by Pauly Fongemie, July 28, 2007

Updated August 4, 2007

Ever since I read Pope Benedict's declaration [in his Motu proprio on the Traditional Mass] that the two forms of Mass are "one" and the "same rite" I have been perplexed. The Novus Ordo Mass of Paul VI is not the same rite as the ancient Mass codified for all time by Pope St. Pius V in his bull, Quo Primum, and according to the dogmatic pronouncements concerning the Mass in the Council of Trent. It had been some time since I had poured over these two official, infallible, dogmatic vessels of definition and mandate. So I reread them. I also remembered that Pope Paul VI said that his New Mass was a profane novelty, a break with Tradition, that would disquiet the laity. Indeed! There is nothing like taking a Pontiff at his word for clarity, is there! Moreover, in the preface of the French edition of The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background by Msgr. Klaus Gamber, Pope Benedict, while Cardinal Ratzinger wrote: "What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy . . . came fabricated liturgy . . . a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product . . .". Precisely.

And nothing in my experience with the New Mass says that it is other than banal, insipid, an ongoing experiment of role reversal, the absurd ministry of the laity on the altar and the confoundment of the priest who apparently willfully sacrificed his sacerdotal duties in demoting the august Sacrifice to a community meal. Where once he was the priest, he now serves as "a presider", much like a Protestant service. Almost every sermon revealed mass confusion about the tenets of the Faith, indeed, appropriate for such "Mass" confusion and disorientation. As if these are not enough to convince any thinking person that the Tridentine Roman Mass and the Novus Ordo cannot possibly be one and the same rite, I can never forget the claim---like a boast---of Fr. Louis Bouyer, a former Lutheran minister who entered the Catholic Church in 1939. He was one of the founders of the liberal review Communio and a peritus at Vatican II. In 1969 he was chosen by Paul VI to be part of the team of 30 theologians who would initiate the International Theological Commission. After the world-wide introduction of the New Mass he said: "Catholicism is dead." He at least knew that the Holy Mass is central to the Faith not only as the source of great graces, but as a catechism in microcosm. One of his fellow theologians, Fr. Jungmann wrote: "The Roman Rite is dead." The Masonic Bishop, Bugnini who headed the Consilium which devised the New Mass with the assistance of several Protestants---an affront to all that Trent affirmed---essentially uttered in concert: "This is the conquest of the Church." These men certainly should know as they were there in the thick, so to speak. Were all of them imagining the claims they posited? Pope Paul VI, Bugnini, Bouyer, the then Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pontiff, and Jungmann?

With all due respect, our Holy Father's memory leaves something to be desired or he is genuinely confused. Certainly his statement in the preface of the Gamber book does not comport with his assertion in the Motu proprio. How can a banal experiment be the same rite as that which Saint Pius V infallibly ordered to be unchanged in its canons and orations, under the scourge of anathema? The New Mass was devised as a pastoral approach, like the Council according to Pope Paul, thus the Holy Ghost was not invoked. An unwed Council, which gave birth to an illegitimate heir.

What do I mean by infallible, that is, without error---dogmatic certainty? Essentially there are two forms, ordinary and extraordinary. The latter is a formal definition of a dogma or article of faith that must be believed and is given to the whole Church at once; sometimes the truth being defined has been held by the Church as a whole throughout Tradition, implicitly; it is not explicitly taught until the formal pronouncement, such as the dogma on the Assumption of Mary body and soul into Heaven. Such a pronouncement, if promulgated by the Pope, is called ex cathedra, or "from the chair". At other times the dogma, having already been explicitly taught, is being reasserted because it is under severe attack, a danger to the Faith. Such an example is Pope John Paul II's encyclical on the all-male priesthood, Ordinatio sacerdotalis, an example of ordinary infallibility while issued from the chair. Ordinary means it is derived from the continual teaching handed down from the Apostles and expounded on more fully but always directly linked to the received Deposit of Faith, sometimes referred to as de fide. The teaching continues what has always been taught explicitly. This is why the Pontiffs use the term, "We" when they issue a teaching, as they intend to teach in union with what has been faithfully handed down and believed by the Church as a whole from the very beginning.

The key to the guarantee of infallibility in the ordinary exercise is continuity with Apostolic Tradition, and not a break or novelty. God will not be mocked and cannot honor that which violates what He gave to the Apostles to pass on to us. With the formal or extraordinary, the Holy Ghost acts in such wise as to permit only that which is certain and given to the Church by Divine mandate in a single issuance of a Pontiff or a Council. In practical terms both forms are equally infallible because both are completely consonant with Scripture and Tradition. It is merely the manner of the determinative expression that is different, hence, ordinary and extraordinary, meaning that, with extraordinary, one does not have to ascertain whether it comports with Sacred Tradition, because by definition it cannot be otherwise. The key of guarantee is in the form itself---with the ordinary means, one must ascertain whether the teaching deviates from Apostolic Tradition or not. Until Vatican II this was generally without a concern. Either a Pontiff or a Sacred Council can declare dogma in the extraordinary manner, just as both can do so in the ordinary way. However, in their ordinary duties and proclamations, the Popes and Bishops can teach error if they depart from Tradition. Any such declarations that contravene Tradition are not infallible and not only are we free to disregard it, we have a duty to do so, for we are bound to observe and hold to Tradition at all times as the Apostles, Saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church insist. And a Council, such as Vatican II, which was not called as a doctrinal Council enjoys no such guarantee of infallibility. This does not mean that everything it teaches is false or with error, only that it risks error by virtue of its pastoral or non-doctrinal approach. Some of Vatican II satisfies the requisites for ordinary infallibility such as those parts that reaffirm definitions from the Council of Nicaea, for instance.

Now someone might interject, well what about in vitro fertilization? Doesn't the Church forbid this practice as evil? This was not always taught from the beginning.

Remember, the operative word is "comport" or "direct", i.e., grows naturally and necessarily out from another, ever-taught doctrine or dogma. A doctrine is a body of teaching that flows from a dogma and a dogma is revealed truth that must be believed, either theological or moral. Now the Church has always taught the sanctity of life, the purpose of marriage and the rights and duties of the husband and wife and their offspring. In vitro fertilization is a recent medical procedure and could not have been condemned before it was known to exist. Where did the ban originate from? From the doctrine on marriage and procreation. Every child has an absolute right to be conceived in a natural manner and sinful means cannot be used. A woman may not have relations with a man not her husband in order to conceive a child, for example, because her husband is sterile. In vitro is accomplished not from the marital union of the man and woman, in of themselves, but from the sin of Onan in part, among other evils [the "discarding" of some the children conceived in the petri dish, commonly called "embryos"]. Now the purpose for which most couples use this means is worthy ---to have a child, for the sake of the child alone, but because the means to accomplish it is intrinsically disordered or forbidden by God, no amount of good intentions can render what is per se evil, good. Many Catholics are confused about this because they mistakenly believe that every good couple has an absolute right to a child. In no way is this true. Children are gifts from God and this is why, until the modern age, many children were considered a blessing and barrenness a curse. It is up to God, not us. Now, medicines can be used to correct malfunctions and diseases just as surgery to remove a tumor can be undergone. These do not involve the actual marriage act at the time of its occurrence. This act must be natural in every way. In vitro involves the willful disruption of the natural marriage act. Period. The man has to commit a mortal sin even before the procedure is begun. The Church has always taught this doctrine on procreation in general and thus the prohibition regarding in vitro, a specific case, comports directly with it. Pope John Paul II's teaching on in vitro fertilization is infallible in the ordinary way. While it was also from the chair as it was his declaration, it was not considered extraordinary in that it was plainly a continuance of an already established body of doctrine. He was not making a formal definition.

In other words, the Pontiffs and Sacred Councils in union with the Popes, cannot teach anything new in essence, but are bound to hand down the Apostolic Tradition [including Scriptural interpretation] without departure or else risk the wrath of God through personal and even widespread social chastisement.

In those instances where error is permitted or indirectly taught through imprudent speeches and actions, our duty is to resist, while respecting the Vicar of Christ in his office and authority. Just as no court can legitimately order you and me to kill an innocent person in cold-blood, no Pope can force us to accept error or to endanger the faith.

In the words of Prof. Plineo de Oliveira:

"There is no reason for a problem of conscience. When a Pope sins, when he does something bad or wrong, his position as Pope does not change the nature of the action. It is bad. No papal infallibility is involved.

"How can one know when something is wrong? He needs only to check with the prior teaching of the Church. If the constant teaching of the previous Popes, Moral treatises and sentire cum Ecclesia [thinking with the Church] taught differently, the new Pope acted against Catholic doctrine and did something bad. And the Catholic faithful in the times of the Renaissance had sufficient means to reject those bad actions of the Popes."

This holds true today. Now there are some who maintain that such a Pope or Bishop would lose his office if he fell into heresy, not just permitted sinful actions or ideas or informally promulgated them through imprudent or rash speeches, such as the ones by the Pontiff on China and evolution. We know otherwise from the history of the Church. The best example I know is Pope Honorius I. He was a notorious heretic regarding the Personhood of Jesus Christ. Since no layman or bishop or priest can nullify the Pope's right to sit on the Chair of Peter, nor judge his rightful authority, except another Pope, which is Church doctrine, it was up to a subsequent Pontiff to do so if inspired and permitted by the Holy Ghost. Such a Pope was Pope Leo II. Both Popes reigned in the 7th century. Pope Leo declared Honorius a heretic in union with a Council, and the ecclesiastical ordinances he promulgated in the name of heresy or under its influence were abrogated, declared null and void on their face. Pope Leo had the authority in his own right to do so and he exercised it, but along with the assembled Bishops. He also held the authority [alone] to declare Honorious an anti-Pope, which he did not do. Why? Because Honorius did not attempt to impose the heresy in a formal manner, binding the faithful. Please take note that I wrote "attempt" because the Holy Ghost would never permit such a thing. We have Christ's promise, an absolute guarantee. God may permit Popes who are weak, but not the formal promulgation of heresy imposed on the Church under pain of sin! Another similar case is that of the Arian bishops. Few of these lost their offices and the priests they ordained were held to be valid priests by subsequent Popes who were not under the spell of the renegade priest, Arius. Infallibility was never involved and the indefectibility of the Church was maintained as it must until the end of time.

To repeat, both the bull, Quo Primum and the Council of Trent are infallible using any of the two definitions. Strictly speaking both are extraordinary forms of dogmatic certitude. While the first is "from the chair" of Peter for all time for the whole Church complete with anathemas, and the second from the Sacred Council of Trent consonant with the teachings of the Church from the beginning and bound to hand down in perpetuity for the whole Church, by virtue of its being not only a dogmatic Council, but because it declared formal definitions, it was an exercise of extraordinary infallibility. Both expressly codified in perpetuity that which had always been implicitly believed and taught about the Holy Mass as well as that which had been explicitly taught from the beginning, restoring the Mass to its former grandeur and worthiness for worship of All-holy God. Formal definitions and anathemas [condemnations] arose from the need caused by the confusion and heresies among priest and laity alike that were being adopted in practice through the Protestant Revolution or deformation, not reformation.

Now since every utterance of a Pontiff or Council is not infallible, and both can err we can well ask how does this happen? The error occurs outside of the continuity of Apostolic Tradition or because a council does not invoke the protection of the Holy Ghost, but intends to be merely pastoral in its approach, such as the Second Vatican Council. Pope John  XXIII said with full deliberation that this Council was to be pastoral only and not for dogmatic definition or "anathemas" that result from such definition. He specifically spurned the giving of anathemas, so we know that dogmatic certainty was not the intention, and thus he was not invoking Divine protection.

This brings us to where we began, with the Novus Ordo Mass of Pope Paul VI. Now what is one to make of such a novelty, as he himself admitted? In the light of Tradition? And what are we to make of the same Pontiff, in the same address, November of 1965, who said that although the New Mass was a novelty, it was the same Mass as before? that the Vicar of Christ so speaking is giving the flock double-talk if deliberate? and if not, then he was truly at sea? How do we know what to do when confronted with profane innovation or novelty in those aspects of the Faith that are sine qua non? Pope St. Pius V and the Council of Trent have instructed us about changing the Holy Mass.

Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand, author of The Charitable Anathema, in the chapter titled "Faith and Obedience", instructs the Catholic on the two kinds of Church authority, the theoretical and the practical. The first involves the faith, ex cathedra and de fide teachings that we must submit to, i.e., as these are infallible. The other, the practical, does not touch upon infallibility and has to do with decisions, disciplinary actions, canon law changes and positive laws of the Church. While we owe obedience to these as the Church has the authority, as long as we are not being asked to defy Christ or His Commandments, we do not owe faith. Thus we can acknowledge Church authority in these matters, while praying and requesting for a change, for change is possible, especially required if the Pontiff was imprudent, such as when Pope Clement XIV, under pressure from European monarchs, dissolved the Jesuits. Another example Dr. von Hildrebrand provides to the reader is the New Mass promulgation, which he says is a greater mistake than even the Concordat of the 1930s with Germany, adding that he agreed with the objections to the New Mass detailed in the Ottaviani Report. He states: " . . . we cannot close our eyes to to the fact that the rubrics of the new Ordo (as distinct from the text itself) are at variance with the definition and essence and raison d'être of Holy Mass as given by the Council of Trent." [p. 32]

Church Councils have more leverage than the laity and priests when Churchmen stray from Tradition, as we have posted on our main page at the top:

"Those therefore who after the manner of wicked heretics dare to set aside Ecclesiastical Traditions, and to invent any kind of novelty, or to reject any of those things entrusted to the Church, or who wrongfully and outrageously devise the destruction of any of those Traditions enshrined in the Catholic Church, are to be punished thus:


Second Council of Nicaea 787 A.D.

Note the Council does not mention Popes, because it cannot do so as it has no such authority to judge the Pontiff. No Council can depose a Pontiff. And if no Council can do so, neither can priests and laity.

Our duty is to uphold Catholic truth, Tradition, while praying without surcease for the Pontiff. We uphold Tradition by knowing it, cherishing it and passing it down to others unsullied and uncompromised just as it has been taught by the Church and given to us as our inheritance. As long as we rely on Tradition we are secure and ought to have no qualms or fear. It is our duty and our privilege to stand with the Saints who have gone before us, even if we must temporarily stand alone in the human sense. The servant cannot expect to be greater than the Master. Better that we are reviled by fellow Catholics who are ignorant or have lost their way, than that we find comfort in human respect and false unity. Without the unity of truth any communion or unity is a fraud. Recall that Jesus Christ said that He came not to bring peace, but the sword, to divide son from father and daughter from mother. It has always been so ever since.

Now let us look at Quo primum tempore, establishing forever the Canon of the Mass, of St. Pius V:

Among the many salient, noteworthy paragraphs we find the following [italics added]:

". . . for its most becoming that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass . . ."

"Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other Churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women . . ."

"This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the Church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, . . ."

". . . and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal."

The next section was reaffirmed by Pope Benedict in his Motu proprio:

"Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force not withstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and not withstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription---except, however, if more than two hundred years' standing."

The bull concludes with:

"Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

Now either this bull means what it says or it doesn't. Since it is infallible, when the Sainted Pontiff says for all time, he is being guided by the Holy Ghost, thereby we know with certitude that he was granting Divine favor upon the Traditional Roman rite of the Mass in perpetuity and that nobody is to tinker with it. Period!!!!


Not All The Words Used Are Essential Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Wine

With regard to the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: 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, to the remission of sins. Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic Tradition.

Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of My Blood, or My Blood of the new Testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy Tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.

Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread. The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the Blood of our Lord. Since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that no other words constitute the form.

They moreover express certain admirable fruits of the Blood shed in the Passion of our Lord, fruits which pertain in a most special manner to this Sacrament. Of these, one is access to the eternal inheritance, which has come to us by right of the new and everlasting Testament. Another is access to righteousness by the mystery of faith; for God hath set forth Jesus to be a propitiator through faith in His Blood, that He Himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus Christ. A third effect is the remission of sins.

Explanation Of The Form Used In The Consecration Of The Wine

Since these very words of consecration are replete with mysteries and most appropriately suitable to the subject, they demand a more minute consideration.

The words: This is the chalice of My Blood, are to be understood to mean: This is My Blood, which is contained in this chalice. The mention of the chalice made at the consecration of the Blood is right and appropriate, inasmuch as the Blood is the drink of the faithful, and this would not be sufficiently signified if it were not contained in some drinking vessel.

Next follow the words: Of the new Testament. These have been added that we might understand the Blood of Christ the Lord to be given not under a figure, as was done in the Old Law, of which we read in the Epistle to the Hebrews that without blood a testament is not dedicated; but to be given to men in truth and in reality, as becomes the new Testament. Hence the Apostle says: Christ therefore is the mediator of the new Testament, that by means of His death, they who are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

The word eternal refers to the eternal inheritance, the right to which we acquire by the death of Christ the Lord, the eternal testator.

The words mystery of faith, which are subjoined, do not exclude the reality, but signify that what lies hidden and concealed and far removed from the perception of the eye, is to be believed with firm faith. In this passage, however, these words bear a meaning different from that which they have when applied also to Baptism. Here the mystery of faith consists in seeing by faith the Blood of Christ veiled under the species of wine; but Baptism is justly called by us the Sacrament of faith, by the Greeks, the mystery of faith, because it embraces the entire profession of the Christian faith.

Another reason why we call the Blood of the Lord the mystery of faith is that human reason is particularly beset with difficulty and embarrassment when faith proposes to our belief that Christ the Lord, the true Son of God, at once God and man, suffered death for us, and this death is designated by the Sacrament of His Blood.

Here, therefore, rather than at the consecration of His body, is appropriately commemorated the Passion of our Lord, by the words. which shall be shed for the remission of sins. For the blood, separately consecrated, serves to place before the eyes of all, in a more forcible manner, the Passion of our Lord, His death, and the nature of His sufferings.

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore Our Lord said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom Thou hast given Me, because they are Thine.

Beneath the words of this consecration lie hid many other mysteries, which by frequent meditation and study of sacred things, pastors will find it easy, with the Divine assistance, to discover for themselves.

The Rite of Administering Communion

As to the rite to be observed in communicating, pastors should teach that the law of the holy Church forbids Communion under both kinds to anyone but the officiating priests, without the authority of the Church itself.

Christ the Lord, it is true, as has been explained by the Council of Trent, instituted and delivered to His Apostles at His Last Supper this most sublime Sacrament under the species of bread and wine; but it does not follow that by doing so our Lord and Saviour established a law ordering its administration to all the faithful under both species. For speaking of this Sacrament, He Himself frequently mentions it under one kind only, as, for instance, when He says: If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever, and: The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world, and: He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.

Why The Celebrant Alone Receives Under Both Species

It is clear that the Church was influenced by numerous and most cogent reasons, not only to approve, but also to confirm by authority of its decree, the general practice of communicating under one species.

. . . Finally, a most important reason was the necessity of opposing the heresy of those who denied that Christ, whole and entire, is contained under either species, and asserted that the Body is contained under the species of bread without the Blood, and the blood under the species of wine without the body. In order, therefore, to place more clearly before the eyes of all the truth of the Catholic faith, Communion under one kind, that is, under the species of bread, was most wisely introduced.

There are also other reasons, collected by those who have treated on this subject, and which, if it shall appear necessary, can be brought forward by pastors.

The Minister of the Eucharist

To omit nothing doctrinal on this Sacrament, we now come to speak of its minister, a point, however, on which scarcely anyone can be ignorant.

Only Priests Have Power To Consecrate And Administer The Eucharist

It must be taught, then, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful, the Holy Eucharist. That this has been the unvarying practice of the Church, that the faithful should receive the Sacrament from the priests, and that the officiating priests should communicate themselves, has been explained by the holy Council of Trent, which has also shown that this practice, as having proceeded from Apostolic tradition, is to be religiously retained, particularly as Christ the Lord has left us an illustrious example thereof, having consecrated His Own most sacred Body, and given it to the Apostles with His Own hands.

The Laity Prohibited To Touch The Sacred Vessels

To safeguard in every possible way the dignity of so august a Sacrament, not only is the power of its administration entrusted exclusively to priests, but the Church has also prohibited by law any but consecrated persons, unless some case of great necessity intervene, to dare handle or touch the sacred vessels, the linen, or other instruments necessary to its completion.

Priests themselves and the rest of the faithful may hence understand how great should be the piety and holiness of those who approach to consecrate, administer or receive the Eucharist.


Now the New Mass of Pope Paul as promulgated in the Latin contains the words, "for many". The English translation, which has been permitted to stand is heretical and a mortal sin, objectively understood. The new Rite as practiced is not one with the Mass codified for all time in Quo primum and expounded on in Trent. It teaches a different faith in this one part of the "canon". There is no set canon even in the New Mass. It is a mortal sin to add, remove or reinterpret any parts of the Mass by a priest, a bishop or a layman. The same Catechism of Trent, which has many imprimaturs, etc., as it is directly from the Council, speaks also of the mortal sin of the priest who alters any part of the Canon. The New Mass is a source of ignominy many times over. We will look at just one example, the "mystery of faith". In the New Mass the mystery of faith has been changed completely to one of several vignettes, "Christ has died, Christ will come again" and so forth. It says nothing of Transubstantiation, of the wine transformed into the Blood of Christ. This is heretical and blasphemous for it defiles what it purports to signify. A thing so unholy I have no words to describe it as it deserves. Moreover, new canons were introduced along with the deletion of the Offertory codified in Quo primum, and a quasi-Jewish, naturalistic "offertory" as a replacement, altering the theology of the Holy Sacrifice. These changes incur the anathemas of the bull.

As for the administration of Communion by the laity, the ordinances of the Sacred Council recited in the Catechism are clear, precise and require no other comment. There was no urgent necessity dictating that suddenly the laity are giving Communion after self-communicating. [1] This violates Sacred Tradition, the will of Christ, and leads to a diminution of belief in the Real Presence as every poll indicates. Ergo the sacred vessels.

How can the New Mass be one and the same rite? The religion the New Mass springs from is alien to the Catholic faith in essence if not expressly in every part!

Until the Holy Father addresses these and all the other odiferous maladies [the vernacular only, among many disastrous innovations] of the New Rite, I cannot accept the truth of his statement that the two forms of Mass are equivalent or that the one most consonant with the Tradition of the faith is considered unusual or extraordinary, while the heretical one is to be maintained as the ordinary or usual, most common occurring form.

1. I went to the Vatican web site to read the letter to the Bishops that accompanied the Motu proprio. It contained the following paragraphs:

Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books.  The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful.  Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: "Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum").

Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity.  Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio.

Question for the Pontiff:

Does this mean, Your Holiness, that priests of the FSSP, etc., can be "forced" to say the Novus Ordo by bishops? In theory at least? If this is the case it would seem to be a violation of the infallible bull, Quo primum.

2. If memory serves me well, I recall, Your Holiness, that when you were Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, you told Raymond Arroyo of EWTN that the plan was to merge the two Rites eventually. When the program was rebroadcast that portion was not shown. Thinking I was mistaken, and discussing this with someone else who had viewed the same show, she informed me that she also recalled the same statement and that she, too, had watched the repeat of the interview, only to discover the same lapse.

Question for the Pontiff:

What did you mean by the two Rites? If they are one and the same then they are not two. If they are two distinct Rites, how can they be merged and remain true to the Council of Trent and Quo primum?

3. The Italian daily Il Giornale has confirmed a stunning revelation that has shocked even those who who have been requesting a new "indult" for the Bugninized/Modernized "Mass of 1962" and who have been falsely looking to Pope Benedict as a "traditionalist" pope:

When an "indult" was first being discussed in 1982, Cardinal Ratzinger, who was then Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith, presided over a meeting which was held November 16, 1982, which proposed that an "indult" be given not for the "Mass of 1962," but for the "Mass of 1967." The Mass of 1967 already included three waves of changes to the Mass, issued as Instructions by Hannibal Bugnini's Commission after Vatican II (1963-1967) and before the final imposition of the Novus Ordo in 1969.

The "Mass of 1967" includes the Bidding Prayers imported from Protestant services ("For all gays and lesbians, may Catholics embrace their sexuality and diversity: Lord, hear our prayer"), the removal of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and of the Last Gospel, the abolition of the traditional liturgical vestments, and the suppression of genuflections, among other Vatican II "reforms." Most notably, however, the "Mass of 1967" included the infamous corruption of the Canon and its Consecration, and the addition of Hannibal Bugnini's three fabricated new "Eucharistic prayers."

The recommendations of the Secret Ratzinger Commission have remained unpublished until now, when Il Giornale secured the confidential minutes of the meeting. These minutes record that Cardinal Ratzinger was joined at the meeting by Cardinals Sebastiano Baggio, the Prefect of Bishops; William Baum, the Prefect of Catholic Education; Agostino Casaroli, the Secretary of State and most important person after the pope; Silvio Oddi, the Prefect of Clergy; and Archbishop Giuseppe Casoria, the Prefect of the Sacraments and Divine Worship.

The Secret Ratzinger Commission, appointed by Pope John Paul II, recommended that "the Roman Missal in the form in which it remained in use up to 1969 [when the Novus Ordo was imposed] ... should be admitted by the Holy See for all Masses celebrated in the Latin language." There were two provisos attached to this recommendation:
  1. any "indult" for the "Mass of 1967" should require that those attending it should pledge "full acceptance of the norms issued after Vatican II" and should affirm that these norms were not "heretical or invalid"
  2. all "Indult" Masses in parish churches on Sundays and Feast days must use the Novus Ordo Calendar.
Even more shocking was the Secret Ratzinger Commission's recommendation that in future "a synthesis of both Missals [the traditional Missal and the Novus Ordo missal] be made. In other words, the traditional Missal, or at least the Missal of 1962, should eventually be merged into the Novus Ordo service of 1969, fabricated by Hannibal Bugnini and his Committee of Six Protestants.

As it happened, the recommendations of the Secret Ratzinger Commission, which the minutes show were adopted unanimously by all members present, were not all included when Pope John Paul published the first "indult" for the "Mass of 1962," in the Apostolic Letter Quattuor abhinc annos of October 3, 1984, or the second "indult," in the Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei of July 2, 1988, it is thought perhaps because of the threats of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Society of St. Pius X, and of other independent priests and organizations, many of whom refused to have anything to do even with the Bugninized/Modernized Missal of 1962.
Question for the Pontiff:

I presume this is accurate, Your Holiness? If not, are you going to ask for a retraction. If it is, then we have been deceived.


"They knew only too well the intimate bond which unites faith with worship, 'the law of belief with the law of prayer,' and so, under the pretext of restoring it to its primitive form, they corrupted the order of the liturgy in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators."

---Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, September 13, 1896

The Consilium under the heretic-eventually banished Bugnini, did the same as the Protestants before it. The corrupters of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, changed the Nicene Creed to remove Catholic doctrine on the personhood of the unborn when it deleted the part of the Creed as follows:

The relevant Latin words in the text of the Nicene Creed are 'ET INCARNATUS EST DE SPIRITU SANCTO EX MARIA VIRGINE ET HOMO FACTUS EST'.
These are the words which traditionally were printed in block capitals with an accompanying admonition that while these words are being recited all genuflect.

The authentic translation of these words is

These however are the words which have been suppressed in the vernacular version of the Creed recited in American churches, having been replaced by the following words:


Needless to say these words are in lower case. The essential point to note however is that whereas in the Latin text and in any authentic translation of the Latin text it is affirmed that Christ became 'INCARNATE OF THE VIRGIN MARY AND WAS MADE MAN' in the vernacular text recited in all American churches it is stated merely that he (sic) was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man---the clear implication being that He became man not at His incarnation but at His birth.

"There will be no infallible definitions. All that was done by former Councils. That is enough. (Pope John XXIII)

In his December 7, 1965, Closing Speech to the Council, as well as in his General Audience of January 12, 1966, Pope Paul VI stated:
"In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility ... The magisterium of the Church ... did not wish to proclaim an extraordinary dogmatic sentence, and insisted that Vatican II had no intention to 'give new solemn dogmatic definitions.' In no way, of course, does this mean that what is pastoral cannot be doctrinal and dogmatic in the Tradition of the
Church. (Pope Paul VI, as cited above)

Thus reason dictates, if words mean anything, that Vatican II cannot be used to dogmatize or even to justify the Liturgical Revolt. In all truth, the two popes of Vatican II declared that Vatican II and its future "versions" must be understood in the light of all previous dogmatic councils.

This means the Council of Trent, specifically because it has so many anathemas concerning changes to the Holy Mass in view of the Protestant revolt.

The Christian Order, March, 1994 issue, has Your Holiness, when Cardinal Ratzinger, noting that the canonized liturgy---the Tridentine Mass---no longer exists within the Latin Rite.

This seems to belie your Motu proprio that both liturgies are one and the same Rite. How can they be if one no longer exists in the first place?

The Council of Trent and Quo primum are dogmatic; and therefore, any significant change, such as an addition to or deletion from the Canonized Liturgy or any refusal to use the Canonized Mass of Trent and Quo primum or with full knowledge the attendance at the Novus Ordo constitutes matter for grave sin---even, the gravest of sins, sacrilege.

In the words of Father Paul Trinchard:

"Clearly, those who knowingly and intentionally compose, impose, celebrate, or actively participate in such forbidden Mass-like liturgies commit mortal sin. Furthermore, in doing so, are they not actively participating in (or promoting) a false liturgy and thereby a false religion? Lex orandi, lex credendi---we pray as we believe (and vice-versa)." [From his tract, NOVUS ORDO CONDEMNED.]

Holy Father, how do you answer? Your sheep require the absolute truth in order to save their immortal souls, and yours, as well!

1. Officially the Church forbids self-communicating by the lay person --- but with the same contradictions we find in many parts of Vatican II. The Church overlooked the necessary distinction between administration and reception. To place the Host either in the hand or on the tongue is administration, end of story. The reception is the absorption and digestion of the Host by the recipient, whether priest or laity. Until the Host touches the tongue --- it must make contact with the tongue by biological mandate since all nourishment through the mouth involves the tongue as designed by our Creator. A lay Extraordinary minister of the Eucharist is self-communicating simply because by definition, ontologically, he is administering to himself. Only upon receiving the Body of Christ upon his tongue, at the moment of physical contact is this the reception, also end of story. To pretend otherwise is sophistry or the hallmark of confusion at best.