating the words "pro multis" to mean "for all men" was to implant the Lutheran error (held by almost all Protestants) that through the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, all will be saved who have faith in that Sacrifice, regardless of their own moral goodness, regardless of their acceptance of other revealed truths, regardless of membership in the Church. But this idea is only an intermediary one, meant to suggest a still more heterodox idea, that eventually all men will be saved taken to Heaven even the damned" (Great Sacrilege, p. 86).

Three points need to be made regarding this change of wording: 1) The liturgical reformers have changed the words of Our Lord, and, with the new wording, altered His meaning. In Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24, Jesus Christ said "for many." With incredible arrogance, the reformers have evidently decided that He should have said, "for all;" 2) The reformers lacked the authority to make the change. Leo XIII's Bull Apostolicae Curae says that "the Church is forbidden to change, or even to touch, the matter or form of any Sacrament." The Church has no power over the substance of Sacraments, according to Pope Pius XII, since those Sacraments were instituted by Jesus Christ (Sacramentum Ordinis, 1947). He was echoing the words of Pope St. Pius X, who said "it is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the Sacraments" (Ex quo, nono, 1910)3) De Defectibus established that, if anything in the established form was omitted, the Mass would be invalid. De Defectibus is a bull of Pope St. Pius V, covering defects in the Mass. Printed in the front of every Traditional Roman altar Missal, it explicitly states that "If anyone removes or changes anything in the Form of the Consecration of the Body and Blood, and by this change of words does not signify the same thing as these words do, he does not confect the Sacrament." For the Mass to be valid, the entire, intact form [as cited on page 4] must be recited. "In our Sacraments," teaches the Catechism of the Council of Trent, "the form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it renders the Sacrament null" (Part II, Ch. 1, cited by Omlor).

Changes in the Consecration: "The Mystery of Faith" - The Consecration of the Chalice has been butchered. Not only have the words "for many" been changed to "for all," but the phrase "the Mystery of Faith" has been excised from the form, and inserted later in the Mass. Dr. Coomaraswamy's comments on this change bear quoting in toto: "The phrase has been removed from the form and made into the introduction to the peoples 'Memorial Acclamation,' thus implying that the Mystery of Faith is the Death, Resurrection and Final Coming of Our Lord, rather than His 'Real Presence' on the altar. Nor are the other Memorial Acclamations any more specific, e.g., 'when we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim Your death, Lord Jesus, until You come in glory."

"Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, the principal architect of the new Mass, informs us in his memoirs that he discussed this issue directly with Paul VI. The Concilium had wished to leave the text of the 'Memorial Acclamation' up to the various National Bishops' Committees on the liturgy, but Paul VI urged that 'a series of acclamations... be prepared for use after the consecration.' According to Archbishop Bugnini, Paul VI feared that 'if the initiative were left to the Bishops' Committees, inappropriate acclamations such as My Lord and my God would be introduced.' The Catholic Church traditionally has always encouraged the private and quiet use of the ejaculatory prayer My Lord and my God, by the people at the elevation of the Host during Mass and Benediction; Pope St. Pius X attached rich indulgences to this practice, as it both affirmed belief in the Real Presence and gave praise to God" (The Problems with the New Mass, p. 57).

The words 'the Mystery of Faith' are not found in the Holy Scripture; St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that they were handed down to the Church by the Apostles who received them from Our Lord (Summa, III, Q. 78, A. 3-9). Certainly this is the position of Pope Innocent III, in Cum Carthae Circa which, by virtue of its inclusion in Denzinger, Omlor views as part of the ordinary Magisterium. Omlor stresses, therefore, that those words are "derived from Tradition (Tradition with a capital 'T', which is one of the two sources of Divine Revelation)..." (No Mystery of Faith: No Mass, p. 12). To charges that 'the mystery of Faith' does not appear in the wine consecration form of the Eastern rites, Omlor responds with a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia: "It is abundantly clear that this diversity [of rites] arose from the traditions handed down by the different Apostles." "Through God's Infinite Wisdom... and foreknowledge of all things, it has turned out," he notes, "that only in the Western Church has the doctrine of the Real Presence been assailed" (No Mystery of Faith: No Mass, p. 19). In other words, those words signifying Christ's Real Presence exist in the Latin Rite because God knew Latin Rite Catholics would need them.

The phrase 'The Mystery of Faith' was removed by Luther and Cranmer as well, since both understood that it referred to transubstantiation. Omlor quite clearly argues that, by removing 'the Mystery of Faith' from the form of the Sacrament, the Novus Ordo revisionists have done precisely what De Defectibus cautioned against, and no Mass is therefore celebrated.

The change was not without precedent. The phrase was omitted from the wine consecration form when Pope Pius XII's New Order of Holy Week was translated into the vernacular. The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office issued a Monitum (warning), calling the omission 'nefarious.' The 'Short Form' Controversy. Omlor explains that "Defenders of the 'short form' position hold that these first few words of the wine-Consecration form in the Latin Rite, 'This is the Chalice of My Blood,' suffice for the valid consecration of the precious Blood. They claim that the remaining words of the sacramental form, namely, 'of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins, although being part of the wine-consecration form laid down in the Roman Missal, are nevertheless not necessary for the valid consecration of the wine and hence not necessary for the validity of the Mass."

The defenders of the 'entire form' position deny the foregoing supposition. They hold that, except for the word 'for,' ALL the words of the sacramental form for the wine-consecration, exactly as laid down in the Roman Missal are absolutely necessary for bringing about the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and therefore are essential for the celebration of a valid Mass" (Why the Short Form Cannot Possibly Suffice, p. 1).

Omlor proceeds to demonstrate that the 'short form' position is a minority one; "very many great theologians, including saints, popes and doctors of the Church, have held that the [short form is] insufficient for the validity of the Consecration.... These exponents include St. Thomas Aquinas; St. Antonius; Pope ST. Pius V; Pope Innocent III; the authors of the Catechism of the Council of Trent...." and many others. Cajetan (1469-1534), a Dominican cardinal, was, according to Omlor, the first 'Thomist' to oppose the mind of St. Thomas and Pope Pius V had Cajetan's opinion on this matter deleted from the authorized Roman edition of the Cardinal's Commentaries.The crux of Omlor's argument is that, according to Pope Leo XIII's Bull Apostolicae Curae (1896), "All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, must both signify THE GRACE which they effect, and effect THE GRACE which they signify... The form consequently cannot be apt or sufficient for a Sacrament which omits what it must essentially signify." The short form fails to signify in the necessary, unambiguous manner the remission of the sins of Christ's Mystical Body.

It is indisputable that the mere existence of the two opposing opinions makes the validity of the wine consecration form of the New Mass doubtful. According to Fr. Heribert Jone, a well-known Catholic moral theologian, "Matter and form must be certainly valid. Hence, one may not follow a probable opinion and use either doubtful matter or form. Acting otherwise, one commits a sacrilege" (Handbook of Moral Theology, p. 308).

The Communion Rite - In the Traditional Mass, the priest says, while distributing Communion, "May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto life everlasting, Amen." In the Novus Ordo, whoever distributes Communion merely says, "The Body of Christ" without specifying whether the phrase applies to the host, or the recipient. (It's a change typical of the studied ambiguity throughout the Novus Ordo.)Davies notes that "the American hierarchy is actually preparing the way for Catholic acceptance of the concept that the Sacrifice in the Mass is that of Christ being offered in virtue of His presence in the congregation who offer themselves. In the official [Sept. 1976] Newsletter of the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy, a ruling was laid down when distributing Holy Communion a priest must not say: 'Receive the Body of Christ' or 'This is the Body of Christ.' The reason given is that the congregation itself is the Body of Christ" (The Roman Rite Destroyed, p. 39). According to that Newsletter, "the use of the phrase The Body of Christ: Amen, in the communion rite asserts in a very forceful way the presence and role of the community... The change to the use of the phrase ... rather than the long formula which was previously said by the Priest has several repercussions in the liturgical renewal. First, it seeks to highlight the important concept, of the community as the Body of Christ; secondly it brings into focus the assent of the individual in the worshiping community...." The assent of the worshiping community, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the objective reality of transubstantiation, which can be effected in its absence; it is only in the heretical Lutheran transignification that the belief of the recipient impacts on the reality of the Sacrament.

The Revised Propers - The propers of the Mass are the variable Sunday and Feast day prayers. Fr. Anthony Cekada attempted a line-by-line comparison of the old and new Propers, in The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass (hereinafter, PPMM). He found he task arduous, since many of the old orations have been moved or altogether deleted, and the liturgical calendar itself has been drastically modified. Epiphanytide, Septuagesima and the Ember Days were deleted, the number of Saints remembered in the calendar was dramatically reduced, and feasts have been relocated or suppressed.

The Traditional Missal, according to Fr. Cekada, contains 182 orations. "About 760 of those were dropped entirely. Of the approximately 36% which remained, the revisers altered over half of them.... Thus, only some 17% of the orations from the old Missal made it untouched into the new Missal" (PPMM, p. 9). Fr. Cekada's conclusion is that "the contents of Paul VI's Missal represent a radical break with the Church's liturgical tradition."

The Agenda of the Reformers - Fr. Cekada quotes Fr. Carlo Braga, assistant to Fr. Bugnini (the latter, Secretary for the Concilium charged with liturgical reform). Fr. Braga's words should sound warning bells in the ears of those who can recall the textbook definition of heresy." Revising the pre-existing text becomes more delicate when faced with a need to update content or language, and when all this affects not only form, but also doctrinal reality. This [revision] is called for in light of the new view of human values... The Council clearly proposes this [new view] and it was kept in mind when the Temporal Cycle was revised... In other cases, Ecumenical requirements dictated appropriate revisions in language. Expressions calling positions or struggles of the past are no longer in harmony with the Church's new positions.

An entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology has superceded devotional points of view or a particular way of venerating and invoking the Saints. Retouching the text, moreover, was deemed necessary to bring to light new values and new perspectives." (Fr. Carlo Braga, II Proprium de Sactis', Ephemerides Liturgicae 84, 1970, p. 419).

Doctrines deleted or downplayed - Fr. Cekada found that the above-mentioned 'new values' required the downplaying or obliteration in the new Propers of a long list of Catholic 'doctrinal realities.'"These include hell, judgment, God's wrath, punishment for sin, the wickedness of sin as the greatest evil, detachment from the world, purgatory, the souls of the departed, Christ's kingship on earth, the Church Militant, the triumph of the Catholic Faith, the evils of heresy, schism and error, the conversion of non-Catholics, the merits of the Saints, and miracles...." (PPMM, p. 28).

Some of the 'adjustments' were made by way of mistranslations. There are, according to Christopher Monckton, former editor of the (London) Universe, over 400 mistranslations in the English version of the New Mass errors paralleled in other vernacular translations except the Polish. Both he and Davies maintain that the inaccurate renderings serve to dilute or remove allusions and references to those doctrines of the Mass that are specifically Catholic. Monckton finds that "The thoroughness and determination with which those teachings.... have been removed is demonstrated by many minor omissions which are often repeated" (quoted in Pope Paul's New Mass, pp. 617-618). 'Negative theology.' Concilium Study Group member Fr. Auge explained the need to rework the 'negative theology' of the Advent and Lenten Propers. "Some of these collects, in fact, spoke of, among other things, the punishments, anger or divine wrath for our sins, of a Christian assembly oppressed with guilt, continually afflicted due to its disorders, threatened with condemnation to eternal punishment, etc." (cited in PPMM, p. 11).

Fr. Cekada explains that the Concilium simply rewrote or abolished "texts which contained ideas that contemporary man finds disturbing." The possibility of damnation has been excised from the old Collect for the 3rd Sunday after Pentecost, now used from the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time. The prayer for support in human weakness now asks only an increase in charity. "The revisers," notes Fr. Cekada, "were forced to change the entire character of the Lenten prayers. The traditional Lenten orations relentlessly emphasized fasting and mortifications of the flesh... Emergency surgery was prescribed" (PPMM, pp. 15-16). Orations that once spoke of heroic mortifications of the flesh now speak of 'moderation' and 'restraint.' Orations mentioning our guilt, temporal or eternal punishment or spiritual combat were suppressed or altered.

Consideration was given to abolishing Ash Wednesday; in the end, two of the four orations were eliminated, and the other two 'doctored.' One, which formerly asked for the spirit of compunction for sin, now contains only what Fr. Cekada terms "incongruous talk about celebrating the paschal mystery." The other was stripped of the words "pardon," "humility," the "fragility of the human condition," and the concept of death as a penalty for our guilt. The Holy Thursday prayer that mentioned that Judas Iscariot was punished by God for his guilt has been removed. Detachment from the world is no longer a concern; orations that spoke of putting aside earthly pleasures have been deleted. Rites and Prayers for the Dead have undergone extreme reconstruction. "White vestments replaced black; Alleluia replaced Eternal Rest Grant unto Them, and the typical funeral, in America at least, was turned into something akin to a canonization ceremony ... Hell, for contemporary man, is not on his list of fundamental options" (PPMM, p. 20).

The word 'soul' has been excised almost entirely from the new Missal. In the New Mass for All Souls' Day it does not appear once. Revisers dropped 11 of the traditional prayers from the dead which used the word 'soul' and struck the word itself from 23 of the 25 orations they retained. Ecumenism. "The notion of acknowledging the one, true God has been deleted from the Collect for St. Cyril of Jerusalem. The Collect for the Propagation of the Faith,... now the Collect for the Evangelization of Peoples, underwent similar revisions... The goal of the missionary's apostolate has been changed; in the old collect it was to bring nations to know the only true God and Jesus Christ the phrase is a quote from Our Lord's discourse in John 17; in the new collect, it appears to be merely 'preaching the Gospel.' The means have been turned into an end" (PPMM, pp. 22-23).

Mention of the Church Militant has been struck from the Feasts of Christ the King and St. Ignatius Loyola. Allusions to the existence of heresy have been deleted; the Oration for Heretics and Schismatics has been abolished. The Church apparently no longer has enemies; mention of them has been struck from the St. Pius V oration. We no longer pray for the conversion of the Jews or Pagans. We now ask that the Jews increase in faithfulness to their Covenant, and "come to the fullness of redemption." Gone is the mention of Jewish faithlessness and blindness.

Fr. Cekada notes that "the merits of the saints followed the soul into virtual oblivion" (PPMM, p. 25). Traditional prayers which invoked the "merits and intercession" of the saints now ask only for their prayers. The miracles of the saints fare no better; all have been suppressed, as Fr. Braga explained, to adapt to "the mentality of modern man." Those miracles were, after all, "characteristic of a certain hagiography of the past."Fr. Cekada further noted in a 1986 speech that "the greatest outrage that the translators perpetrated was consistently leaving out the word 'grace' from their translations. It appears in the Latin original of the Orations 11 times, but not once in the official English version. Thus, the word which is fundamental to Catholic teaching on the Fall of man, the Redemption, sin, justification, and the entire sacramental system has utterly disappeared without a trace..." (Cited in The Problems with the New Mass, p. 80).

Fr. Cekada summarizes: "The virtual elimination of these 'doctrinal realities' from the new Missale is nothing less than an attack on the integrity of the Catholic faith. Liturgy of its nature expresses doctrine, and, as Pope Pius XII observed, the entire liturgy 'bears public witness to the faith of the Church.' This intimate connection between liturgy and doctrine is often summed up in the old adage, Lex orandi, led credendi 'the law of prayer is the law of belief' ... During the course of the liturgical year, these prayers bore witness individually to countless truths, each of which was (and is) and integral part of the Church's law of belief.

Shrouding a substantial portion of these truths in obscurity, ambiguity or silence is an invitation for men to deny them... If hell, the human soul or the wickedness of sin count for little in the new liturgy, they will in turn count for little for the man in the pew" (PPMM, p. 28-31).

Part 2: Architects of The 'New Mass' - Annibale Bugnini and the Concilium. According to Mary Ball Martinez, "as early as 1947 Pope Pacelli... was setting up a commision for the complete overhauling of the sacred liturgy. As secretary he chose a 35-year-old priest, one Fr. Bugnini, who had the evocative first name of Annibale, having been born in a town along the shores of Lake Trasimeno where Hannibal and his elephants roundly defeated the Romans. Beating the Romanness out of the Missale... became the major goal of Fr. Bugnini and his group of periti. "That the Pope gave great importance to this committee and its work is evident in lines from an autobiography which Bugnini wrote... 'We enjoyed the full confidence of Pius XII who was kept informed of our work by Msgr. Montini and even more by Fr. Bea, his confessor. Thanks to these intermediaries we could arrive at remarkable results even in periods when the Pope's illness prevented anyone else from seeing him'" (The Undermining of the Catholic Church, p. 90).

Martinez maintains that the Curial office, the Sacred Congregation for Rites, opposed Bugnini's innovations consistently, and it therefore took 6 years for the changes Maxima Redeptionis came finally in 1955, moving Easter's celebration to the evening before, and suppressing the Three Hours devotion on Good Friday and the solemnities of Tenebrae. In many of the Easter ceremonies, Martinez notes that the priest faced the people, and the prayers at the foot of the altar and the last Gospel were suppressed, "making of it a kind of dress rehearsal for the New Mass, still a decade in the future" (p. 91).

Fr. Bugnini was appointed Professor of Sacred Liturgy at the Lateran University in 1957. In 1960 he was appointed Secretary to the Preparatory Commission for the Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council. Michael Davies maintains that "he was the moving spirit behind the drafting of the preparatory schema, the draft document which was to be placed before the Council Fathers for discussion... As was stressed in Msgr. Bugnini's own journal, Notitiae, the Liturgy Constitution which the Council Fathers eventually passed was substantially identical with the draft schema which he had steered through the Preparatory Commission" (Pope Paul's New Mass, p. 498). The Concilium... In March, 1964 the formation of the Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy known as the Concilium, was announced; Fr. Bugnini was appointed its secretary. Although over 50 prelates from around the world were members, it was Bugnini who wielded the power, guiding daily the work of some 150 consulting liturgists who were producing the new texts and rubrics. Fr. Cekada explains that "Concilium's mission and juridical standing were an anomaly. In the normal scheme of the things, the Vatican's Sacred Congregation of Rites decided and regulated all matters affecting the Church's worship. It appears, however, that the members of the Congregation were opposed to many of the schemes in the air for reworking the Sacred Liturgy... Establishing a new entity to propose liturgical changes, therefore, achieved the proverbial end-run around a well-entrenched opposition" (PPMM, p. 7).

In 1969, Pope Paul incorporated the Concilium into the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship as a special commission. As Davies explains, "Notitae, the official journal of the Concilium, became the journal of the new Congregation. Father Annibale Bugnini was appointed secretary... and became more powerful than ever. In fact, it is certainly no exaggeration to claim that what had, in fact, happened was that the Concilium, in other words Father Bugnini, had taken over the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship" (Pope Paul's New Mass, p. 502). Dubbed the "evil spirit of liturgical reform" by Dietrich von Hildebrand, Bugnini had over 150 changes in circulation within twelve months.

Freemasonic Connections - In 1972 Pope Paul created Bugnini Titular Archbishop of Dioclentia. In 1975, however, the Archbishop left his briefcase behind in a conference room, where it was found and inspected by the Dominican Friar charged with restoring the room to order. In search only of the identity of the case's owner, the Dominican found, according to Piers Compton, documents whose "signatures and place of origin showed that they came from dignitaries of secret societies in Rome" (The Broken Cross, p. 61). The letters were addressed to "Brother Bugnini." According to Davies "a Roman priest of the very highest reputation. The Friar had this information placed into the hands of Paul VI, with the warning that if action were not taken at once he would be bound in conscience to make the matter public. Msgr. Bugnini was then dismissed and his entire congregation dissolved" (Pope Paul's New Mass, p. 505).

Bugnini was appointed the Apostolic pro-Nuncio to Iran, and repeatedly denied that he had Freemasonic affiliations. When the Italian Register came to light in 1976, however, it showed his April 23, 1963 initiation date and number, and gave his code name as 'Buan.' The Luciferian nature of secret societies, "Their god," wrote Pius VIII, "is the devil, and Pius IX referred to the lodge as the "synagogue of Satan." Their references are factual, rather than poetic. Masonry, like its Kabbalistic forefather, is Luciferian at its inner core. 33rd degree Freemason Oswald Wirth wrote: "The beguiling serpent who incites us to eat the fruit.... represents both a nobler and subtler impulse, whose purpose is to make man aware of his need to rise in the scale of beings... The modern mason... by carrying out the divine plan, himself becomes a god...." (cited in de Poncins' Freemasonry and the Vatican, pp. 87). J.D. Buck states that "the only personal god Freemasonry accepts is humanity in total. God, the Great Architect of the Universe, personifies himself through man, Humanity, therefore, is the only personal god there is" (Symbolism of Mystic Masonry, p. 216).

This Masonic belief in the immanent divinity of man represents a revolt against the divine life; the 1931 French Masonic Review specifically stated that "henceforward there are only two doctrines... for which men are combating; Integral Humanism, no matter what may be the particular form of social reconstruction favored by its protagonists... and Clerico-Theism" (cited in Fr. Fahey's Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, p. 38). The ecumenical goal of secret societies.

Fr. James Wathen has pointed out that "only the extremely naive would not recognize in the Ecumenical Movement the machinations of Freemasonry, which from the Nineteenth century has had as one of its principle goals the amalgamation of the churches, and the deletion from all of them the last traces of authentic Christianity" (Who Shall Ascend, p. 487). "Our final aim is that of Voltaire and that of the French Revolution the complete annihilation of Catholicism, and ultimately of Christianity," wrote a conspirator within the Carbonari, whose Supreme Direcotry, the Alta Vendita, became a "kind of nucleus for all the secret societies spread throughout Italy" (The Broken Cross, p. 12).

Masonry's Integral Humanism will issue in the creation of an artificial world-state built according to their principles. Brother Riandey taught that "the future world will create a still newer one. After having assimilated Christianity and all other forms of spirituality, it will, as it were, give birth, by analogy to the physical phenomenon of a total collectivization, to a kind of pantheism" (Le Temple, Sept.-Oct. 1946).

Roca, a defrocked priest, Satanist, and Masonic theoretician, had been quite explicit in his statements regarding this syncretic goal. He envisioned "a new Christianity, sublime, vast, profound, truly universal, absolutely encyclopedic... a universal cult into which all cults will be absorbed whose God will be humanity, which to my eyes, commingles with Christ, who is thus the entire universe" (Glorieux Centenaire, pp. 77, 525, 528). "It is only a theocratic society having the characteristics of Freemasonry that we can hope some day to unite Islam and Christianity, the Jews with the Buddhists, Europe and Asia in one idea and one intense hope. In a word, it is up to Freemasonry to form the Universal Church." In the Bulletin du Grand Orient (n. 57), he summarizes: "Masonry wishes to be the super-church, the church which will reunite all churches."

It was primarily this intention that brought ringing condemnations from Pope after Pope; since the time of Clement XII, some 18 encyclicals condemned Freemasonry and threatened Catholics who joined or cooperated with them with excommunication. Masonry needs a universal religion of its liking, in order to blend together all humanity under Lucifer's utopian banner. The Church had been its most powerful enemy; after all, there has been enmity between her seed and that of the serpent since the time of Eden. The method of secret societies, "subversion from within" has become Masonry's chosen approach to the Catholic Church. The method proved quite successful; a century ago the secret societies were able to boast of "more than eight hundred priests, among whom are many professors and prelates as well as some Bishops and Cardinals" in Rome. In 1903, Freemason and Cardinal Mariano Rampolla, having served as Leo XIII's secretary of state, was nearly elevated to the chair of Peter.

Martinez notes that, "according to the Milanese journalist Pier Carpi, who claims to have absolute proof... [Roncalli] was initiated into Masonry attaining... the 18th or Rosicrucian Degree. Yves Marsaudon, State Minister of the Supreme Council of French secret societies, wrote the preface to Brother Charles Riandey's Masonic book on ecumenism. Piers Compton quotes that preface: "To the memory of Angelo Roncalli, priest, Archbishop of Messamaris, Apostolic Nuncio in Paris, Cardinal of the Roman Church, Patriarch of Venice, Pope under the name of John XXIII, who has deigned to give us his benediction, his understanding, and his protection." A second preface was dedicated to "his August continuer, His Holiness Pope Paul VI" (The Broken Cross, pp. 49-50)By 1976.

Italian publications were printing lists of clerics, some in high office, whose secret society membership had been uncovered. Numbered among them were the recently deceased Agostino Cardinal Casaroli, Secretary of State and prefect of the Pontifical Commission for the Revision of Canon law, the most powerful Vatican official after the Pope, whose place he assumes in the latter's absence.

Once clerics sympathetic to the revolution were in place, the Church could be torpedoed from within. Roca had spelled out the conditions for the successful subversion of Catholicism: "You must have a new dogma, a new religion, a new ministry, and new rituals that very closely resemble those of the surrendered Church." He also predicted that "The divine cult directed by the liturgy, ceremonial, ritual and regulation of the Roman Catholic Church will shortly undergo transformation at an ecumenical Council" (cited in The Broken Cross, p. 42).

The success of secret societies - Certainly one encounters, among the documents of the Second Vatican Council, statements without Catholic precedent, which mark a departure from formal doctrine. Gaudium et Spes, n. 12, tells us that "Believers and unbelievers agree almost unanimously that all things on earth should be ordained to man as to their center and summit." It's a statement with which any Freemason would agree but the Church has always taught that human life is ordered to God.

The predicted Masonic transformation is nowhere more evident than in the Novus Ordo Missae. Under Bugnini's leadership, references to man's frailty and propensity for sin have been excised, as befits candidates for godhood. By Bugnini's own admission 'ecumenical sensitivity' fueled the construction of new Eucharistic prayers, and references to those Catholic teachings despised by Protestants have been omitted or downplayed. The next world receives scant attention in a mass designed by those who look forward to ruling a universal temporal kingdom.

Six Heretics - According to Michael Davies, a published photograph of Pope Paul VI with Vatican II's six Protestant liturgical 'observers'"proved to be a source of astonishment and even scandal to large numbers of the faithful who had had no idea that Protestants played any part in the compilation of the new Catholic rites" (Pope Paul's New Mass, Appendix III). Those heretics represented the World Council of Churches, the Anglican and Lutheran communions, and the Taize community. Davies goes on to quote Cardinal Baum, who maintains that the Protestants in question were "not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well and they participated fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical renewal." Their impact was considerable. "Prayers referring to the doctrines of sacrifice and the Real Presence have been minimized to such an extent that the Novus Ordo Missae can now be celebrated in a manner that is completely acceptable to some Protestants" (Pope Paul's New Mass, p. 255).

M. G. Siegvalt, a professor of dogmatic theology on the Protestant faculty at Strasbourg, notes that "nothing in the renewed Mass need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant," the Eucharistic prayers having dropped what observer Jean Guitton termed "the false perspective of sacrifice offered to God."

Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani's intervention also cited the reduction of the priest's role to one approximating that of a Protestant minister, a new definition of the Mass as an "assembly," and ambiguous and equivocal language throughout, which compromise Church doctrines.

Davies maintains that "Not only do these Protestants feel at home with the prayers of the Novus Ordo Missae, but they state quite explicitly that they consider that there has been a change in the Catholic theology of the Mass which brings it into line with evangelical teaching on the Lord's Supper" (p. 271). (By way of example, the language of the prayer that asks that the gifts "be for us" the Body and Blood allows for the denial of Transubstantiation and the substitution of transignifaction, a Protestant notion that holds that the Presence of Christ in the Sacrament is real only for the believer. Davies notes a liturgical convergence in the revised liturgies of Anglicans, Methodists and others, quoting writers from the various denominations who expressed their desire for what one called "a United Christian rite in a United Christian Church." He cites the efforts of the Societas Liturgica, under the auspices of the World Council of Churches, whose Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox members strive for just that sort of convergence. Similarly, the ICET (International Consultation on English Texts) proposes texts "which will be acceptable to all the Churches... in the hope of furthering ecumenism." The American bishops have made many ICET texts mandatory.

Fr. Wathen observes that "Protestants need take no comfort at seeing the Mass being 'accommodated' to their beliefs... the final purpose of the Revolution is their subversion, also... For its essential motif is not Protestant, but ecumenical... What [the Revolution] understands by ecumenism is the melting of all religious denominations into the pseudo-religious hash of universal brotherhood.... Instead of God, the Revolution worships 'man'." (The Great Sacrilege, p. 127)

The Novus Ordo Missae, quite simply, is the new rite of 'Mass' meticulously constructed under the direction of a Freemason, with the official assistance of six forma heretics. It is the oft-stated intention of Freemasonic theoreticians to subvert and destroy the Catholic Church; heretics are termed such precisely because they deny Catholic teaching. There remains no logical reason to believe that it was not designed to harm the faith.

The Novus Ordo does not become acceptable should it be established that it contains no explicit heresy. As Cardinal Ottaviani warned, "The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could turn into a certainty the suspicion already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by Christian people can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound forever."

Part 3: Legal Questions - What is the force of Quo Primum? Fr. Wathen explains that "Quo Primum established the Traditional Rite in perpetuity with all the force which the Pope's office possessed" (Ascend, pp. 528-529). An act of the Council of Trent as well as a Sainted Pope, Quo Primum says that "by virtue of our Apostolic Authority we give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple or conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgement or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used." It was declared "unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any other formula other than that of this Missal, published by us," with the exception of an Indult granted to approved mass rites that had been in use for over 200 years at that time. Furthermore, Quo Primum specifically states that "no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command..."

"You can find canonists who will tell you that Pope Paul VI, having authority equal to that of Pope St. Pius V, could legally abrogate Quo Primum, and legally introduce a new missal," Fr. Wathen observes. Michael Davies has found several who say precisely this. Certainly in purely disciplinary measures, the principle is a true one. However, Fr. Wathen's argument is that Quo Primum "is a law that was imposed with the fullest pontifical authority, whose intention was to protect the Mass insofar as it might ever need protecting, from any mischief whatsoever... It should be taken as a self-evident fact that the Church, as a perfect society one, that is, which possesses all the means necessary for the achievement of the ends of its existence has all the power and authority she needs to protect the Mass of the Roman Rite, and that, in the legislation, Quo Primum, she attempted to raise such an incontestable bulwark" (Ascend, pp. 530-531).

Is Papal infallibility involved? According to Fr. Wathen, "the prevalent opinion is that, by his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of April 3, 1969, His Holiness Pope Paul VI established the Novus Ordo Missae to replace the Traditional Latin Mass... Consequently, to refuse to offer this 'New Mass' is a serious violation of Church law. And to question it on doctrinal grounds is tantamount to questioning the doctrine of Papal Infallibility" (Great Sacrilege, pp. 16-17). There are those, he notes, "who say that the Holy Ghost would never permit the supreme authority of the Church to impose as a universally binding law something which is contrary or harmful to faith or morals... Any law, they imagine, that the Church passes which has to do with their moral obligations cannot be harmful to them, else the Church will have violated her infallibility" (Ascend, p. 514).

This argument, however, does not bear scrutiny. The First Vatican Council, which laid down the conditions for infallibility, states that, among other requirements, the Pope must speak as the Pope, exercising his office of teaching the whole Church. In addition to the Latin Rite, there are five other liturgical Rites within the universal Church some 12 million souls who would not have been directly affected by the introduction of the Novus Ordo. Liturgical precepts might in fact be morally wrong, since "they are not universally binding, and are not protected by the Church's infallibility" (Ascend, p. 516). Furthermore, "the doctrine of Papal infallibility, by stating in what respect the Pope cannot err, admits, in effect, that in all other areas of his vast prerogatives the Pope is completely fallible... There is no divine promise that the Pope will not be permitted to use his great authority in the most wicked and destructive ways" (Great Sacrilege, pp. 21-22).

It is a moot point. Fr. Wathen finds that "Christ and the True Church, through the decree of Pope Pius II, Execrabilis, have rendered all the acts of the Council, and all that are done by virtue of the Council, null and void" (Ascend, p. 516). According to Execrabilis, no future council, and no pope, may overturn the solemn definitions of the Sacred Magisterium. Any council called to contravene existing Magisterial teaching was anathematized in advance; those involved incur, in addition to ecclesiastical censure, "the indignation of almighty God, and of Saints Peter and Paul, His Apostles."

Was the Traditional Latin Mass Suppressed? In 1986, Pope John Paul II called together nine Cardinals and formed a papal commission. The commission's purpose was to examine the legal status of the Traditional Latin Mass, and it was to answer two questions: 1) Did Pope Paul VI abrogate the Latin Rite? And 2) Does any priest need permission to offer Mass in the Traditional Rite?

The commission concluded unanimously that Pope Paul did not abrogate the traditional rite; he never gave the bishops the authority to forbid celebration according to the traditional rite of Mass.To the second question, the commission responded 8 votes in the negative, and one in the positive. Priests cannot be obligated to celebrate the new rite of mass; bishops cannot forbid or place restrictions on the celebration of the traditional rite, whether in public or in private.

According to Fr. Paul Leonard, the commission recommended that the Pope issue a papal decree based on the commission's findings, but "Cardinal Agostino Casaroli, the Vatican's Secretary of State, maneuvered the situation in such a manner so as to obstruct [issuance of a papal decree]." Cardinal Casaroli, a member of the commission in question, was also among those named as a secret society member when the Italian Register was published in 1976. He served as Prefect of the Pontifical Commission for the Revision of Canon Law which produced the new 1983 Code, deleting specific mention of Freemasonry as forbidden.

Fr. Raymond V. Dunn, SJ, notes that the commission and its findings might have remained in obscurity, were it not for Alphons Cardinal Stickler, also a commission member, who has made known the findings ("The State of the Liturgy in the Catholic Church Today," Catholic Family News, October 1997, p. 15). "We have no official prohibition," Cardinal Stickler said, "and I think that the Pope would never establish an official prohibition... because of the words of Pius V, who said this was a mass forever" (Latin Mass Magazine, May 5, 1995)."The Holy See," continues Fr. Leonard, "does recognize the right of the priest to celebrate the Traditional Mass, and this is borne out by the fact that whenever priests are unjustly suspended for celebrating the Tridentine Mass, against the will of their bishops, the Roman courts always nullify the penalty whenever the cases are appealed."This is just one more proof that it is not the traditional priests who are disobedient when they celebrate the Tridentine mass, but it is the bishops who are entirely outside the law when they... forbid the traditional Mass. This fact also clearly demonstrates that penalties inflicted on priests for celebrating the Traditional Mass are null and void, as is clearly stated in the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum....." ("Traditional Mass Never Suppressed," The Remnant, 6/30/89)

The Indult - Dr. Coomaraswamy notes that "passing mention should be made of the changes mandated in the Missal of 1962 by Pope John XXIII, commonly called the 'Mass of John XXIII.' Though they appear now to be very minor by comparison to what came later on, many of the changes found in this Mass were significant, even radical for the time. In retrospect, I believe it can now be safely said that this Mass was used only for a time and that it was initially introduced 1) as a beginning step toward the Novus Ordo Missae; 2) to introduce the faithful to the idea that their time-honored rites could be changed; and 3) to determine how strong the resistance to the New Rite would be.

The Mass of John XXIII became obsolete just three years after it was introduced..." (The Problems with the New Mass, p. 76). The Indult, celebrated under the limited provisions of Pope John Paul II's Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei with the approval of a diocesan bishop, is billed as the 'Tridentine Mass.' It is, in fact, the Mass of John XXIII which, as Dr. Coomaraswamy points out, differs from the Mass of Pius V in a number of ways. All the commemorative collects and the Confiteor and absolution before Communion have been deleted; many feasts are suppressed, and much is made "optional."Fr. Morrison notes that "Traditional Catholics generally believe that no such 'indult' [permission] is necessary for the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass, which was canonized by Sacred Tradition and mandated 'in perpetuity' by Pope St. Pius V in his Solemn Bull Quo Primum [1570].

The form of the 'Indult' Mass is that of the Missale Romanum of 1962. Such masses are, in and of themselves, legitimate, as long as there is no admixture of the Novus Ordo Mass with the Traditional Latin Mass. Some diocesan 'Indult' Masses are 'pseudo-traditional,' in that they are a hybrid, using the New Mass calendar, lectionary, rubrics, vernacular, Communion-in-the-hand, altars facing the people, Hosts consecrated at a Novus Ordo Mass or other untraditional variations."In addition, some 'Indult' Masses offer a modernistic environment, featuring sermons with a modernistic tone, utilizing 'extraordinary' lay ministers to distribute Communion failing to observe the traditional precept for the Eucharistic Fast, or following other untraditional practices."

Part 4: Fruits Of The 'New Mass' - Dr. Berger, a Lutheran sociologist, is forthright in his evaluation of the impact of the New mass on the Catholic population. "The Liturgical Revolution no other term will do is a mistake touching millions of Catholics at the core of their religious belief," he said. "Let me only mention the sudden abolition, and indeed, prohibition of the Latin mass, the transposition of the officiating priest from the front to the back of the altar (the first change symbolically diminished the universality of the Mass, the second, its transcendent reference) ad the massive assault on a wide variety of forms of popular piety... If a thoroughly malicious sociologist, bent on injuring the Catholic community as much as possible, had been able to be advisor to the Church, he could hardly have done a better job" (Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Feb. 1979, cited by Coomaraswamy).

Proof of the damage is easy to find. Despite continual talk of the ongoing Catholic 'renewal,' statistics show a generalized withering since the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae. According to Michael Davies, "Mass attendance has decreased by percentages ranging from a modest 22% in England to 70% in France and Holland; there has been a catastrophic decline in baptisms, as much as 50% in Britain and the U.S.A. Conversions have plunged, seminary enrollment has declined by anything from 25% to 80%, while ordinations have declined as much as 97%."To make matters worse, there has been an exodus from the priestly and religious life. In the U.S.A. alone, 10,000 priests have abandoned their vocation and over 50,000 nuns have left their convents" (The Goldfish Bowl: the Church Since Vatican II, pp. 24-25). In less than seven years after the introduction of the new Mass, priests in the world decreased from 413,438 to 243,307 nearly 50% (Holy See Statistics).

Part 5: Conclusions - The New Mass, concludes Fr. Wathen, is "Humanist, Protestant (meaning anti-sacrificial), irreverent, or, if none of these things, then pointless, purposeless, and therefore mischievous. Added to these faults is the fact that it is questionably valid with respect to its consecration formula..." (Ascend, p. 5470548). Most of his charges have been substantiated in this newsletter, but a summary of sorts is in order.The Novus Ordo is probably invalidFr. Wathen notes that "suspicion of the invalidity of the New Mass is drawn from the new Missal and from the attendant features; they who officiate at this Meal are no longer priests but presidents; they stand not at an altar but a table not so much to offer it as to 'celebrate'..." Genuflections and acts of latria due Our transubstantiated Lord have been suppressed. Altar rails, suggestive of kneeling, have been removed. As the Ottaviani Intervention noted, there are in the New Mass an "implicit denials of Christ's Real Presence and the doctrine of Transubstantiation."

The words of Consecration - the changes in the words of Consecration have been fully discussed; because of their deviation from the form defined by the Council of Trent, and their violation of the Bull De Defectibus, the validity of the Sacrament is highly questionable.

The Intention - Pope Leo XIII published his Bull, Apostolicae Curae, in 1896, declaring Anglican orders to be invalid. He reached that decision based upon two factors the defect of form (the words of their ordination rite failed to provide the necessary signification) and defect of intention. Either of those defects, he said, would have been sufficient to render the alleged sacrament invalid.The defect of intention cited by the Pontiff refers to the intent of the rite's framers. "Concerning the mind or intention, insomuch as it is itself something interior, the Church does not pass judgment; but insofar as it is externally manifested, She is bound to judge of it," Pope Leo explained.

The Anglicans had demonstrated, by their own words and writings, an intention to concoct a new type of priesthood substantially different from the one specified by Christ, and therefore His Church. The architects of the New Mass have written and spoken endlessly on the newness of their creation. The altered role of the priest, the suppression of sacrificial terminology in favor of "meal" terminology, the alteration of the words of Consecration, etc. have all been externally manifested in the Novus Ordo. As the Ottaviani Intervention explicitly states, "it is obvious that the New Mass has no intention of presenting the Faith taught by the Council of Trent... It teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith."Furthermore, the Novus Ordo was concocted by the Church's avowed enemy, a Freemason, in cooperation with six formal heretics who deny transubstantiation. ("Can any person of sound mind conceivably suppose," asks Omlor, "that Annibale Bugnini, that most talented operative of Freemasonry, which is the 'mystical body of Satan,' would be taking pained to preserve the validity of the Catholic mass and would be making sure that the Mystical Body of Christ was being properly signified in the words of the Consecration form?") There is, in other words, clear defect of intention on the part of the New Mass.

On doubtful sacraments - Omlor notes that "a sacramental form that is ambiguous is ipso facto invalid," citing the Catechism of the Council of Trent (McCarthy's Case, p. 25). Coomaraswamy further explains that receipt of a questionable sacrament is sacrilege an act directed against God. Fr. Henry Davis, S.J., writes that "in conferring the sacraments, as also in the consecration of the mass, it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course. The contrary was explicitly condemned by Pope Innocent III... to do so would be a grievous sin against religion, namely an act of irreverence toward what Christ Our Lord has instituted. It would be a grievous sin against charity, as the recipient would probably be deprived of the graces and effects of the Sacrament. It would be a grievous sin against justice, as the recipient has a right to valid sacraments."Matter and form must be certainly valid. Hence one may not follow a probable opinion and use either doubtful matter or form. Acting otherwise, one commits sacrilege" (Moral and Pastoral Theology, p. 27, cited by Coomaraswamy, p. 63).

The Novus Ordo is a Sacrilege - "Whether the New Mass is valid or invalid, it is an atrocity, an unspeakable attack on the True Mass," writes Fr. Wathen, who has contended steadfastly that the Novus Ordo is sacrilegious. "The New Mass itself is an abuse of the Catholic Mass, which was given a definite and immutable form by Pope St. Pius V, exactly so that abuses could be avoided, discerned and condemned" (Ascend, p. 513). Fr. Wathen's book, The Great Sacrilege was published in 1971: long before many of the evil effects of the New mass were obvious, Fr. Wathen maintained that the Novus Ordo's irreverent mimicries" were to be avoided, that the sanctuaries in which it was enacted were to be regarded as desecrated, "impious and sordid actions" having been committed there (Canon 1172, Par. 1.3, cited by Fr. Wathen). Whether you agree with its conclusions or not, The Great Sacrilege remains essential reading for those who would understand the scope of the travesty thrust upon Catholics.

The Novus Ordo is Spiritual Subversion - Protestant ethos? The incorporation of heretical Protestant constructs and prayers in the New Mass, with the assistance of Protestant advisors, has been documented. The designers of the Novus Ordo invited into the consulting process those whose specific errors separated them from the Church; the resulting rite cannot but subvert the faith of Catholic who was, heretofore, isolated from Protestant error.Jewish Intent. "Keep in mind," Omlor writes, "that all insertions or deletions in the Novus Ordo are the result of Jewry's insistence for a complete overhauling of the Catholic mind. A reshaping of the Catholic thinking and attitude toward Jewry and thus toward God and the Truths He gave us is their goal. What better way to change Catholic thinking than to change the Mass Book, and Ritual, the heart of Catholic belief and worship? For, as you pray, so you think .... as you think, so you pray...(lex orandi, lex credendi) the one reflects the other.

The unorthodox thinking and attitude exhibited by many Catholics today stems mainly from the new attitude and thinking they have acquired due to the profane changes effected by the Novus Ordo. The constant repetition of arrogant 'prayers' of nonbelievers... amounts to the programmed reconditioning of the mind... concerning Apostolic doctrine and beliefs." (The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Knox Query, p. 19).

There is considerable support for Omlor's charge. Within the New Mass itself we find the substitution of a Jewish table grace for the traditional Suscipe, Sancte Pater in the Offertory. The Canon has been replaced by Eucharistic Prayers admittedly patterned on the Jewish berakah, or kiddush prayers. Prayers for the conversion of the Jews and heretics have been deleted, and the "two covenant" theory repeatedly condemned by the Church finds expression in the prayers of Holy Week (Catholics now ask that the Jews may remain faithful to their covenant, as though it coexists with the New Covenant of Jesus Christ). The Talmudic glorification of man pervades the New Rite, enshrining the very naturalism Popes have repeatedly condemned. Catholics are now instructed that Mass on the Jewish Sabbath fulfills their Sunday obligation. Furthermore, the stated intention of assorted Jewish pressure groups to effect changes in Catholic thinking during the Second Vatican Council must be taken into account.

A detailed examination of the subject is undertaken by Viscount Leo de Leo de Poncins, in his 1967 book Judaism and the Vatican. De Poncins includes in his book a lengthy quotation from the January 25, 1966 Look Magazine article, "How the Jews changed Catholic Thinking," written by that publication's senior editor, Joseph Roddy. The article gave many details of secret negotiations between Cardinal Bea and the leaders of the [Masonic] B'nai B'rith and the American Jewish Committee. Bea met with what the Look article termed a "latter day Sanhedrin" to "take questions the Jews wanted to hear answered;" Rabbi Abraham Heschel met with Pope Paul, whom he urged to purge Catholic doctrine and liturgy of all vestiges of anti-Semitism. A glance at the Novus Ordo indicates that the Jewish reform program is well underway.

Humanistic subversion? "The New Mass is the liturgy of the Conciliar anti-religion," says Fr. Wathen (Ascend, p. 545). "It is the embodiment and expression of the counter-theology of the Second Vatican Council," the Council which agreed that "all things on earth should be ordered to man, as to their summit and crown." In the writings of the Council narcissism and the toxic glorification of modern culture triumph. The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World declared that human life, including the life of the Church, was no longer ordered to God. Instead, "Christians cannot yearn for anything more ardently than to serve the men of the modern world" (#93). The Church, rather than proclaiming the debt to God, "proclaims the rights of man" (#41). Far from being entrusted with all truth, as previously held, the Church is now merely "joined with the rest of men in the search for truth" (#16). To these conceptual falsehoods of the New Mass gives liturgical expression.

Fr. Wathen maintains that "every new mass offered, no matter how it is offered or by whom, or in what language, is a statement of belief in and acceptance of [this] Conciliar Humanism. It is the worship of the modern Baal 'Modern Man'" (Ascend, p. 545).The Novus Ordo is an instrument of the World Revolution"The place the New mass has in the grand design of World Revolution is a poorly kept secret," maintains Fr. Wathen, adding that its purpose is to mold Catholics "into servile citizens of the Global Commonwealth, which is being consolidated with every day that passes. The proper religious mentality for the New World Order is to worship God in the person of the People of God, which, of course, is nothing but the World State itself. Its chief doctrines will be those of Freemasonry, the Fatherhood of God, the Brotherhood of Man, democracy and socialism" (Ascend, p. 526). Through the New Mass and Conciliar teaching, he maintains that Catholics are being programmed to accept complete amalgamation into the One World Religion. "

The New Mass is the rite of worship of the Global Church. It is bland and nebulous and plastic enough to serve for any religious creed and any ritual adaptation, as we all well know" (Ascend, p. 528)."The purpose they had in mind for the New Liturgy the word 'Mass' has all but disappeared was, as they have said so often, mainly educational. To put it simply, their purpose is largely fulfilled. The people, for the most part, are religious zombies. And they are completely manageable, as, from their point of view, it has daily grown more easy to get to Heaven. By now it would see m there is no way to go to Hell, for it no longer exists" (ibid). The Novus Ordo's Acceptance is a victory for Satan.

According to St. Alphonsus Liguori, "the devil has always attempted, by means of heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of the anti-Christ, who, before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar, as a punishment for the sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel, 'And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice' (Dan. 8:12)" (The Dignity and Duties of the Priest, cited by Coomaraswamy, p. 13). The acceptance of a probably invalid, undoubtedly sacrilegious Novus Ordo in lieu of the true Mass clearly advances Satan's plan. That the New Order of Mass should have been constructed with the official assistance of the heretics to whom St. Alphonsus refers demonstrates a Satanic 'game plan' unaltered across time.

Fr. Lawrence Brey wrote that the Holy Mass "may well be the final test of orthodoxy... which will differentiate the true Remnant Church and its faithful from the growing body of apostates who have affiliated themselves with the new religion of the Beast" (cited in The Great Sacrilege, p. 153).

For Further Investigation:Fr. Wathen's The Great Sacrilege ($10), The Ottaviani Intervention ($7), Fr. Cekada's The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass ($4), and Dr. Coomaraswamy's The Problems with the New Mass ($7) are all published by Tan, and available from Catholic Treasures, P.O. Box 5034, Monrovia, CA 91017, (626) 359-4983. Who Shall Ascend is available from St. John the Baptism Priory, 3014 S. Third Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40208. Its 689 pages cover the Conciliar Church, the Second Vatican Council, Sacraments, and the world revolution. RealCatholicism.... a monthly newsletter examining current statements and practices of the Church hierarchy, in the light of Magisterial teaching.... The ammunition you need to combat abuses and to remain with the historic Catholic Faith. Subscription cost for one year $24 (Canadian3 $28). Please make checks payable to Carey Winters. RealCatholicism, 798 Kenilworth Drive, Box 113, Towson, MD 21204.

1. Citation of Michael Davies' exhaustive research in no way implies this writer's agreement with his conclusions. As one E. A. Wilson's letter to the Remnant explained, Davies has "an uncanny ability for gathering correct facts and, after thoroughly examining those facts, reaching erroneous conclusions." (Cited by Omlor, in Questioning Validity of McCarthy's Case). Perhaps the only assumption that should be made regarding any quote in RealCatholicism is that, when it is presented favorably, this writer agrees with the particular quote itself.

2. The Council of Trent had been called in response to 'reformers' like Luther, who declared "all the brothels, all manslaughters, murders, thefts, and adulteries have wrought less evil than the abomination of the Popish Mass." Rejecting the notion of Sacrifice, Protestants have a 'Lord's Supper' with a table, rather than an altar, led by a designated presider without sacramental power.

3. Canadian orders must be accompanied by US funds, drawn on a US bank.

DISCLAIMER: As noted earlier, documents such as the foregoing are published here as "Food for Thought". Whether you agree or not with the conclusions drawn by the writers, one can certainly say that there is much that troubles the soul and the advisability of suppressing the Traditional Latin Mass in favor of the Novus Ordo is certainly subject to question. That is why, for me, the Traditional Latin Mass is a refuge in a sea of doubt and, not only the Mass, but everything that it signifies in the Faith.

­Dare to Dream


There is little doubt that there is much following Vatican II that disturbs those who have learned their Faith in Catholic schools prior to the Council and one might also suspect that many have felt disenfranchised, so-to-speak, with all the novelties that have occurred. One might also say that it is up to the hierarchy to make amends for what has happened to these loyal Catholics and to provide for them a means to practice their Faith as they have always practiced it without undue interference from anyone including those with a modernist predilection. This will put what follows in its proper context.


Setting the Scene - after due notification from Rome using all available sources (Papal Nuncios, Osservatore Romano, all Vatican News Services, Letters to all National Conferences, etc) those Traditional Groups (hopefully all traditional bishops, societies and orders of religious now under some form of interdiction) desiring to participate in the Reconciliation and Restoration (R&R) Conference are convened in a meeting in Rome and are being addressed by His Eminence, Cardinal ??????, Head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, as shown below.


My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:


The task before us is an enormous one for we are to reconcile and heal wounds in the Body of Christ which have lasted many years and resulted in much pain and suffering to all concerned. If we are to be successful, therefore, in our endeavor we must invoke the inspiration of the Holy Spirit: Come Holy Spirit, and fill the hearts of Thy faithful, and enkindle in them the fire of Thy Divine Love. Send forth Thy Spirit and they shall be created, and Thou shalt renew the face of the earth. Oh God, Who by the light of the Holy Spirit instructed the hearts of the faithful, Grant, that by the same Spirit we may be truly wise and ever rejoice in His consolation. We ask this through Christ Our Lord. Amen.


And knowing the magnitude of the task before us we call to mind, as our guiding light, the words of the Apostle:


If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up; Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never falleth away: whether prophecies shall be made void, or tongues shall cease, or knowledge shall be destroyed. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child. We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know I part; but then I shall know even as I am known. And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.


Let us now, together, recite the Apostle's Creed:


I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. the third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.


Let us now, together, recite the Sacred Oath of the Faith:


I, [Name...], believe and profess with firm faith each and every truth which is contained in the Symbol of Faith of which the Holy Roman Church makes use, namely:

[He then recites the full Nicene Creed]

"I resolutely accept and embrace the traditions of the Apostles and all other traditions of the Church and all its observances and regulations. Likewise, I accept the Sacred Scriptures in that very sense in which Holy Mother Church, whose right it is to declare their true sense and meaning, has held them and holds them now; nor will I ever accept or interpret them in a way contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers (of the Church).

"Further, I profess that there are seven true and proper Sacraments of the New Law, each instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord for the salvation of the human race (although all of them are not necessary for everyone), namely, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony; that these confer grace and that, of these, Baptism, and Confirmation and Holy Orders cannot be received a second time without sacrilege. Also, I accept and adhere to the rites of the solemn administration of the aforementioned Sacraments according as they have been accepted and approved by the Catholic Church."


"I embrace and accept each and every tenet concerning Original Sin and Justification which was defined and declared by the Sacred Council of Trent. I likewise affirm that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, worthy, and expiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, together with His Soul and Divinity, are really and substantially present in the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, and that there occurs a change of the total substance of the bread into His Body and of the total substance of the wine into His Blood, which change the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation. I confess also that Christ, whole and entire, and the true Sacrament are received under each species."


"I firmly hold that there is a Purgatory and that the souls detained there are helped through the prayers of the faithful; similarly, that the saints who reign with Christ are to be venerated and invoked and that they offer their prayers to God for us and, that their relics should be venerated. I firmly assert that images of Christ and of the Mother of God ever Virgin, as well as of the other saints, should be possessed and retained and that they should be shown due honor and veneration."


Also, I affirm that Christ left the power to grant indulgences to the Church and that these are most useful for the salvation of the Christian people. I acknowledge the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church to be the Mother and Teacher of all Churches, and I vow and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Jesus and the Successor of Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles."


"Moreover, I maintain and profess, without doubting, all the other teachings handed down, defined, and declared in the Sacred Canons by the Ecumenical Councils, especially by the Most Holy Council of Trent and by the [First] Ecumenical Vatican Council, particularly that of the Primacy and the Infallible Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff; and at the same time I condemn, reject, and anathematize all opinions to the contrary and all heresies whatever which the Church condemns, rejects, and anathematizes."


"I, [Name...], promise, vow, swear that, with God's help, I shall most constantly hold and profess this true Catholic Faith, outside of which no one can be saved and which I now freely profess and truly hold. With the help of God, I shall profess it whole and unblemished to my dying breath; and, to the best of my ability, I shall see to it that my subjects and those entrusted to me by virtue of my office hold it, teach it, and preach it. So help me God and His holy Gospels."


His Holiness, Pope ???, now receives the microphone:


Venerable Brothers and Sisters in Christ,


You have declared your Faith and your intention to be united more closely with the Vicar of Christ. Accordingly, I, Francis I, with the authority invested in me do henceforth declare all previous excommunications, suspensions, interdictions and penalties of those here present null and void, those here present having declared their oath and fidelity to Christ Our Lord and to His Church and to His Vicar on Earth. I charge all here present to work with their utmost zeal in fulfilling the goals of this Conference, namely, full reconciliation and unification. Likewise, I charge all the Faithful to recognize and respect the legitimate aspirations of those attached to the Traditional Rite as well as those attached to the New Rite. I charge my brother bishops to welcome the conferees as full and equal partners in the Faith and to respect their authority to minister to the Faithful within their Rite and to integrate, to the extent possible, their buildings, resources and congregations into the Life of the Church. I hereby validate and declare to the entire Church the authority of the bishops here present to confer sacraments, recruit, train and ordain clergy and consecrate such persons to the episcopacy as shall be agreeable to the Holy See and efficacious to Our Holy Church. I charge the President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission to establish channels of communication between those here present and the Vatican congregations and commissions with the goal of full and equal partnership on the part of all here present in all offices of the Church In the interim I charge the Ecclesia Dei Commission to be the primary channel of communication to the Holy See for those here assembled and for those who, unavoidably, could not attend this Conference, or, who in future, desire to avail themselves of this dispensation. I charge the conferees to develop plans and procedures to fully implement the aforesaid goals so that we may be truly One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. I call on every member of the Faithful to pray unceasingly that the goals of this Conference, so eminently begun, may thus be achieved and brought to complete fruition. May Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, guide and inspire your work and may you, and the Faithful you represent, receive that peace and joy of full communion with the Mystical Body of Christ and with His Vicar on earth. Accordingly, I am pleased to offer you Our Apostolic Blessing: May Almighty God Bless you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. Now, let the work begin!


Impossible, you say! Well, I hope not. I hope that it is still possible for all Catholics everywhere to be reconciled and that we may be as we are intended to be: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, united in our Faith and ready to spread the gospel to every nook and cranny in God's great earth. May God bless you for taking the time to indulge this ol man in his one, greatest dream. I might also add that there had been talk of a motu proprio on the desk of Pope Benedict XVI which said that any validly ordained Roman Catholic priest may celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass without special permission from the local bishop. The update on this is that the motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum, was issued on July 7, 2007 and has been in effect now for over one year with some success. However, impediments still seem to get in the way of unfettered access in every diocese. But, is this enough or must a juridical structure, such as an apostolic administration, be erected worldwide granting the privilege for all sacraments to be offered in the extraordinary form by those "irregular" priests and the faithful attached to them? It is my personal opinion that this must be done to unify the Body of Christ under the mantle of Holy Tradition.


The next document describes the Development of the Mass in modern times and is printed here with full attribution and thanks to the Latin Mass Society of the U. K. whose website at is well-worth visiting, particularly for those who want to learn more about the Traditional Latin Mass and efforts to preserve and promote it throughout the world.



(What Vatican II Really Said)

Leo Darroch

The following is the text of a talk given by the Deputy Chairman of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, Leo Darroch, in the parish hall of the church of St. Thomas More, Hartlepool, Cleveland, on 3rd May 1995, to members of the society in that area. The aim of the talk was to provide the members and their friends with a reasonably uncomplicated potted history of the events of the last 30 years without using endless quotations from the niagara deluge of documents issued throughout these years. The great majority of the text has been gleaned, with his permission and approval, from the extensive writings of Michael Davies. Mr Davies is now the international President of Una Voce.


Reverend Fathers, Ladies and Gentlemen.

1. If I were to ask you the question 'what is two plus two?' everyone would immediately raise their hands and shout 'four'. A simple question with a ready answer. If I were then to ask you to explain the mysteries of the universe I guess the hands would not be raised as quickly, if at all. The answer does not come so readily. Where do you begin? Do you start with he present day and work backwards? Do you start at the beginning of time and work forwards? Do you start on earth and move outwards to the heavens?, or do you start with the stars of outer space and come back to earth? Not an easy task is it? Where do you begin?

2. And so it is with trying to explain the events in the Catholic Church over the past 35 years or so. Where do you begin? So much has happened, so many words have been written, so many committees, commissions, working groups have met and so many documents have been produced that I could be talking to you till this time next month and still not have scratched the surface of these events. But not to worry, 30 minutes is about my limit. And because of this time limit I can only give you a general outline of the great upheaval that has taken place in our Church since 1962 and all, supposedly, in the name of the Second Vatican Council, or Vatican II as it is more commonly known. I think I can safely say that no Catholic family in the whole world has not been affected by the Second Vatican Council - and, in my opinion, not for the better.

3. The rite of Mass as we all knew it up to the beginning of the Council was the culmination of a gradual and natural development under the Holy Ghost which had lasted for fifteen hundred and seventy years. By the year of Our Lord 1570, at the end of the Council of Trent, it had reached as near perfection as anything on earth could ever be.

"It is," wrote Father Frederick Faber, "the most beautiful thing this side of heaven. It came forth out of the grand mind of the Church and lifted us out of earth and out of self, and wrapped us round in a cloud of mystical sweetness and the sublimities of a more than angelic liturgy, and purified us almost without ourselves, and charmed us with celestial charming so that our very senses seemed to find vision, hearing, fragrance, taste and touch more than ear can give."

What a wonderful, wonderful, description that is of the old Mass.

4. Pope St. Pius V in 1570, after the Council of Trent, did not devise a new rite of Mass, as is often claimed by those who devised the new Mass in the 1960s. He was content to codify the Roman Missal which existed at that time (the so-called Tridentine Mass) and extend its use throughout the whole Church as a bulwark against the attacks on the Church from the Reformation which was taking place throughout Europe at that time in the sixteenth century. Its prayers and its ceremonies made the Catholic doctrines of Sacrifice and the Real Presence absolutely explicit in accordance with the principle - lex orandi, lex credendi, - the law of prayer is the law of faith, or, what you pray is what you believe. The term Tridentine Mass is a little misleading. Father Adrian Fortescue, England's greatest liturgical historian, wrote:

"Our Mass goes back without essential change to the age when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as God.... there is not in Christendom a rite so venerable as ours."



5. And so to the Council. We have all been told that Vatican II said this, and Vatican II said that, and it has been used as justification for every novelty introduced over the past 30 years. But what did happen during the Council and what exactly did the Council decree?

6. The inspiration to call a Council came to Pope John XXIII towards the end of 1958. He was wondering what could be done to give the world an example of peace and concord when suddenly he exclaimed - "A Council." He said later that this was Divine Providence. He revealed his plan to the Sacred College of Cardinals on 25th January 1959. There was no enthusiasm at all for his plan and, in fact, his announcement was received in absolute silence; not one of the Cardinals had a word to say. Pope John was extremely disappointed that - in his own words "They might have crowded around to express approval and good wishes." However, he described their negative reaction as "a devout and impressive silence."

7. Cardinal Manning of Westminster, at the time of the First Vatican Council, said,

"to convoke a General Council, except when absolutely demanded by necessity is to tempt God." He also said, "Each Council was convened to extinguish the chief heresy, or to correct the chief evil of the time."

The one striking fact about the Second Vatican Council is the fact that it was not called to deal with any specific evil or heresy but was simply a pastoral Council convoked to open a few windows and let a little light into the Church. Well, we all know now what happened when they opened the windows. They let in the wind and reaped the whirlwind. Unfortunately, Pope John XXIII died in June 1963, after the first Session, and was succeeded by Pope Paul VI. By as early as 1968 Pope Paul VI was lamenting the fact that the Church was engaged in a process of self-destruction. On 29th June 1972 he said that somehow or other Satan himself had found an opening into the Church, where he was spreading doubt, disquiet and disaffection.

"We thought," he said, "that after the Council there would be a day of sunshine for the history of the Church: instead we found new storms."

We did indeed find new storms and the calamity for the Church is that these storms have come from within the Church itself.

8. For two years before the Council a group of 871 scholars of international repute had been busy preparing all the draft documents of the Council on the instructions of Pope John. These documents were totally orthodox and in complete accord with the traditions of the Church. In July 1962, some four months before the opening of the Council, these preparatory documents were sent to all the bishops of the world for their consideration.

9. Now at that time there was a growing liberal influence among the clergy in the Rhine countries of northern Europe, particularly Germany and Holland, and many of these clerics were appalled by the orthodoxy of these documents. They wished to move towards a much more liberal outlook and greater collaboration with the Protestant religions, and particularly the Lutheran Church (I know that some people are not keen on the word Protestant, especially in these very ecumenical days, but I have used it occasionally throughout this talk simply as a collective name for the other Christian religions). These liberally minded clerics formed themselves into groups, held secret meetings throughout Europe and arrived in Rome in October 1962 with a plan of action. The Dutch hierarchy issued a commentary on these preparatory documents, attacked them for their content, suggested they be completely re-written and that their own documents be considered first. The great majority of the Council Fathers, the world's bishops, had arrived in Rome with no pre-conceived ideas and were lulled into accepting these well-argued policies by people who were clever and persuasive. They voted to accept the Dutch demands. Well, to cut a long story very short, the original preparatory documents on which the 871 international scholars had worked for two years were thrown out by the Council, the first General Congregation was suspended after only 15 minutes, and only two weeks after the opening of the Council not one of these carefully prepared documents remained. Not a single sentence was retained. All were consigned to the wastepaper basket.

10. Father Ralph Wiltgen, of the Divine Word Missionaries, was head of the independent and multilingual Council News Service. After the Council he wrote a book called "The Rhine flows into the Tiber." It describes in very factual terms how this ruthless group of clerics from the Rhine countries of northern Europe gained control of the Council and moulded it to their own ends - and how they succeeded.

"Looking back," wrote Cardinal Heenan, "it is easy to see how psychologically unprepared bishops were for what happened during the first session. Most of us arrived in Rome in October 1962 without any idea of the anti-Italian mood of many Europeans. The Conciliar Fathers for the most part shared Pope John's illusion that the bishops of the world had come together as brothers in Christ for a short convivial meeting."

Well, that short convivial meeting lasted for four long years and its results have been anything but convivial - the Church has been torn apart.

11. After they had achieved their objective of removing the orthodox and traditional preparatory documents the Rhine group of bishops then gained control of the commissions and committees which worked behind the scenes. The great majority of the Council Fathers were amazed when they were all presented with a printed list of names which most of them had never heard of but for whom they eventually voted. These manoevres resulted in the complete liberal takeover of all the ten commissions that controlled the preparation of the texts which eventually became the official documents of the Second Vatican Council. These have been rightly called 'blitzkrieg tactics' and they succeeded.

"Jesus wept over Jerusalem," remarked Cardinal Heenan in 1968, "and Pope John would have wept over Rome if he had foreseen what would be done in the name of his Council."

12. The real problem with this organised group that controlled the Council was that they would not allow anything in the documents that might possibly offend the Protestant churches. Cardinal Heenan called them ecumaniacs. They preferred appeasement to the truth and to clear Catholic doctrine. Everything that was distinctly Catholic was played down. As Catholics, we all know the special place Our Lady has in our Church and in our own devotion. But even Our Lady was not safe. One bishop declared that certain Council Fathers had carried their ecumenical preoccupations to excess. "It was no longer possible," he said, "to speak about Our Lady." Objections were raised against such titles as Mother of the Church and Mediatrix of all Graces, and quite disgracefully among the objectors, were four cardinals from the Rhine countries because these titles were "not in keeping with the ecumenical tendencies of Protestantism" [Professor Oscar Cullmann, Lutheran Observer]. Bishop William Adrian, from Nashville, U.S.A., said,

"these liberal theologians seized on the Council as a means of de-catholicising the Catholic Church while pretending only to de-romanise it."



13. There were 16 official documents promulgated by the Second Vatican Council. They covered a wide range of subjects from the liturgy, to ecumenism, to the Church in the modern world. In the short time I have available to me I shall deal with only one - The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium). This is the document that has had the biggest impact on the daily lives of the ordinary Catholics in the pew - people like ourselves. Where to begin?

14. The type of reform aimed for by the Rhine bishops was described by a German-born bishop named Duschak. He wished for an "ecumenical Mass" with the rite, language and gestures to be accommodated to the modern age. The Mass should be said aloud, in the vernacular, and facing the people. He admitted that none of these ideas had come from the people he served but was sure that if they were put into practice they would eventually accept them. What breathtaking arrogance! In a book written before the Council, Archdeacon Pawley, who became an Anglican Observer to the Council, described the changes in the Mass he would like to see; namely, the whole Mass in the vernacular, large numbers of priests concelebrating, the abolition of the prayers at the beginning of Mass, the abolition of the Last Gospel, and Communion under both kinds. Does this not sound familiar?

15. The debate on the liturgy was a tremendous struggle between the conservatives and the liberals. Cardinal Heenan said later that the bishops were given the opportunity of discussing only general principles and that the subsequent changes were far more radical than those intended by Pope John and the bishops. The plain fact is that most of the bishops at the Council were tricked on a number of important issues.

"The great mistake of the Council Fathers," said Archbishop Dwyer of Portland, U.S.A., "was to allow the implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy to fall into the hands of men who were either unscrupulous or incompetent. This is the so-called 'Liturgical Establishment'.

16. About the Liturgy Constitution. How many people here tonight have read it, or even some of it? How many priests or bishops have actually read it? I have some copies with me. Read it for yourselves, see what the Council Fathers actually voted for and then ask yourself why you have the Mass you are now obliged to attend each Sunday. There is absolutely no connection between the two. The Constitution declared:

"in faithful obedience to tradition the Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognised rites to be of equal right and dignity, that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way (article 4)".

Has the old Mass been preserved and fostered? The Latin Mass Society does it. Who, then, is being faithful to the Council?

Under the general norms it states:

"Therefore, no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority (article 22)".

Well, we all know that the Mass is no longer the Mass these days unless someone adds their own inventions to it. A veritable cottage industry of amateur liturgists has grown up in recent years.

"The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites (article 36)."

Has it been preserved? We preserve it in the Latin Mass Society. Who, then, is being obedient and faithful to the Council?

"Care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Mass that pertain to them (article 54)."

When did you last sing in Latin in your parish church?

"The Church recognises Gregorian chant as being specially suited to the Roman liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services (article 116)."

When did anyone here last sing the Kyrie, Gloria, or Credo, in their parish church. We in the Latin Mass Society do so. Who, then, is being obedient to the Council?

It has all been a sorry and catastrophic tragedy which has affected the whole Church, and the people who have suffered the most have been the young. They have been deprived of their birthright and robbed of their heritage, their history, and their traditions.

18. In the Constitution on the Liturgy you will see that there is nothing in it which even hints at such novelties as Mass facing the people, or a vernacular Mass, or Communion in the hand, or extraordinary ministers of Communion. All of these changes have been introduced not for the benefit of the Catholic faithful but because those in control - not your honest to goodness parish priests who probably have more problems than anyone in trying to make sense of all this - but unnamed members of faceless and distant liturgical commissions who have decreed that you are all going to be ecumenical whether you like it or not. The reformers will not change their ways because they are right. It is everyone else who is wrong. And they accept no responsibility for empty churches and empty seminaries other than perhaps they have not explained themselves sufficiently well enough. And so the merry-go-round of more meetings, and more documents, and yet more changes switches into action once again.

19. The new Mass was first celebrated in public in the Sistine Chapel on 24th October 1967 before the Synod of Bishops. Afterwards many of the bishops were very uneasy about what they had seen. Only 71 out of a total of 176 voted 'Yes' for the new rite. The rest voted 'No' or had reservations. It must also be remembered that the rest of the world's bishops were not given the opportunity of voting. The fact that their new rite of Mass had been rejected did not deter the reformers because this, in fact, with very minor alterations, became your new Mass.

20. Cardinal Heenan addressed the Synod the day after the experimental Mass had been presented and said he did not know the names of those who had proposed the new Mass but it was clear to him that few of them had ever been parish priests.

"At home," he said, "it is not only women and children but also fathers of families and young men who come regularly to Mass. If we were to offer them the kind of ceremony we saw yesterday we would soon be left with a congregation of women and children."

He also said we needed more than ever to stress the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and that the faithful were growing restless and disturbed by too frequent changes in the Mass. Remember, this was in 1967! He concluded his speech by stating that the Latin tongue must be preserved. "If the Church is to remain truly the Catholic Church it is essential to keep a universal tongue." How tragically prophetic those words were.

21. When the new Mass was finally presented to Pope Paul VI he ordered the General Instruction for the Mass to be submitted to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for examination and approval. In an act of unprecedented disobedience the Secretary of the Liturgy Commission which had prepared the new Mass ignored the Pope's request and had it printed. When Pope Paul found out he wept over it from sorrow, shame and anger, said one cardinal. This was yet another example of the liturgical ecumaniacs determination to foist their concocted Mass upon the Church. Not even the Pope was going to stop them. As it turned out, this General Instruction was discovered to be so unrecognisable as regarding Catholic teaching that it required fifteen pages of corrections to make it even barely acceptable. The Mass, for example, was described as the Lord's Supper being the assembly or meeting of the People of God with a priest presiding. The fact that the Mass is primarily a sacrifice was deliberately omitted.

22. This new rite of Mass, which no-one had asked for, and no-one wanted, was imposed generally upon the Church in 1969. In 1971 over 50 distinguished scholars, writers and historians, under the initiative of The Latin Mass Society, directed an appeal to the Pope, through Cardinal Heenan, to protect the old Latin Mass from extinction. The story is that Pope Paul read through the letter in silence then suddenly exclaimed, "Ah, Agatha Christie!" and then signed it. He must have been one of her fans. The English Indult of 1971 was granted and thus was saved the old Mass. Ever since it has been known informally as the Agatha Christie indult.



23. How many millions of pounds have been spent on re-ordering beloved sanctuaries in this country and around the world so that Mass can be celebrated facing the people. The figure probably runs into thousands of millions. And why? Because the Council ordered it, we are told. This is completely untrue - always ask the person who tells you this for the evidence. They will not be able to provide it. There is not a single word in any of the 16 official documents of the Council suggesting anything of the kind. Well then, is the next line of argument, it is a return to the ancient practice of the Church. This is another untruth. The practice since the earliest days of the Church is that Mass has always been celebrated with the priest and people facing the East towards the rising sun, the symbol of the Resurrection. The priest did not have his back to the people - this is another piece of black propaganda put out to discredit the old Mass. The priest led his people in prayer and EVERYONE faced the same way, the East. Msgr. Klaus Gamber, Director of the Liturgical Institute of Regensburg in Germany, said in a book published recently,

"There never was a celebration facing the people in either the Eastern or Western Church. Instead there was a turning towards the East."

This book, incidently, has a foreword of support by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

24. In all our churches there was always a crucifix on the altar or on the wall behind the altar. The reason being that when Christ died on the Cross on Calvary He was facing West and therefore, when Mass is being offered we all, priest and people, face the East towards Christ. It also emphasised the fact that the Catholic Mass is essentially a re-enactment of the Sacrifice of Calvary. During the Reformation in the sixteenth century the reformers such as Luther, Calvin and Cranmer, rejected the idea of the Mass as a sacrifice and turned their altars around to place the emphasis on a celebratory meal, and the celebrant, who they said had no special powers, merely presided over the assembly. It follows, therefore, that if the new Catholic reformers of the 1960s wished to beome more ecumenical they would have to follow suit, remove the sacrificial altar away from the east wall from beneath the crucifix and turn it into an altar table where the priest 'presides' over the assembly.

25. How many people here tonight know that there were six officially appointed Protestant Observers at the Council representing the Anglican, Lutheran, and Taize Communities and the World Council of Churches and that they did more than observe? Msgr W Baum, from the U.S.A., who became Cardinal Baum, told the Detroit News on 27th June 1967,

"They are not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participate fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical renewal. It wouldn't mean much if they just listened, but they contribute."

There you have it. A statement from a future cardinal explaining that the new rite of the Catholic Mass was prepared with contributions from non-Catholic churchmen - an ecumenical liturgy.

26. The fashion, and it's no more than that, of saying Mass facing the people began in 1965 in Holland in imitation of the Protestant services. The Vatican sent out instructions saying that these Masses were not approved by the Holy See. These, like most things nowadays, were simply ignored. The disobedience and anarchy quickly spread and before you could blink an eye everyone was doing it. And why? Because Vatican II said so. If you are going to tell a lie you may as well make it a big one. I will repeat, there is no binding Church law which states that sanctuaries have to be changed in the way that they all have been. Indeed the situation is quite nonsensical because when the official Latin text of the new rite of Mass was published in 1969 (and from which all vernacular translations have been taken) it was written in such a way that it clearly presumed the Mass would be celebrated in the same way as the old Mass; the priest being instructed to turn to the people for certain prayers. One of the worst aspects of the priest facing the people is that he now is in the unfortunate position of turning his back on the crucifix and the tabernacle. And we all accepted this, priests and people alike. Nearly 2,000 years of history and tradition was turned on its head and we all simply nodded our heads or kept silent. And why? Because Vatican II said so. The Catholic Church's great discipline of obedience turned out to be its most fatal flaw.

27. The new freedom that priests were given when celebrating this new order of Mass gave rise around the world to the most bizarre and often profane celebrations. We have had to suffer Rock'n'Roll Masses, Marxist Masses, Gay Masses, Clown Masses where priests dressed as clowns have leaped out of trunks to celebrate April Fools weekend. We have had two puppets named Noah and Norah being married during Mass. On Palm Sunday, to add realism, we have had a man riding a donkey down the centre aisle and, to cater for the ladies, a woman riding a pony at Christmas. One particular priest sits his dog on the sanctuary during Mass and it gives its paw during the exchange of peace before Communion.

28. In England, Father Michael Richards, editor of the Clergy Review complained as far back as 1975 that until the bishops remove those people responsible for the present day liturgy "The Mass as we have it in English will remain where it has descended, at the level of the bingo hall, the quiz programme and the lucky dip." Well, many did not accept this nonsense and left the Church in their millions. Others, such as the members of the Latin Mass Society will not be forced out of the Church we love. We will fight to restore the old Mass into its rightful place in the Church's liturgy and bring some dignity and reverence back into the worship of Almighty God.



29. Can I turn now to Communion in the hand. The Blessed Sacrament, Christ Himself, is God's greatest gift to mankind. Throughout the centuries up to the Second Vatican Council the devotion shown towards this Sacrament grew and grew. And, of course, this reverence became more noticeable in the distribution and reception of Holy Communion. In the very early centuries Holy Communion in the form of bread was given into the hands of the faithful but by as early as the fourth century when people were becoming more aware of the Divine Nature of the Sacrament they became more anxious lest the tiniest particle should fall to the ground. This anxiety gave rise to the reception directly on the tongue of the recipient and as early as the Synod of Rouen in 650 A.D. the practice of receiving in the hand was condemned as an abuse. The Roman Ordo of the ninth century accepts Communion on the tongue as the normal practice.

30. Then came the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Catholics were accused of worshipping bread, of giving false honour to the Sacrament, and of priests showing wicked arrogance by claiming greater holiness than the people. To rid the people of this superstition and to show rejection of the Catholic belief in the Blessed Sacrament the reformers insisted on the host being placed in the hands of the recipients in that it was only a symbolic piece of bread. Since the Reformation, therefore, the reception of Communion on the tongue by Catholics testified to their belief in the Real Presence within the Sacrament. Reception in the hands by non-Catholics testified to their belief that it was only symbolic bread. This was the situation throughout the world up to the Second Vatican Council.

31. What then did Vatican II say about Communion in the hand? ... Nothing. Absolutely nothing. This practice was introduced soon after the Council by priests in Holland as an ecumenical gesture. It was a flagrant abuse of the established Catholic practice and should have been stopped immediately. Unfortunately it was not and spread to Germany, Belgium and France. Because the bishops failed to exercise their authority it was left to the laity to protest at this scandal and prompt Pope Paul VI to act. After consulting all the bishops of the world he issued an instruction called Memoriale Domini on 29th May 1969 and said that the traditional manner of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue should not be changed. He may as well not have bothered. Within the space of two years most of those bishops around the world who had voted in the majority to maintain the traditional practice succumbed to pressure from the liberals and authorised Communion in the hand.

32. A few years ago an American priest asked Mother Teresa what disturbed her most about the Church of today. She said the thing she found most troubling was reception of Communion in the hand. How right she is. We now treat the Body of Christ, the Blessed Sacrament, so casually we hand it around as if it is some everyday commodity.



33. So what are we to make of the past 25 or 30 years? I think it is particularly significant that in years gone by people said they were going to Mass. Nowadays, the more common expression is that they are going to church - perhaps, as they are not quite sure what awaits them when they get there, it is best not to be too specific. But what about THE MASS? The new Mass of 1969 is undoubtedly a valid Mass in itself. Unfortunately, as we all know, it allows such freedom to the celebrating priest that many Masses have strayed so far from the guidelines that their celebrations are unrecognisable as THE MASS to those of us who remember the old Latin rite.

34. We, the members of the Latin Mass Society have nailed our colours to the mast. We believe we are being absolutely faithful to the Second Vatican Council as decreed by the Council Fathers themselves. We believe there is no comparison whatsoever between the rite of 1962, which liturgical books we use, to whatever variation of the new rite is being offered in our parishes at any particular time by any particular priest. But we are not all old fogeys who will not, or cannot, move with the times and who are locked pathetically into a particular period in time like some liturgical fossils. Not at all. We have been joined over the years, in ever increasing numbers, by young men and women and converts who have been fortunate to discover the beauty and sheer sacredness of the old Latin Roman rite and have marvelled at what they have seen.

35. We are part of a worldwide organisation called Una Voce - One Voice, signifying, as Cardinal Heenan pointed out to the Synod of Bishops in 1967, the absolute importance of a single language, Latin, as being essential for a universal Church. After small beginnings with the English Indult in 1971 we then, after the election of Pope John-Paul II, obtained a world-wide indult in 1984. Then in 1988, after Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated, the Pope more or less removed all restrictions on the celebrations of the old Mass. We now have religious orders around the world who, with the direct approval of the Pope, use only the old Latin books for all their liturgical services. And not only priests but bishops, archbishops and cardinals around the world are now returning to the old Mass. It is a fact that the new Mass continues to decline worldwide and the old Mass is growing in strength. It is the traditional seminaries that are full and are expanding while those training priests in the new rite are empty and closing. I heard it said recently that the future of the Church lies in its past. This is becoming more and more evident as each year goes by.

36. We cannot be complacent, however. It is still imperative that those who love the old Mass continue to ask for it and continue to support it. After many years of struggle, heartache, disappointment, anger, and so many other emotions, we can at last see a chink of light. It is one of the aims of the Latin Mass Society to restore the old Mass once more to our parish churches. If you love the old Mass please help us to do it, and give whatever help and support you can to this society, to those who arrange the old rite Masses, and to those priests who celebrate these Masses for us. If we all show a unity of strength and purpose, combined with charity, then we will surely succeed.

Thank you all very much for coming and giving me your kind attention. I hope you found this little talk of some interest.

© Leo Darroch.



Michael Davies: Pope John's Council
Pope Paul's New Mass
The Church Since Vatican II
The Liturgical Revolution
The Roman Rite Destroyed
On Communion In The Hand And Similar Frauds

Mgr Klaus Gamber: The Reform of the Roman Liturgy

Fr Ralph Wiltgen: The Rhine Flows into the Tiber

Fr Michael Richards: The Clergy Review

[Used with kind permission.]

Photos and Miscellany


Hypertable of Photos:

Photo - Paul Haley at Work in 2002 (now retired) Followed by Photos of the NCCL Pilgrimage to the Shrine of the North American Martyrs at Auriesville, NY, 24-27 September 2008


Paul Haley at Work in 2002

Here's a photo of me now at age 68 in 2009:

Here's the photos of the Pilgrimage at Auriesville in 2008:


You can contact me at:

Here's a dandy tool that allows you to see what day of the week a given date is in the future or was in the past. Have Fun!

Day Month Year

Day of the week Time

Free JavaScripts provided
by The JavaScript Source