If you will simply find yourself an old missal and turn to the Ordinary of the Mass, you will easily see how many prayers and rites have been eliminated in the "New Mass." You will remember that with each such elimination a very recondite and plausible reason was given why it should be made. By now you have probably forgotten the reasons you were given. But, you see, now that the excisions have been made, the reasons make no difference any more.

All the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, including the "ascental" Psalm (42), were replaced. The Aufer a Nobis was dropped from the same reason; namely, since there is no altar, one cannot "go up" to it. And since there is no tabernacle, there can be no mention of the "Holy of Holies." Since saints, and above all, martyrs, are not thought too highly of in the "New Church," their relics are no longer wanted nor venerated; thus, there is no call for the Oramus Te being kept. Also found objectionable were the prayers Munda Cor Meum and the Dominus Sit: these were private prayers of the priest, and private prayer during this communal exercise is not to be tolerated.

Practically all the prayers of the Offertory, one of the principal parts of the True Mass, were deemed useless, which means that the following six prayers are not to be found in the "Novus Ordo": the Suscipe Sancte Pater, the Deus qui Humae, the Offerimus Tibi, the Veni Sanctificator, the Lavabo (Ps. 25), and the Suscipe Sancta Trinitas. As mere tokens, the prayers In Spiritu Humilitatis and Orate Fratres were kept.

The given reason for this incredible exspoliation 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. Obviously we cannot let any prayers a mere eight or nine hundred years old into our "renewed" prayer service!

To help you understand the real reasons why this whole collection of excellent orisons is totally irreconcilable with the "New Faith," let us analyze one as an example. Consider the prayer which the priest says in the True Mass as he raises the host on the paten toward heaven, the Suscipe Sancte Pater. Read this prayer slowly and see if you can find anything wrong with it. To help you, I suggest you make your judgment on the basis of these three questions: Is there anything here which is contrary to the Catholic Religion? Is there anything here which would offend a Non-Catholic were he to read it? Lastly, can you perceive anything herein which reveals that this prayer is improper for these exciting days of the "seventies"?

Suscipe Sancte Pater:

Receive, O holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, thy 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 both for my own and their salvation unto everlasting life. Amen. [35]

Can you tell me now what is wrong with this prayer that it should not be allowed in the Mass, even to be said silently by the Priest? Well, may I tell you that there is everything wrong with this prayer. To begin with, it was said silently by the celebrant, and silent prayers are decidedly outlawed in the "Novus Ordo." what is more, this prayer is spoken in the first person singular – it has the pronoun ego ("I") in it. Now, if there are two things which 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.

Here is an open and tactless admission that he fully intends to offer a sacrifice. Does he really think by whispering his prayer in Latin our "separated brethren" will not find out? And once they do, that will be the last we shall see them!

Besides this, the priest suggests he is "unworthy" to offer the Mass: in the "New Religion" everyone is "worthy." His mentioning his "countless sins, transgressions and failings," suggests there is such a thing as sin, which, as you know, is highly suggestive of a guilt-complex. Very out of place.

Then there is this special attention given to "all faithful Christians," which means some are being left out of consideration. Very uncharitable. He even mentions those faithful Christians who are dead. This smacks very loudly of a belief in the doctrine of Purgatory. Very offensive to any Protestants present.

Finally, there is the mention of "salvation unto everlasting life." This is an out-and-out reference to Heaven! Whereas it is not at all certain whether there is a Heaven. That whole matter is still under discussion. And what’s more, suppose a Jew should happen to be in attendance – a direct slap at him.

Now do you see what is wrong with this prayer? I am beginning to think you need to go to one of your parish CCD classes and get yourself "updated."

So much for the prayer Suscipe Sancte Pater, and this is only one of six prayers which have been eradicated with the almost complete dropping of the Offertory of the Mass.

In the part of the Mass called the Canon, there are six prayers before the Consecration: the Te Igitur, the Memento Domine, the Communicantes, the Hanc Igitur, the Quam Oblationem, and the Qui Pridie. And there are seven which follow it: The Unde et Memores, the Supra quae Propitio, the Supplices Te Rogamus, the Memento Etiam, the Nobis quoque Peccatoribus, the Per Quem haec Omnia, and the Per Ipsum.

You might never have thought of the matter this way, but whenever the priest does not choose to recite "Eucharistic Prayer, Form Number One," all thirteen of these prayers are thereby omitted. This means his "mass" has no Canon at all. Since there are four so-called "Eucharistic Prayers," this probably happens at least three out of four times the "New Mass" is "said."

But this is not the end of it. The translation of these prayers into the vernacular is so garbled that even when "Eucharistic Prayer, Form Number One" is used, it is still nothing but an inept paraphrase. Thus, when one speaks of "Eucharistic Prayer, Form Number One," he should not refer to it as the "Canon of the Mass," but as he would "Eucharistic Prayer, Forms Number Two, Three, and Four," that is, as "inventions." We shall explain the significance of this "change of the Canon" in a special section a little further on.

Following the Pater Noster (which the infiltrators have done their utmost to get their defiling hands on), are the prayers which comprise the Communion of the Mass. Those which have been dispatched are the Libera Nos, the Panem Coelestem, the priest’s Domine non sum Dignus, the Quid Retribuam, the second Confiteor of the people with the following absolutions, the two repetitions of the people’s invocation, Domine non sum Dignus, the Corpus Domini, the Quod Ore, the Corpus Tuum, the Placeat Tibi, and the Last Gospel – which make ten in all.

Counting conservatively and conceding for the sake of the argument that "Eucharistic Prayer, Form Number One" is the "Roman Canon," when it is replaced by one of the other "Eucharistic Prayers," a grand total of thirty-five prayers, or seventy per cent, are thereby discarded from the Ordinary of the Traditional Mass. Seven-tenths of the prayers of the Mass are gone! Nor is this to mention the many brief versicles and responses with which the True Mass abounds – summarily dropped in the "New Mass."

Also banned, by my reckoning, are twenty-five Signs of the Cross, twelve genuflections, and many lesser acts of reverence 1) to the tabernacle (which is often gone also), 2) to the crucifix (likewise), 3) to the Sacred Species, and 4)at the pronunciation of the Names of Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints. These acts of reverence include bows of the head, elevation of the eyes, kisses of the altar stone and its relics, turnings toward the tabernacle and the crucifix, and the subdued tone of the voice. Abrogated also is the "ritual of the hands" whereby the celebrant by various positionings and gestures signifies the thought of the prayers he is reciting. It would be possible to write an essay on the consequences of such a suppression as this alone.

Having hands, the priest must do something with them. Now that he is not directed to do anything with them, the "ceremony" and those who must watch him are at the mercy of his mannerisms, his inspirations, his indiscipline, his disinterest, his imagination, or whatever. Whereas, in the True Mass, with his hands the priest adds, as it were, another dimension to the utterance of the prayer. The rubrics of the Missale Romanum require that the celebrant avoid touching anything except the Sacred Host with "canonical fingers" – the thumb and index fingers of both hands – from the time of the Consecration onward to the final ablution. (His hands were anointed at Ordination with this very rubric in mind.) Each time he removes or replaces the pall, and each time he opens or closes the tabernacle, every time he even moves from one place to another while the Blessed Sacrament is present on the altar, the priest is bidden to genuflect. But all such rubrics are outmoded in the "Novus Ordo." Gone too are the ablutions of the fingers and the sacred vessels after communion, which betokened and bespoke to all those present the proximity of the all-holy Lord of the universe.

Lay people may be unaware of the fact that every action of the priest, every word, is a matter of rubric in the "old" Missale Romanum. From the beginning to the end of Mass, there is no time in which he does not follow a direction as to whether he is to stand, kneel, or sit, whether to hold his hands apart, rest them on the Missal, or on the altar, or to fold them, whether to whisper or to speak aloud, whether to face the tabernacle or the book or the people. At one time he is to nod his head slightly, at another is he is to bow more deeply, at still another he is to bend over profoundly. I suppose few people have ever seen a Traditional Mass at which the celebrant adhered with exactness to the all but countless rubrical prescriptions, since most priests used to grow careless about them a few years after their elevation to the altar. These rubrics are there, nonetheless, and if a priest obey them religiously and piously, with a sense of their sacramental meaning, he finds that they have a most beneficial influence on him, assisting his recollection, purifying his intentions and regulating his demeanor.

The entire foregoing, remember, has been an enumeration of those things which have been excised from the Mass. Now recall these words of our presently-reigning Pontiff, spoken on the 19th of November, 1969, just eleven days before the "Novus Ordo" was introduced in Italy:

But, let everyone understand well that nothing has been changed in the essence of our traditional Mass. Some perhaps will get the idea that by the introduction of such and such a ceremony, or the addition of such and such a rubric, that such things constitute or hide alterations or minimizations of defined truths or ideas sanctioned by the Catholic faith. But there is nothing in this idea, absolutely. First of all, because ritual and rubrics are not, in themselves, a matter of dogmatic definition. (36)

Can you believe it? Some thirty-five prayers, all of which have been repeated tirelessly and lovingly by countless priests, great and ordinary, throughout the whole world, for well over a thousand years – whose origins, indeed, even the sophisticated science of this century has not discovered – whose exquisiteness of expression inspired the world’s greatest artists, Catholic and Non-Catholic, and whose mystical profundity were the meditations of the saints, and whose doctrinal phrasing served to catechize the faithful as well as to perfect their praise – these and the countless reverences, symbols, and gestures which accompanied and interpreted them are about to be stricken from a ceremony which ordinarily lasts hardly more than thirty minutes. And we are being told that it will be done without any essential change resulting in the act itself. In fact, in the above quotation there is no mention that any prayers will be removed at all, only "ritual and rubrics!" Now, if some nobody like myself were to say a similar thing while in the process of doing something like this, my integrity would be called into serious question, would it not?

Thou shalt not live: because thou hast spoken a lie in the name of the Lord. Zachary 13:3

It serves no purpose for anyone to try dissociating the Latin "Novus Ordo" from its vernacular versions. The "New Mass" is one unified thing, one "ball of wax," as they say. This fact can be deduced from the following evidence: 1) There is a perfect correspondence between the rites of the "Novus Ordo" and the errors in the translations. 2) There is little reason to quarrel with the translations, except where the Latin retained from the "Old Mass" is concerned, which is to say, the "new" Latin is as insipid as are the translations of it. 3) For all their faultiness and angularity, the translations are not the result of ignorance but of connivery; the charlatans who produced them made sure that certain ideas were not lost in the crossover. 4) There is great consistency in the errors among the various languages.

It was never expected that the "New Mass" would be "said" in Latin to any great extent; the very idea is contrary to the "New Religion." To obscure responsibility for the action, the mechanics of the plot required that its composition be assigned to various hands, just as its introduction had to be spread over a period of time and its imposition worked out in stages. But despite the apparent collaborate authorship of the "New Mass," it possesses an essential unity, which is easily discernable. Two most important conclusions follow from this fact: First, the principal responsibility for the whole sacrilegious villainy must ultimately be attributed to the presently-reigning Supreme Pontiff. Secondly, those who imagine that they keep their hands clean of the Great Sacrilege by using the Latin of the "Novus Ordo," or even "attending" it, are deluding themselves.

Lest anyone accuse me of giving the perfidious foxes who have done all this mischief too much credit, let me say: In carrying out the Program, there has been a good deal of bungling, and one cannot claim that they have always kept that coolheadedness and sustained that audacity which Revolutionaries are taught are most essential for the game. They haven to gotten away with it yet, you know; they have done some clumsy work and set off alarms all along the way. The most conspicuous evidence of their club-footedness has been their inability to render either "

new" or "old" Latin into any language to the satisfaction of even the semi-literate. One could almost say that, were it not for their fidelity to their own subversive tenets, it would not be clear whether they knew either Latin or the vernacular.

The "reformers" have left us in their despicable Effigy but a misshapen remnant of the Traditional Catholic Mass. It is a credit to their skill as carvers that they have been able to mutilate the Mass completely and still have something with which to deceive the people. Two main artifices were employed in this butchery. One was the very liberal use of mistranslation. The other was the retention of certain "innocuous" words and ideas which we, their dupes, were accustomed to. These two tools were used simultaneously, one in each hand.

In the "New Mass," for example, there is what is called the "Penitential Rite." Most people take this as a slightly altered form of the Confiteor, simply reduced to a comfortable brevity. Let me quote the Confiteor alongside the new "Confession."

Now, instead of first the priest, then the people making their confession of sinfulness to God, the Blessed Mary ever Virgin, the great St. Michael, the Apostles, and all the other saints in Heaven, the emphasis has deftly shifted. And I assure you this was not done merely for the sake of efficiency. If you know anything about the "theology" of the "New Religion," you perceive how the true nature of sin has been subtly recast. (As I said before, reflect how your children understand these things. Or, what would be better, quiz them a bit.) The brevity serves to diminish the importance of the idea of sin altogether. But it is the repetition of the phrase, "you, my brothers and sisters," which must be noted. For, in the "New Religion" the evil of sin abides in its offensiveness to one’s fellow man. And, to finish the thought, if an act does not hurt him, it is not sinful at all; if it helps him, it is virtue.

Consider now these two renderings of the Gloria:

If you compare these two translations, your first reaction might be: There is very little difference between them. The new rendering is shorter. Just a few words are left out. Why should anyone get excited about such minor divergences?

But the question is, why was the correct translation not kept? There is surely nothing wrong with it. Would it not have been easier to choose an exact translation? What possible reason might have motivated the choice of a translation which is obviously inaccurate? Perhaps as we proceed, you will realize that mistranslations in the Sacred Liturgy are a more serious matter than is immediately evident.

The reason the correct translation was not employed in the English versions of the "New Mass" is that mistranslations have uses of their own, as far as the plotters are concerned. You might even say they are absolutely necessary in the general Program.

First of all, it was necessary from the very beginning that the translations be "a bit free." This would give the impression that exactness was not at all necessary. Thus, the renderings of certain prayers containing doctrinal and other kinds of discrepancies might be slipped in with no fuss being made. Perfect examples are ready at hand in the English translations of the Credo, another "vestige" of the True Mass, and the Consecration Form, the latter of which we will speak of further on. With regard to the Credo, contrary to the Latin sense, the first person singular was turned into the first person plural, from "I" to "we." Credo means "I believe." The original idea (and preparation) for this came no doubt from Pope Paul’s Creed, pronounced most solemnly at the end of the "Year of Faith." (1967-1968). It contained "we believe" throughout. The Revolution’s detestation fro the individual person, with a mind and a will and an eternal destiny of his own, with a personal faith and a divinely-imposed obligation to profess it publicly and to express it in prayer, is here manifested and unmistakably indoctrinated, this by the device of one little word.

Another purpose served by mistranslation in the "New Rite" is to make prayers in the Mass, such as the Gloria, negligible and unimportant in the minds of all, so that they can be discarded effortlessly or omitted at his whim, by the "president." Obviously, if the Church does not care enough to see that its official prayers are correctly translated, it could not matter much whether they are said or not. Our "presidents" have taken the hint and now act accordingly. In the "old dispensation," it was considered at least a venial sin to omit or alter without good reason any of the prayers of the Mass. To do so as a matter of course was considered serious.

More important than such considerations as these is the immediate and obvious one that here is a falsity in the most holy Actions in which men may have a share, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Here of all places is a shameless violation of the virtue of veracity, an implicit insult to God, an abuse of the trust of the people, most of whom, through no fault of their own, have no notion that such tricks are being played, they being under the quaint misapprehension that the Pope, the bishops, and their parish priests are men of honor. Even one such misrendering is cause for alarm, and the new vernacular "versions" are rife with this kind of thing, from beginning to end.

No possible excuse can be found for such breaches as this, yet the pietistic clergy of the "New Church" cannot be bothered in the least about them. Since the first of these garblings appeared, complaints have been made to the Vatican, which has been too busy and noisy about the further steps of the Revolution to be able to hear them. If one should ask his bishop whether he has ever made an issue of this matter at one of those much publicized and very scandalous Bishops’ meetings, he will blink his eyes, clear his throat, recover his aplomb, and brush off your question as if you were a neurotic and assure you that you can leave such things to his and his colleagues’ capable hands: "Trust in me, my child." If you ask your parish "president" why it is that the Bishops have not succeeded in finding anyone between Rome and here who can turn the simplest Latin into plain and honest English, he will be ready to give you one of a dozen stock specious arguments, all of which betray his supercilious disdain for your innocence and faint-heartedness. His large-hearted devotion rises above such trifles as this; when he "offers mass," he is "wrapped in God."

The irony of it all is that the "New Mass" was imposed on us with the excuse that "scholarship" had been able to restore the Mass to a purer, truer, and simpler form. Here is a typical example of this "scholarship"; these egg-headed savants cannot even see any difference between "peace to men of good will" and "peace to his people." I am no scholar, but I know the Revolutionary connotation of such a phrase as the latter. In the language of the Revolution, "peace" means that situation when all opposition to the "new order" has been suppressed. And the "people" are not everyone, but the Revolutionaries themselves. "Peace to his people," therefore does not mean peace of soul to those who have received the grace of Christ, nor peace to all men of good will, whether they be members of the Church or not, but "Victory for the Revolution," or "All power to the people," or "Long live the Revolution," or the like.

I refrain here from attempting discussion of the "Liturgy of the Word" of the "Novus Ordo." It is a subject in itself. But you can easily see how, with the new mode of reading parts of the Bible over a period of years, rather than few chosen excepts every year (as was done formerly), the faithful will lose all familiarity with Holy Writ. They will be helpless against a progressive debauchery of the Sacred Scriptures. This is not idle speculation and needs no belabored proof. The meaning of the Scriptures has been for years undergoing a radical distortion that grows more extreme from month to month. Most people have almost no awareness at all of this calculated corruption. We shall have occasion to present a choice example of how this has been done when we come to speak of the Form of Consecration.

Since it is proper that holy things be administered in a holy way, and since the Sacrifice [of the Mass] is the holiest of all things, the Catholic Church, in order that it be worthily and reverently offered and [clearly] recognized, has, over the course of many years instituted the Canon, so free of every error [Canon 6] that it contains nothing which is not redolent of greatest holiness and piety and which does not lift the minds of its offerers to God. For it is made up both of the Lord Himself, and of the traditions of the Apostles, as well as the pious institutions of saintly Pontiffs.

Canon 6: If anyone says that the Canon of the Mass contains errors and therefore should be abrogated, let him be anathema. (37)

"Eucharistic Prayer, Form Number One" is still given the self-contradictory and false subtitle "The Roman Canon." Being assured of our inertia and intellectual sleepiness, our manipulators enjoy treating us as utter dolts. The word "canon" means a rule, a ruler, a standard of measure, etc. It refers, therefore, to something fixed, unchangeable, and irreplaceable. The Canon of the Mass is, as it were, a criterion by which both the validity, the liceity, and indeed the excellence of the Consecration of the Mass are accomplished and to be adjudged. In the "Novus Ordo," "Eucharistic Prayer, Form Number One" is not the "Roman Canon" because it has been changed, or rather, mutilated, both in the Latin and in the translation. It is therefore a crooked rule. But calling it a "canon" is equivalent to saying: This is the Eucharistic Prayer of the Mass; all other forms are ineffective, fraudulent, useless, unacceptable, forbidden – including the three which follow, namely, "Eucharistic Prayers, Forms Number Two, Three, and Four."

As already mentioned, no matter how loosely Pope St. Pius V’s caveat concerning tampering with the Missale Romanum might be interpreted, absolutely no case on the part of anyone can be found for lying hands on the Canon of the Mass. As P. H. Omlor has observed:

On December 8, 1962 through the influence of the then nascent Robber Church, the Canon of the Mass, the ancient Roman Canon, was officially destroyed. With the insertion of the name of St. Joseph into it, a change which went into effect on that day, the "Canon" of the Mass ceased to be a Canon. (38)

He quotes E. E. Escourt as saying:

"The care taken to preserve the Canon in its original authentic form we learn from other writers. ‘In ancient times,’ says Muratori, ‘although the liturgy in the Roman Mass was observed generally in the churches of Italy, France, Germany, Britain, and other countries, yet there was no small variety in their Missals; but this did not affect eh substance of the mystery, or the chief and essential rites of the Mass. The difference ran in adding collects, sequences, and special feasts, which each Bishop might insert into his own missal. But to change the sacred words of the Canon was a crime.’ By the laws of Charlemagne it was ordered that only men of full age should be employed to transcribe it; and the Councils of York and Oxford in the twelfth century decreed that the Archdeacon should examine in every church whether there were errors or defects in the Canon, either by the faults of transcribers or the books being old. Always too, the Canon was written in different and larger characters than the rest, and sometimes in gold letters throughout, as an offering of reverence." (39)

It was Pope John XXIII’s unhappy distinction to be the first Pope to permit a variation in the Canon of the Roman Mass in over thirteen hundred years. (38) this was a blameworthy blunder and a violation of a most sacrosanct tradition. Pope Paul VI first introduced three so-called "Eucharistic Prayers" alongside the Canon (which might be used as alternatives to it), and then ALTERED the Form of the Consecration of the wine. This Act must be regarded as a transgression of maximum proportions. Independent of all other essentially related acts, it was a grievous and damnable sin and sacrilege!

So momentous a thing was it for the Canon to be changed, that we must know why it was done. The reasons given, such as the need for variety, the advantage of accentuating various aspects of the Sacred Mystery of the Eucharist, etc., were pure verbiage. Why, for instance, should a priest need variety in the offering of the most sacred prayer of which a human being is capable? What he needs, obviously, is sanctity, and a deep insight into the meaning of this ineffable Rite. And if there is to be a number of these "Eucharistic Prayers," why should there be only four; why not five, or ten, or a hundred? It has been observed that many priests recite only one of the four all the time. Others, taking their cue from the "Novus Ordo," no doubt, make up their own. If there is any good in mere variety, leaving each priest to fashion his own liturgy is the surest way to get it. No, there is a surer way yet, for other priests have hit upon it – letting members of their "audience" formulate the prayers, extemporaneously. This is really keen.

So completely contrary to law as well as to every tradition and liturgical principle is this tampering with the Sacred Canon, that we are bound to be altogether suspicious of the changes which were introduced. The presumption must be that they were inspired by malice, deceit, and faithlessness. Pope St. Pius V would surely say the same thing. Since there is absolutely no good reason for the change, since nothing good has (or can) come from it, and since its perpetrators have persistently ignored all questions and objections and criticism, the very worst intentions on their part must be presumed.

The worst possible intentions discernible for what has been done to the Canon is the desire to destroy the Mass itself. And, surely enough, the more carefully one studies what has been done, the clearer it becomes that this was the exact intention.

It goes without saying that, such being the case, defect of intention in the rite itself can hardly be denied. (40) And those priests who have no other INTENTION than that expressed by the "Novus Ordo" certainly do not effect the transubstantiation of the bread and the wine! It should be remembered that the Church presumed invalidity wherever serious irregularities are present. The "Novus Ordo" is an irregularity of colossal proportions from beginning to end. Let me remind you, the matter at issue here is not some mundane ephemerality, but the infinitely Holy Mass and Blessed Eucharist. The power of Transubstantiation is after all the power of Christ. It is not to be imagined that He exercises it unless all requisites are present.

There can be no denying that the creators of the "New Mass" took the greatest pains to alter as much as possible the entire ritual of the Mass, without being too obvious about it – though one wonders how much more obvious they could have been. It is hard to believe that anyone who studies the "New Mass" with eyes clear could come to any other conclusion than that beneath all the pretended fervor for renewal was a spirit of diabolical hatred for everything Catholic, and particularly for the Holy Mass, the most Catholic of all things. Such hatred could hardly be free from the fiercest compulsion to bring both our religion and the Mass to total ridicule, degradation, and ruination.

The vicious determination of the plotters to nullify the sacrificial intention of the True Mass and the reality of Transubstantiation is painfully obvious. The acceptableness of the "New Mass" to those who certainly do not believe in these essential mysteries should be proof enough. The reason that such notions as these seem extreme to most people is that they have never bestirred themselves concerning the matter. If Catholicism had ever been dependent for its survival upon such lethargic souls as theirs, it would never have endured the first attempt at its subversion, nor its first persecution; nor would the Church in the future emerge from its present stupor, as surely it will.

We shall not attempt here a thorough analysis of the Eucharistic Prayers. Rather, we shall concentrate on that part of the four prayers which is common to all, but which has been made different from the True Canon, the prayer which begins "Qui pridie," with the Consecration Forms which follow. We will base our investigation mainly on (1) the Epiclesis itself, together with the three phrases: (2) "mysterium fidei," (3) "Haec quotiescumque," (4) "pro multis." Below, we will give these phrases in their proper context. Let me summarize the whole argument before presenting it in detail.

The main purpose of the changes made in the Canon was to transform the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ present on the altar into a mere memorial supper, which recalls Our Lord’s last meal with His disciples before His death. This was done by the simple expedient of fusing the Consecratory formulae into the preparatory prayer, Qui Pridie. This was the unadmitted reason behind the removal of the words "mysterium fidei" from the Consecration Form of the wine. The replacement of the sentence which begins "Haec quotiescumque" was part of the same tactic.

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.

Here I give first, on the left, the Latin of the prayer, Qui Pridie, as found in the Missale Romanum. (In liturgical parlance it is called an epiclesis; it can also be spelled, epiklesis.) Next to it is the correct English translation of the prayer. Then comes the altered Latin version given in the "Novus Ordo," which most people think is the same thing as that found in the Missale Romanum. Last, appears the faulty (what else?) English rendering of the "Novus Ordo’s" (altered) version.

The numbers in parenthesis indicate what phrases will be under discussion; notice the order in which they will be taken. The choice of phrases is dictated by the need we have of understanding clearly the true nature of the Consecration, the very center of the Mass. We must have this understanding if we are to perceive how, with a few cunning strokes, the manipulators have been able to set at naught the sacramental import of the words and to disrupt the careful balance of ideas, guarded so jealously by all former Catholic generations, but relinquished so unconcernedly by this present one.

In order to concentrate on the words in question, I am taking no notice of the many gestures of too-poor reverence, the purposeful silence, the ineffable intimacy, the awe-inspired deliberateness, that the Missale Romanum requires of the tremulous celebrant, all of which are regarded as archaic, anti-social, and in bad taste by the "descralizers."

Before all else, it must be understood that the Qui Pridie and the Form of Consecration in the True Mass are, neither singly nor taken together, a mere narration of the event of the Last Supper. The Qui Pridie is the setting and the preparation for pronouncement of the Consecration formula, as well as the prayer wherein the celebrant bears witness to the essential unity of the institution of the Sacrament with the Sacrifice of the Cross. Fr. Joseph Jungmann points out that all liturgies do the same:

It is in the very nature of the Christian liturgy of the Mass that the account of the institution of the Blessed Sacrament should not be recited as a merely historical record, as are other portions of the Gospels. Indeed, the words of the account are spoken over the bread and a chalice, and, in accord with our Lord’s word, are uttered precisely in order to repeat Christ’s action. This repetition, is, in fact, accomplished in all its essentials by rehearsing the words of the account of the institution. (43)

In the Qui Pridie, the Last Supper is mentioned to remind us of the priest’s intention of repeating that act by which Christ transubstantiated the bread and wine, so that He might give His Apostles His Body and Blood. When He accomplished this marvelous miracle, the Sacrifice of Calvary was made sacramentally present there in the Upper Room. When the priest at Mass accomplishes the same ineffable wonder, the Body and Blood of Christ become present on the altar. If no transubstantiation took place during the Mass, it would be nothing more than a sentimental memorial of the Last Supper, and imply that the Last Supper itself was nothing more than a dramatic and sorrowful going-away banquet which Christ ate with the Twelve.

The Form of Consecration is not considered to be a prayer of the priest. Rather, it is the evocation of a direct and most glorious act from God Himself. Through his pronunciation of the Consecration Form, the priest’s humanity and individuality become identified with the infinite power and redemptive intention of Christ on the Cross. At this point, the priest speaks as if he were Christ Himself, and Christ acts through the priest’s will and words both as the Consecrator and the Oblation, the Eternal High-Priest and the saving Victim, the supreme Mediator and the mutual gift.

In the Epiclesis of the True Mass (again, I remind you, this is the prayer which begins, "Qui Pridie"), the obvious emphasis is on the fact that the priest intends to do what Christ did at the Last Supper, namely, consecrate the offerings, change them into the Body and Blood of the Savior. In the "Epiclesis" of the "New Mass" the emphasis has been obviously and unmistakably shifted, even though the words used are generally the same. Here there is nothing left to indicate that the "president" is actually consecrating, or intends to. Traditional-minded Catholics presume he is doing so; perhaps he also presumes he is doing so – although, again, perhaps he does not; you cannot be certain. While everyone is doing all this presuming, what is really happening is that the "president" is merely telling what happened at the Last Supper. Nor is he telling of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord; he is telling of the eating and drinking of bread and wine.

Let us look closely at the English of the "New Mass": The Latin text of the "Narratio" (in the "New Mass") has three sentences; its faulty translation has six. (Keep in mind that during a vernacular "mass," it makes no difference what the Latin has!) The simple device of dividing the text into shorter sentences not only reduces it to nothing more than a narrative, but also, changes the meaning of the words, as we shall see. The first sentence contains a reference to the sufferings of Christ (the Latin words "gratias agens," let me mention in passing, do not mean "he gave... thanks and praise," but, "giving thanks"). Then the second sentence is entirely new: "He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you." Perhaps you do not see the ambiguity. In the True Mass, the priest says, "Take and eat ye all of this, FOR THIS IS MY BODY." The omission of the word, "for" (in the Latin, "enim"), and the stopping of the sentence with the colon, make the words this and it of the faulty translation refer to their antecedent, bread. This ambiguity does not exist in the Latin of the "Novus Ordo" because "hoc" is both neuter and singular and can refer only to the neuter, singular noun, "Corpus" ("Body").

The identical distortion is committed in the fourth sentence with reference to the wine. This sentence reads: "Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant." Here again the Latin word, "enim" ("for") is not translated; a colon is put in its place. The result is that the clauses of the sentence are separated completely. The words this and it refer to the wine, not to the "cup of my blood."

Now consider how the "Narratio" in the "Novus Ordo" is printed. (We are here referring to the Latin text.) The words "ACIPITE ET MANDUCATE EX HOC OMNES" ("Take this, all of you, and eat it") are given the same bold capitalization as the words of consecration, "HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEIUM," ("this is my body..."). It is the same with the words "ACCIPITE ET BIBITE EX EO OMNES:" ("Take this, all of you, and drink from it:"), as also with the words which in liturgical terms are called the Anamnesis: "HOC FACITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIONEM." ("Do this in memory of me.") The reason for the bold and enlarged capitals in the Missale Romanum of St. Pius V is the need to separate them from the Epiclesis and the Anamnesis, and to indicate that they are the Form of Consecration. This very purpose is undeniably negated in the "Novus Ordo;" instead, and this is most important, the capitalization of the words which speak of taking and eating, taking and drinking have the double effect of fusing the words of consecration into the "Narratio," or Narration, and, at the same time, of heightening the importance of the idea of eating and drinking of – not, mind you – the Body and Blood of Christ, but of the bread and wine, which the demonstratives and pronounces logically and grammatically refer to. As we shall see when we discuss the apparently innocuous change of the words of the Anamnesis, "Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in mei memoriam facietis" ("As often as ye shall do these things, ye shall do them in remembrance of Me") to "HOC FACITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIONEM" ("Do this in memory of me"), the effect is the very same. And that effect is the complete eradication of the Form of Consecration.

This typography is truly radical. Nor can it be the result of the printer’s caprice or oversight; it corresponds exactly with the "wishes" of Pope Paul VI himself as he expressed them in his "decree" Missale Romanum. Allow me to quote them in their context:

However, for pastoral reasons, and in order to facilitate concelebration, we have ordered that the words of the Lord ought to be identical in each formulary of the Canon. Thus, in each Eucharistic Prayer, we wish that the words be pronounced thus: over the bread: Accipite et manducate ex hoc omens: Hoc est enim Corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur; over the chalice: Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: Hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. [The Pope’s italics]. (Appendix II, par. 6).

The reader will observe that the Pope is careful not to refer to the words quoted above as the "Form of Consecration;" instead, they are described as "the words of the Lord," which must mean the words of the Lord as they are quoted in the "Narratio," the account of the Lord’s Supper. Neither here nor anywhere else in his Apostolic Constitution does the Pontiff refer to the mystery of Transubstantiation. From beginning to end, his main emphasis is on the "readings" of the new "missal," with which the people will "nourish themselves day by day."

Pope Paul says, "We have ordered that the words of the Lord ought to be, etc." How is that the Pope may order what the "words of the Lord ought to be?"

Few seem to have noticed the two main reasons the Pope gives for so radical an alteration in the very center of the "mass," but they are there, big as life, "for pastoral reasons, and in order to facilitate concelebration." How many people know to this day what these "pastoral reasons" are, and how the complete emasculation of the Form of Consecration serves to "facilitate concelebration?" Perhaps it will help if they recall that the word "pastoral" in the code language of the Revolution means, "for the people," that is, "for the sake of the ‘Renewal’ or the Revolution itself," Again, the abandonment of the Form of Consecration and its reduction to a mere narrative can only be understood by realizing that, in many "concelebrated ‘masses’" many of the "concelebrants," both "Catholic" and Protestant, certainly do not believe in the power of Transubstantiation. Thanks to this "slight" adjustment, they may use any of the four "Eucharistic Prayers" without the risk of such a marvel occurring.

Have you ever wondered why this phrase was taken from the hitherto inviolable Consecration Form of the wine? In his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, Pope Paul says, "The words mysterium fidei, taken from the context of the words of Christ the Lord, and said by the Priest, serve as an introduction to the acclamation of the faithful." (Appendix II. Par. 6). This is saying what happened to these words, not why!

If you ask the "play-wrights," they will tell you that this phrase in the True Mass is an interruption of the narrative of the Consecration of the wine by our Divine Savior. It is a break in the thought, they will say; it is not scriptural. All of a sudden, you see, they feign great scholarliness. After making a veritable shambles of the entire Liturgy of the Roman Rite through the most egregious mistranslations, silly interpolations, and needless omissions and dislocations, they have the temerity to claim that their itchy-fingered meddling is inspired by devotion to the Sacred Scriptures. Their fancied biblicism betrays them here, however, since, as Fr. Jungmann points out, liturgical usage pre-dates the Scriptures, and even explains the divergencies among the various accounts of the institution of the Blessed Eucharist:

In all the known liturgies the core of the eucharistica, and therefore of the Mass, is formed by the narrative of institution and the words of consecration. Our very first observation in this regard is the remarkable fact that the texts of the account of institution, among them in particular the most ancient (whether as handed down or as reconstructed by comparative studies), are never simply a Scripture text restated. They go back to pre-biblical tradition. Here we face an outgrowth of the fact that St. Paul set out to record the Gospel story. Even the glaring discrepancies in the biblical texts themselves regarding this very point are explained by this fact. For in them we evidently find segments from the liturgical life of the first generation of Christians. (44)

Though there was during the years gone by no little discussion about the exact meaning of the words "mysterium fidei" in the context of the Consecration formula, and the date of their introduction into it, that they are an essential part of the Form of Consecration is not in any way open to question. Consider the following Monitum from the Holy Office in 1958:

This Supreme Congregation has learned that in a certain translation of the New Order of Holy Week into the vernacular, the words "mysterium fidei" in the form of the consecration of the chalice are omitted. It is also reported that some priests omit these words in the very celebration of Mass.

Therefore this Supreme Congregation gives warning that it is impious (nefas) to introduce a change in so sacred a matter and to mutilate or alter editions of liturgical books (cf. can. 1399, 10).

Bishops therefore, in accordance with the warning of the Holy Office of 14 Feb., 1958, should see to it that the prescriptions of the sacred canons on divine worship be strictly observed, and they should be closely watchful that no one dare to introduce even the slightest change in the matter and form of the Sacraments. (45)

Clearly the removal of this phrase is a very serious violation of the law of the Church – this, aside from the question of whether its removal in the present instance may contribute to rendering the "New Mass" invalid. Regardless, in this writing we are more concerned with the morality of the "New Mass," which, as we have said before, is a more basic issue. Now the reader should keep in mind that fulfilling the law of the Church is a moral obligation, so that a serious violation of the law is mortally sinful and renders the Mass sacrilegious. The sinfulness derives from the illegality, and the illegality derives from the intrinsic wrongfulness of the act itself (a violation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist), the Church having made the law to point out the sin. To violate the law, therefore, is to violate the Sacrament.

If anyone adds or takes away anything [from the form of Consecration of the Body and the Blood,] even if he does not change the meaning of the form, he does confect [the Sacrament] but he sins grievously. 46

Is this not edifying then? The highest authorities of the Church are found appealing to the Divine Scriptures, while committing a desecration against the Form of the most Holy Sacrament, and attempting to oblige priests to participate in the sin – and in most cases, succeeding. This is another choice example of the pharisaism of the "reform."

The Critique of the Roman Theologians on the "Novus Ordo" considers that there may well be a case of invalidity here. The removal of the words "mysterium fidei" may not have been as harmless as it appeared. And the argument hinges upon the fact that the forms of Consecration have been made a part of the Last Supper narrative. To quote the Critique:

The narrative mode is now underlined by the formula: "Narratio institutionis" (No. 55d), and backed by the definition of the commemoration, where it is said that "Ecclesia memoriam ipsius Christi agit." (No. 55c). (The Church acts in memory of Christ Himself.)

In short, the theory proposed for the epiclesis, [i.e., the prayer, Qui Pridie] the modification of the words of the Consecration and of the commemoration have the effect of changing the true import of the words of Consecration. The consecration formulae are now pronounced by the priest as part of a historic narration, and no longer express a categorical affirmation on the part of Him in Whose Person the priest acts: "Hoc est Corpus meum" ["This is my Body"] (and not: "Hoc est Corpus Christi" ["This is the Body of Christ."]). 47

In reference to these words, footnote number 15 of the Critique says:

The words of the Consecration, as they appear in the context of the "Novus Ordo," may be valid according to the intention of the ministering priest. But they may not be, for they are so no longer ex vi verborum [by force of the words used] or more precisely, in virtue of the modus significandi [way of signifying] which they had till now in the Mass. Will priest who, in the near future, have not had the traditional training and who rely on the "Novus Ordo" in order to "do what the Church does" make a valid consecration? One may be permitted to doubt it. 48.

The Critique has been proved correct beyond all doubt. There are hundreds of priests who certainly do not validly consecrate, due to their complete incapacity of forming the correct intention; and their number increases daily. Steeped as many are in the rationalistic faithlessness of Revolutionism, they have only the most distorted, confused, and even cynical view of traditional Catholic doctrine. Faith in the dogma of the Eucharist and even in the divinity of Christ is quite beyond many of them.

Nor should that other body of erst-while celebrants be forgotten. I refer to those whose dull-witted indifference to such supernal matters as the absolute necessity of proper forms and intentions for the confection of the Sacraments (such as is manifested by their robot-like readiness to do anything, say anything, or preach anything which bears the signature of their hierarchical custodians), bespeaks a very questionable faith; or rather, suggests that they have so completely surrendered their minds and wills to their masonic masters, that they are quite incapable of having any intention different from, or contrary to, what is programmed into them.

In the "Novus Ordo," the intention of re-enacting the Sacrifice of the Cross in an unbloody manner is not in clear evidence. It is deliberately not in evidence because it needs to be acceptable to the innumerable priests who do not share Holy Mother Church’s intentions with respect to the Mass, who do not believe in their own power of transubstantiation, nor in the need for such a power. Also, the "New Mass" had to be made acceptable to Protestant ministers, which of course it is. Many of them participate in it with joyful gusto, under the impression that finally the Roman Catholic Church has been converted to true Christianity, or at least is showing remarkable promise.

It is in connection with the removal of the words "mysterium fidei" that we must inquire why the words of Christ’s instruction, "As often as you shall do these things, you shall do them in memory of Me," have been changed. Notice the difference in the two Latin words which begin each of the sentences under study:

Missale Romanum: "Haec quotiescumque fecerities..." ("as often as you shall do these things...")

Novus Ordo Missae: "Hoc facite...." ("Do this...")

The "haec" is plural and means "these things," whereas, "hoc" is singular and means "this." "These things" refers to all the things which Christ our Lord and the Apostles, his new priests, are doing, that is, His taking bread, giving thanks, etc., and their eating of what he calls His Body; and His taking the chalice, and the rest, and their drinking of His Precious Blood. Christ is telling them to do all "these things," to use elements, to use these words, to eat and drink, all in memory of His eminent self-oblation for the remission of the sins of "the many."

The singular demonstrative "hoc" ("this"), in the "New Mass" formula cannot be taken necessarily to mean the same thing. It could easily (and more logically) refer only to what the Apostles themselves were doing, namely, eating and drinking: "Take and eat...," "take and drink....," "Do this...." You see how the idea of a mere commemorative meal could be inferred (and indeed is being inferred by young people). In the context of all the other anti-sacrificial and anti-sacramental maneuvers one finds in the "New Mass," it is impossible not to infer exactly this meaning.

The point gains force when we remind ourselves that there can be absolutely no excuse for any ambiguity or vagueness about this matter. For if there were any such possibility, all the "reformers" would have had to do was leave things as they were! The very fact that they did not is incriminating in itself. I might add that, by the change, they were violating a tradition which goes back to the earliest period of the Roman Liturgy. As Father Jungmann says:

The sacred account concluded with the command to repeat what Christ had done. The text is taken basically from St. Paul; however, the entire Roman tradition, from Hippolytus on, has substituted for the Pauline phrase "whenever you drink it," the phrase "whenever you do this." 49

In other words, the ambiguous alteration in the "Novus Ordo" fits the "reformers" purpose of conveying a further misconception. Immediately after the "Hoc facite"appears what is claled an "acclamation." The priest says to the people, "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith," and they respond, "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again." The words were chosen in reminiscence of the passage in St. Paul:

This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall not eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, UNTIL HE COME. [Author’s emphasis]. I Corinthians 11:25-26

Commenting on this choice, the aforementioned Critique says:

Then the acclamation assigned to the people immediately after the Consecration ("mortem tuam annuntiamus Domine, etc., donec venias") ["We announce thy death, O Lord, etc. Until thou shouldst come."] brings us to the crowning ambiguity with regard to the Real Presence, under pretext of concern about the Last Day. Without a break the expectation of Christ’s second coming at the end of time is proclaimed at precisely the moment when He is actually present on the altar – as if the second coming, and not this, were the true coming. 50

I might add, this is but another instance too of the reformers’ yen for using the Scriptures as a cover for their manipulations.

It will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven.

It is necessary here to turn our attention to the English translation of the "Novus Ordo." Our discussion centers around the phrase "for all men." The Latin of the "Novus Ordo" corresponds with that of the Missale Romanum, as you can see in the comparative renderings given above: both have "pro multis," which even the slowest Latin student understands to mean "for many" (i.e., "for many" men, people, persons, or the equivalent). If one wishes to say "for all men" in Latin, he must say "pro omnibus."

The question we are here discussing will remain for all time to come one of the most culpable and at the same time incredible delinquencies in the history of the Church. Incredible because it is a question of utmost gravity, and yet those whom it concerns cannot be brought to give it a moment’s consideration, even though it is impossible for anyone honestly to deny the error of who they are that are guilty of it, or who had the responsibility for preventing it, and who now have the responsibility for correcting it. It is so serious a question because there is every reason to believe the erroneous rendering of these two Latin words invalidates the Consecration of the wine when the vernacular "for all men" is used.

Attention was called to this error by P. H. Omlor in March of 1968, after the English "Canon" was introduced into the Revised Rite of the Mass on October 22, 1967. 51 Since that time, even though the possibility of invalidity has become known around the world (hundreds of priests having steadfastly refused to use the translations, and many Catholics having discontinued attending "masses" where it is recited), no one of sufficiently great authority has taken it seriously enough to dare call for an emendation. The Pope himself has remained deaf to all complaints concerning the matter. And no theologian worthy of the title has ventured either to defend, to explain away, or to refute the argument. I put it this way, because those few who have attempted to refute the invalidity thesis have done it in such a puerile fashion, that either they were not serious theologians, or they were not serious period. Are we then forced to conclude that at present the Church has no theologians worthy of the title?

The colossal irony of the whole affair is that the "reformers," instead of correcting the gross and altogether conspicuous error by making a few uncomplicated corrections, left it as it first erroneously appeared, and thus succeeded in doing less effectively what they obviously had in mind to do, namely, heap as much abuse and sacrilege upon the Head of Christ as one generation might be capable of. Those in power in the Church have waged a persistent, albeit futile, campaign to prove that no error has been made, and that those who let themselves be bothered by such trifles are "sick in the head." The sycophantic gymnastics which have been attempted by some who imagine themselves defenders of Catholic Orthodoxy, in an effort to justify this intolerable falsity, have contributed greatly to its continuance. After viewing the shameful spectacle from its beginning, one can only conclude that the whole Catholic people is in the thrall of some psychodelic miasma whereby they are invulnerable to the imperatives of simple and objective truth, inviolable law, the Divine will, and basic honesty.

The argument against "for all men" is this: the rendering of pro multis as for all men is by no means a minor discrepancy. It is the most serious mutilation of the meaning of the words of the Consecration of the wine at least (possibly of both the bread and the wine 52) in all the countless "masses" in which the error is expressed. Hence, if the pronouncements of the Church are to be taken literally, apart from all the other faults which can be found with the "Novus Ordo," despite the best intentions of the sincerest priests in the world, and in spite of the guileless fervor of the lay people in attendance, no sacrifice of any kind is being offered (unless it be to Baal, the god of the "New Religion"). "Then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." (1 Cor. 15:14). The reason is, the Form of Consecration has been vitiated and nullified. In mistranslating these few words (again, to say nothing of other irregularities), these arrogant "improvers" have altered the Form essentially, so that the supposed al-important effect does not come about.

According to the Missale Romanum,

Wherefore the words of Consecration, which are the Form of this Sacrament, are these: 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. [For this is my Body; and: 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.].... If anyone removes or changes anything in the Form of 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. 53

And the next sentence says by doing this "he would sin grievously."

In explanation of the necessity of the words of this Form, the Catechism of the Council of Trent says:

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew [26:28], some from Luke [22:20], 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 [Heb. 9:28]; and also of the words of Our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine [Jn. 17:9]. 54

The words, for you and for many are considered to be essential for the act of Consecration, because the yare part of what is called in Sacramental Theology "res sacramenti" of the Form, an untranslatable phrase, which refers to the purpose and end of the Sacrament, that for which the particular graces of the Sacrament will be granted. In the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the res sacramenti is those words of the formula which indicate the redemption of them and who will be saved through the Sacrifice of Christ and through union with His Mystical Body. As St. Alphonsus Liguori, a Doctor of the Church, explains:

The words Pro vobis et pro multis ("For you and for many") are used to distinguish the virtue of the blood of Christ from its fruits; for the blood of our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men, but its fruits are applicable only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault. Or, as the theologians would say, this precious blood is (in itself) sufficiently (sufficienter) it does not save all – it saves only those who co-operate with grace. This is the explanation of St. Thomas, as quoted by Benedict XIV. 55

If you are new to this subject, you will surely be asking, "Well, then, how could they change the words as they did, if this is what the documents say?" Well, dear child, you are not supposed to ask questions like that, or have you not heard? Now, would you like me to tell you what explanation the local authorities will give to such a question? Well, fold your hands, sit very still, and listen:

It so happens that the translation of the English of the "mass" was produced by a crowd who call themselves the International Committee on English in the Liturgy (ICEL). Their justification for translating pro multis as "for all men" derives from the curious researches of a rationalist Scripture "scholar" whose name is Joachim Jeremias of the University of Gottingen (Germany). This man’s recondite pontification is that for lo, these two thousand years, the words of Our Lord at the Last Supper have been misrepresented! And who do you think did the misrepresenting? Why, St. Matthew and St. Mark, who else? Quoting Dr. Jeremias, ICEL explains:

Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic possess a word for ‘all.’ The word rabbim or ‘multitude’ thus served also in the inclusive sense for ‘the whole’, even though the corresponding Greek and the Latin appear to have an exclusive sense, i.e., ‘the many’ rather than ‘the all’. 56

The doctor found this out all by himself – I mean, altogether by himself – for absolutely no one else knows about it not even the Hebrews, nor the Arameans, who could have sworn that they did have words to express the ideas represented in our language by the words "all" and "many!" (Our Lord spoke Aramaic. The word He would have used for all in this language is: kol, or kolla; the word He would have used for many is: ‘saggi’an.)

Even though St. Matthew and St. Mark both spoke Our Lord’s vernacular tongue of Aramaic, they are both supposed to have made the identical error, neither one daring (or knowing enough) to correct the other. Apparently no one in the Apostolic Church caught the mistake. Nor did any of the early Church Fathers, none of the Doctors of the Church, none of the Popes, not one of the great Schoolmen of the Middle Ages, no one in the whole wide world except one Joachim Jeremias. In fact, to this very day, he alone knows of this mistake, for his all-but-divine revelation has failed to impress scholars, both true and false. Witness, not a single translation of the Bible (the countless ones for which this deeply pious age has suddenly found a need) with all their unheard of, outrageous, and heterodox turns of phrases – not a single one of them, I say – indicates acceptance of this crack-pot theory that since Christ our God, the "Word made flesh," did not have a way, could not devise a way, to say "all," He had to be satisfied with saying "many" and waiting two thousand years for Dr. Jeremias to explain it for Him.

His explanation means, of course, that the word should be "all," not "many," in the following scriptural passages: "All are called, but few are chosen." (Mt. 20:16). And, "the Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for all." (Mt. 20:28). Speaking of the time of the Great Tribulation, Jesus meant to say, "for all [everybody!] will come in my name saying: I am Christ: and they will seduce all [everybody!]." (Mt. 24:5). (Mein Himmel!)

And are we not fortunate that those who have translated the Latin of the "Novus Ordo" were alert enough to recognize the brilliance of this momentous discovery, if no one else was?

But are you still wondering how "pro multis" came to be mistranslated? Yes, I thought you would be: The reference of ICEL to the opinion of Dr. Jeremias is all a mendacious ruse. The question at issue has nothing to do with Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Further, all the arguments are over Scriptural variations, philological findings, or even the decrees of the Council of Trent, are secondary to the main point, which is, that the Latin Text of the missal states that Christ Our Lord said "for many." The most important fact is that the translation is false, deliberately, unmistakably, and scandalously. There is no excuse for it. And the whole Catholic world should demand that this mistranslation (along with the other corruptions of the Mass) be corrected immediately. In their unabashed impudence, the liars have not bothered to get their story straight to this very day. These vernacular garblements (as I have said above, this same forgery is found in all the translations, not just in the English one) first appeared in 1967. But the "Novus Ordo" was introduced in 1969, after loud attention had been called to the error, and its Latin still has "pro multis." These words remain even though other words in the sacramental form were altered, as we have seen.

This translation error is but another sacrilege of immeasurable proportion. You see that nothing is sacred to the "reformers." How those things which are most holy the meddlers must perforce make the most absurd and muddled! Satan rides high!

For we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully. I Timothy 1:8

Despite all that has been said, however, the problem of the validity or invalidity of vernacular "English-Canon Masses" – or any of the new "masses," for that matter – cannot be decided by your or me. Only the Church, in a saner day, will be able to make a definitive judgment. It should be obvious that individuals are in no position to do so, and it does not help the cause for them to attempt to make that decision.

At the risk of seeming slow-witted, I must say that, from what I have been able to observe, the usual approaches to this question seem to have been anachronistic, and overly belabored for that reason. By this I mean to say they are at least five hundred years late. All seem to have overlooked the preeminent fact that the Church has already made an official pronouncement on the matter; the Form of Consecration was expressly determined by the Council of Florence in the year 1442. Its pronouncement was as follows:

Since the decree of the Armenians given above does not set forth the form of words which the most holy Roman Church has been always wont to use for the consecration of the Body and Blood of the Lord, it having been confirmed by the teaching and by the authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul, we judged it should be inserted herewith. In the consecration of the Body of the Lord this form of words is used: "Hoc est enim corpus meum;" and in that of the Blood: "Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effudnetur in remissionem peccatorum." [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.] 57

It is on the basis of this decree that the Missale Romanum of Pope St. Pius V commands priests to adhere to this Form most strictly. In the chapter entitled "De Defectibus" ("Concerning Defects"), after having given the exact same words as the decree quoted above, the "Missale" continues:

Wherefore the words of Consecration, which are the Form of this Sacrament, are these: etc.

If anyone removes or changes anything in the Form of 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. 58

According to this pronouncement, there is no valid consecration of the wine (and possibly the bread) in these "masses," because clearly, such a change has been made by the mistranslation in the English formula. The Pope, the bishops, the theologians, the priests, the people are either going to accept this pronouncement as a certain statement, or they are not. It becomes a question, therefore, of whether Catholics (of whatever station) are willing or concerned enough to accept the authority of the Church in this matter, one over which the Church alone has the authority to make a decision. Those who contradict this position must explain (to themselves first of all) how they can do so, and that, not by quoting the opinions of theologians, reputable, numerous, saintly or otherwise, but by explaining why the authoritative and definitive statement of the Church as of the year 1442 is no longer in effect, and what right they have to differ from it. If they do choose to differ from it, let them then hold their tongues concerning us who dare to differ with them about the right of Pope Paul VI to create a Fraud and call it "The Mass."

The bishops and other prelates of the Church feign great wonderment and even scandal to hear people say they have serious doubts about whether the wine is consecrated at these "masses." "But you know," they say, "that there could be no error of this sort; you know that the Pope could not let such a thing happen! And you know that all the bishops could not make such an error. The translation was, after all, approved by the bishops in plenary session!" (When you hear that phrase, "in plenary session," you are to find all your apprehensions whisked away as if they had been touched by the wand of the Fairy Godmother.) I, for one, do not know anything of the kind. But what I know does not prove anything anyhow. It is what the documents say that settles such questions, not the total silence of the Supreme Pontiff on the matter, and most certainly not the unanimous vote of certain groups of bishops. The evidence is that neither the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself nor the official teachings of the Church which have stood for centuries have any meaning whatsoever to these "priests of Baal." They seem to imagine that because they have the votes and because they have the control, they can therefore decide anything which suits their fancy, and those who say otherwise can be damned, for all they care. God will have His Sacrifice the way they prepare it for Him, or He will have none at all!

As mentioned above, discussion concerning the validity of the Consecration has seemed belabored. I was suggesting that many on that account may have allowed themselves to become too greatly entangled in this controversy. Many have thought that the problem would be solved if this single issue could be circumvented. And so they have agitated for "Latin masses," meaning the "Novus Ordo" "said" in Latin. Thus have they shown their naivete concerning the cause and purposes of the whole "renewal" hoax, in which the question of validity is really only a single, though, to be sure, not unimportant aspect.

Another group has made a similar mistake: They are satisfied if, at the "Novus Ordo" when it is "said" in the vernacular, the priest pronounces the words "for many:" at the Consecration. Would that it were so simple!

These two groups are to be classified with yet another one, those who have made so much of this question of validity, that they have disregarded the more comprehensive and more basic consideration, that of the morality of the "New Mass." As I said in the beginning, this is because of their too "legalistic" approach to the entire question.

The root of this admittedly honest mistake is that these people have made nothing, or at least too little, of the incontrovertible fact that the "New Mass" is illicit. Its creation was sinful and sacrilegious for no other reason than that it was against the Law of the Church – and therefore contrary to the will of God. And it’s "celebration" is sinful for the very same reason. Consequently, it is also sinful to attend the "New Mass," to participate in it in any way, to receive Communion during it, to receive hosts which may or may not have been validly consecrated during it, or even to attend the True Mass where the "New Mass" customarily takes place. (Cf. Canon 1172, Par. 1.3).

The spirit is among us which discounts the laws of the Church, as if they were less holy and less binding than the commandments of God. Such a spirit is Protestant, or worse, as if the Church did not rule in God’s Name and in His stead, as if she were not possessed of the authority to bind and to loose, to forgive and to retain, to open and to shut even the very gates of Heaven itself.

The so-called "Liberal Movement," which is but a part of the Revolution, is greatly responsible for this most serious and corruptive aberration in our thinking. We are all the witnesses of some of the ravages which this spirit has brought on the Church. The so-called "renewal" which was spawned at the Second Vatican Council is one of them. Were we to attempt to list them all, we would need to write a book instead of a paragraph. The abrogation of numberless laws, the relaxation of all discipline, the granting of every kind of dispensation, regardless of whether it will prove beneficial or disastrous for souls, the failure to proclaim, legislate, or enforce Catholic moral principles are all the works of this decadence. The Church is afflicted with what might be described as the spirit of self-contempt, which never fails to show itself wherever the Revolution is able to sow its seeds. There seems to be a studied effort on the part of the Pope and many other ranking ecclesiastics (bishops included) to parade the lovely Bride of Christ in rags of shame for all the world to jeer and befoul. They call it charity and "ecumenism" to tolerate, nay, even to encourage every manner of attack upon her. Both her own disloyal children and her mean-mouthed jealous enemies may hurl at her any insult, accusation, or blasphemy with never so much as a word of defense being spoken in her behalf. Protestants, Jews, atheists, Communists, infidels, anyone and everyone may ridicule her doctrine, calumniate her traditions, falsify her history, trample her honor, scorn her saints. And in return, they are all invited to sit at table and carry on a "dialogue" with the hope of finding a solution to the annoyance the Church continues to be to them.

But this is not the limit of it. In the last few years the Pope has proceeded to a more astounding form of treachery than has ever been known in the Church. This activity alone in the Age of Faith would easily have brought his deposition, if not have condemned him to the stake. This is his fraternization with the bestial ministers of Communist governments, whose official policy, as an essential part of their world imperialism, is now and always has been to rid the Church from the face of the earth. Those white-collared savages, whose hands drip with the blood of literally millions of Catholic and Christian martyrs, and whose every move and every word is admittedly inspired by a hatred of Christ, now receive the hospitality of the Vatican. These ruthless war-mongers and usurpers of governments now come and go there in order to negotiate what the Church will concede them in return for their not proceeding to stamp it out altogether. During these negotiations it would be exceedingly undiplomatic and provocative were it suggested that the Catholics in the prisons and concentration camps have done no crimes.

Such policies as these and innumerable other forms of ignoble and dishonorable forbearance and abnegation have served well to diminish and undermine the Church’s authority and the love and respect due to it. Another book could be written on this subject. We will not begin it here. Suffice it to say that the intolerable Sacrilege which is the "New Mass" was and is possible only because there has become prevalent inside and out of the Church the idea and spirit that the Church is a purely human institution, a kind of international moral association, whose laws are all revocable, dispensable, and purely human.

The very opposite is the case. The Church is our beloved Mother; it is the Mystical Body of Christ and the Kingdom of God on earth, endowed with all divine power and authority, the font of all grace, the repository of revealed truth, the spiritual sovereignty of the whole earth and of all created things, and the only source of salvation for men. It was by virtue of this unquestionable preeminence and authority that the Holy Mass of the Roman Rite was legislated as the liturgy for the Patriarchate of the West (the "Latin Rite"). And because of our obedience to this holy law we shall be granted its indescribably good and wholesome fruits. Such was the mind of Pope St. Pius V when he gave this Mass to us (or imposed it upon us – say it either way you wish; it was both a gift and a law); such is the truly Catholic view of this law, and our generation’s tragic folly does not make the matter different.

To resume our principle discussion, when we speak of the establishment of the Mass of the Missale Romanum, we are making reference to its liceity, its legality. And when we speak of its liceity, we must necessarily mean that which is according to the divine will. As essential as is the validity of the consecration for the consummation of the Holy Sacrifice, of itself validity does not make the Mass worthy. You will recall the proverb, "The victims of the wicked are abominable to the Lord." (Prov. 15:8). And again, the Psalmist says,

But to the sinner God hath said: Why dost thou declare my justices, and take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou has hated discipline: and hast cast my words behind thee. Psalm 49:16-17

An act of transubstantiation alone is not sufficient, therefore. It is necessary that the Sacrifice be a worthy act of worship to God the Father. It should be obvious to anyone that a person cannot evaluate the "Novus Ordo" on the basis of validity only. Because of the acceptance of the "New mass" as legitimate the "Post-Conciliar Church" is too deaf and blind to consider seriously whether it is valid. Whereas, many so-called "conservative" Catholics, the "loyal opposition," would identify validity with legitimacy and therefore with worthiness. For our part, without knowing whether the "New Mass" is "valid," we say this, it is undeniably illicit, and hence most abominable and displeasing in the eyes of God. The children of the "New Religion" do not care what pleases God; the norm of their "liturgy" is what pleases themselves – "The people is Baal." Partaking somewhat of this very spirit, those who make too much of the validity question would be satisfied to know whether, "by hook or by crook," a sacrifice were being offered, and they were receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. The attitude of either group is that the Divinity must be satisfied with whatever He is given.

Due in no small degree to this spirit of legalistic compromise so common among the vast majority of Catholics, the Revolutionary movement in the Church has achieved unimpeded and astounding headway. And no real unity among true Catholics will ever be possible until the principle I am here belaboring is accepted – that the "New Mass" is totally irredeemable. If enough good Catholics took their stand on this matter tomorrow, the tide would be turned the day after. Moreover, until this principle is adopted, "concerned Catholics" can have their indignant meetings, sign their petitions, wrangle for "concessions," agitate for catechetical reforms, start their own schools, stylize their "Latin ‘masses’," multiply their rosaries, and campaign for any one of a hundred other worthy Catholic causes. At best they will achieve a holding or delaying action – an optimistic hope, but not a realistic one. More likely, they will continue disunited, ignored, pushed aside, and trampled underfoot.

Validity of the Consecration is required by the Church’s law. And it is the obedience to this law which makes the offering acceptable to God. Such obedience, so unpalatable to the "modern" spirit, now all-pervasive in the Church, is in exact accord with the true spirit of the Roman Rite. According to the "modern" spirit, that which is voluntary, free, and enthusiastic is better than that which is done in obedience. The dichotomy of the Church’s law on the one hand and this false spirit on the other is most deceptive and unreal. The true spirit of Catholicism teaches that obedience is a part of justice and that justice is at the heart of charity. Those who truly love God must obey Him best. The essence of supernatural love is the renunciation of self for God’s sake: "He that shall lose his life for me, shall find it." (Mt. 10:39). And further, "If you love me, keep my commandments." (Jn. 14:15). The joy of loving is not the cause of love. The joy of loving comes not from the act of loving, but from pleasing him who is loved: "If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father’s commandments, and do abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and our joy may be filled." (Jn. 15:10-11).

Validity of the Consecration, if I may say it again, is required by the Church’s law. And it is obedience to this law which makes the offering acceptable to God. You know well that the Sacrifice on Calvary of Christ, the most innocent Son of Mary, was a truly worthy Oblation, sufficient for the salvation of all men, efficacious for the redemption of the Elect. It was so, not because of the certainty of the Son of Man’s death, but because His death was the death "consummation of" (Jn. 19:30) His life of perfect obedience to the commands of God, His Father; it was the minutest fulfillment of all the prophecies concerning it, to which Jesus felt bound as to a law. "These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." (Lk. 24:44).

In the True Mass the fact of the validity of the consecration is taken for granted. The dominant concern and oft-repeated prayer is that the Act and those who are celebrating it may be found worthy by Him to Whom it is offered. If you page through the ordinary of the Mass in your old missal, you will see many petitions of this effect. Let me cite a few:

As he ascends the altar, the priest prays: (Aufer a Nobis) "Take away from us our iniquities, we beseech Thee, O Lord, that with pure minds we may worthily enter into the holy of holies." During the Offertory, the celebrant asks that the chalice "ascend in the sight of Thy divine majesty with a sweet savor..." Then he bows low and begs: "In the spirit of humility and with a contrite heart receive us, O Lord, and grant that the sacrifice which we offer this day in Thy sight, may be pleasing unto Thee, O Lord God." (As noted before, all these prayers have been suppressed in the "Novus Ordo.")

The Orate Fratres invites the people: "Brethren, pray that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father almighty."

A classic instance of the shameless meretriciousness of the so-called "reform" of the liturgy is its claim to be a restoration of primitive forms of the old Roman Church. Yet the "reform" makes optional the recitation of the ancient Canon, whose unvariable and unchangeable nature was completely characteristic of the Romanesque tradition. A more specific instance of the same thing is the leaving to the mood of the celebrant whether he will say the fifth prayer of the Canon, the Quam Oblationem expresses this relationship by drawing its spirit and even its vocabulary from the days of the ancient republic at Rome, where the dominant theme and necessity of life, both individual and civil, were reverence for and conformity to law as the source and staff of order, peace, and stability. This prayer has a repetitive, legal style about its formation. And to add further emphasis to its thought, the priest makes no less than five signs of the cross over the sacred species, soon to be transubstantiated.

Quam oblationem tu, Deus, in omnibus quaesumus, benedictam, adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque facere digneris: ut nobis Corpus et Sanguis fiat dilectissimi Filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi. (Which oblation do Thou, O God, vouchsafe in all things to bless, approve, ratify, make worthy and acceptable: that it may become for us the Body and Blood of Thy most beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ.)

No other language can do full justice to the thought, but here is something of the idea: The priest asks that the Oblation be given a blessing which will render it perfect in every respect, ("oblationem in omnibus benedictam"). That this might be so, the offerings must bear a certificate ("adscriptam"); the blessing being requested must impart this. The "ratam" means that it must have been about it all those qualities which the law requires, in order that the law might be most rigidly, precisely and fully obeyed. In this word there is a resonance of the "Consummatum est" of the Crucifixion. The "rationabilem" means that it must be a living, ensprited, vibrant, even willing offering, a ready victim:

For it is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not: but a body thou hast fitted to me: Holocausts for sin did not please thee. Then said I: Behold I come: in the head of the book it is written of me: that I should do thy will, O God. Hebrews 10:4-7

thus, while he repeatedly gestures toward the humble elements of bread and wine with signs of the cross, the celebrant beseeches God to make them into what His own law requires, so that He Himself might find them acceptable. He only can render them so. And the only Things which will perfectly satisfy these requirements are the Body and Blood of His very own Son, Corpus et Sanguis dilectissimi Filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi.

You see, therefore, that the law of God for His worship must be most carefully obeyed if he is to find this Rite worthy and acceptable. Liceity predominates over,, includes, and necessitates the validity of the Consecration. The Sacrifice will be worthy if the law is carefully followed, and it can only be licit if that which is sacrificed is the Lamb of God.

This same theme is to be found in another prayer, which "progress" decreed was unfit for the Mass, the Placeat, which in the True Mass the priest recites just before the final blessing. There is not a more perfect, nor a more appropriate prayer in the entire Missal, even if it is a mere thousand years old or so:

May the homage of my bounden duty be pleasing to Thee, O Holy Trinity; and grant that the sacrifice which I, though unworthy, have offered in the sight of Thy Majesty may be acceptable to Thee, and through Thy mercy be a propitiation for me and for all those for whom I have offered it. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

The priest has offered the Sacrifice in fulfillment of a divinely-imposed duty. And the manner of its offering has not been according to his own devising, but according to the long-hallowed law of the Church. It was for him to "make the Sign" of the Sacrifice, as the law required. He was assured that thereby the Divine Majesty would be suitably worshiped and the fruits and graces would be bestowed in return. It was by this obedience that the Act of the Mass was accomplished. We watched his meticulous observance and knew that our Oblation was being properly made and that the Divine King was sacramentally present. We read from his actions his intention to do what the Church intends by this Rite.

The "New Mass" is a violation of one of the strictest laws of the Church. There is no way to justify it. Those priests who attempt to salvage mere validity of consecration from it by certain kinds of "improvisations" do us no service at all. What law are they keeping? They are only slightly less blameworthy than their more honest brother-priests, who unhesitatingly "say" the "new Mass." Nor do the efforts of the former assure us of anything, except perhaps their cowardice, insecurity, and the like. They are breaking the same law as their blindly confident confreres. What reward therefore shall they have? They, like the knowing pawns, are serving the cause of the Revolution satisfactorily enough because lawlessness and deviousness never fail to further its end. They are tacitly collaborating with the conspirators while breaking both the true laws and the invalid ones. They are creating their own liturgy! If they may do such a thing, how can they find fault with those who simply follow the right of the "Novus Ordo?" What is more, they are doing no good by their circuities. The people are in no way benefitted; they are being involved in the same rancid sacrilege, made no less grievous by their ignorance of the fact. God is not being honored by the imaginative inventions of these clerical expedientists.

And, in this connection, we should call attention to the mere token deference in the "New Mass" to Mary, the Most Blessed Mother of God. It must be recognized that the few begrudging mentions of her represent nothing more than vestiges of the loving attentions paid her in the True Mass. The few references made to her in the "Novus Ordo" were kept only in order to placate the faithful, you may be sure. There is no more place in the "New Religion" for Our Lady than there is for Christ Our Lord. This is a point which needs further comment.

First, however, I cannot emphasize strongly enough that the ultimate purpose of all the sacrileges, the trickery, the lawlessness, the discord, and the scandal in religion, as well as of the overthrowing of governments, the terrorism, the cruelties, the imprisonments, the murders, and the ruin of souls in the social realm which are the stock and trade of the Revolution – the ultimate purpose of them all, I say, is the everlasting blasphemy of the sweet Name of Jesus, the God-Man. For the doctrine which inspires in Revolutionaries the most unmitigated hatred and provokes all their audacious perversities is that of His sacred divinity. Once you become aware of this fact, you will be able to comprehend the (poorly) disguised intentions of the "New Mass," and, to be sure, of the whole drive for "renewal" in the Church.

Now, according to the logic of the Revolution, Mary must at every opportunity be slighted and ignored, and if possible, reviled. It goes without saying that the Revolutionaries cannot endure her presence, she being the Immaculate One and they being interiorly depraved. It would suit the purpose of the Revolution if we would do either one of two things: on the one hand, forget all about Mary – cease to pray to her or to sing her praises; or, on the other, give her divine worship. Either error will deflect from the glory which she shares with and the love she inspires for her divine Son and will serve well enough. It is a lamentable fact that many will tolerate greater insolence towards Her Son than towards her. They will rise to her defense with admirable courage; whereas, they will participate with docility and in some cases with enthusiasm in the unspeakable Insult to Her Son which is the "New Mass." Nothing could displease her more. Her place at Mass has been usurped and her fervent votaries should have noticed it (not that she would ever attend the Spectacle). But if anyone has, through the centuries, always been thought to "preside" at the Eucharistic Sacrifice of Her Son, it is she, just as she did on Calvary.

All of us should have been put on our guard a number of years ago when the genuflection was taken from the Creed of the Mass at the words, "Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto, ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus est" ("And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man"). The enemies of Christ realize the significance of these little acts of reverence, even if we do not. Mention of the Incarnation and the Virgin Birth fills them with revulsion, even if it does not fill us with pride.

At the same time, they achieved a still greater triumph. It was no aesthetic concern fro the Liturgy which dictated that the Last Gospel, the magnificent Prologue of the Gospel of St. John, had to be refined out; rather, it was the vicious repugnance which Revolutionaries are taught to feel for the very mention of the Incarnation and the Divinity of Our Lord. This triumph, indeed, they counted as one of their most unexpected and most symbolic victories in their long-range Program to destroy the Mass completely.

I have already touched upon what is referred to by true liturgists as the error of "archaism," that is, an exaggerated attachment to the early Church. And I quoted Pope Pius XII’s encyclical warning against it, which, as you know, has been sedulously forgotten. Like some old people, the "new religionists" remember the remote past, (and only that part of it which suits their purposes) much, much better than yesterday. They seem to have adopted the phrase, "in the Early Church," just as the Communist groups in America and around the world adopted the slogan, "End the war!" Both expressions are used with equal mindlessness. "In the Early Church" is the main (and almost the only) reason given for tearing the Church asunder nowadays. You will hear these words to explain why laymen should receive it in their hands, why priests need not wear vestments, why the Blessed Sacrament need not be kept in the churches at all, why the churches should be stripped of every sign of religion and scraped to their gray concrete and rough-hewn timbers. These words are also the reason why sisters should not wear habits, priests should marry, Popes are unnecessary, discipline is a nuisance, and Christ is not divine. It is not at all surprising to hear such things from the lips of present-day high school students who (you are certain) know less about the Church in its primitive days then they know about astrophysics or biochemistry.

In any such discussion, if you go one step further and ask your apologist why all of a sudden in the 1970's everything should be done exactly as it was done in the Early Church, usually you will receive absolute silence for an answer, or much stammering, or silly, laughable imaginings. The true answer to this question is very useful to have, however, so let us hasten to give it.

The pretended loyalty to the Early Church serves the purpose of suggesting that its fervor was never again equaled, that it resembles the current fervor for renewal, and that the Church has been in the state of progressive deterioration from those days to these. It will be remembered that the old Protestant Reformers also told their followers they were returning to primitive usages. In doing so, the Protestant purpose was simply to negate with a single stroke the development of the Church. Their "Reform," therefore, was a not very subtle way of denying and bringing the people to deny, all those doctrines which have become explicit in the Faith and in the Prayer of the Church. The ecumenical advantage of our present regression to the Early Church should be clear – it is an implicit way of ceasing to profess any Christian truths which Protestants refuse to accept to this very day. No wonder, therefore, many Protestants think this "updating" craze in our Church is a promising thing! The slight and begrudging attention given the most holy Mother of God in the "New Mass" is a certain example of this artifice, and there are many others.

Hence also, if you wish to play "ecumenics" with the Jews, you just continue further back into history, into the Old Testament. And if you think I am trying to be funny, tell me what reason has been given for allowing the fulfillment of one’s Sunday obligation on Saturday and his Holyday obligation on the day preceding. "They" say that, in the Bible, the day went from sunset to sunset. This is pure Judaism, of course. Never in the history of the Church was there such a practice. (In the Early Church, the people kept a vigil till midnight before celebrating their feasts – but we are not supposed to know that.) Further, the old Holy Saturday and Vigil of Pentecost liturgies lent themselves perfectly to this ancient practice. But they have been discarded.

A perfect example of how this archaism has been adopted to serve the true purpose of the Revolution is to be found in the Rite of Peace of the "New Liturgy." It is given out as a revival of the ancient rite of the Kiss of Peace, as it was performed in the Early Church, a vestige of which remains in the Solemn High Masses in the Roman Liturgy. The great emphasis placed upon it indicates its importance in the plans of the manipulators. Together with the Communion, or "Love-Feast," it makes up what might be called the high point of the service.

Shortly after the Our Father, we are instructed, according to the Paluch Company Missalette, to "express wishes of peace and love toward one another in words and gestures of our own choosing." 59 What is wanted is a warm embrace. A hand-shake will keep one out of trouble, but it is not exactly in the spirit of the thing. In some places, there is much kissing. The idea is that all should give some genuine, physical sign of their Christian love. They should make the rounds, get acquainted with strangers. It should be a kind of "happy hour" without the drinks; each should be overjoyed to see his brothers and sisters and indicate as much.

The signification claimed for this "ceremony" is that Christ is truly present in the hearts of all who have love for one another. "Ubi caritas est, Deus ibi est" ("Where charity is, there God is"). Through these warm touches and embraces true charity is being expressed and communicated. Communal spirit is not only being symbolized, but actually put into practice and learned in the doing. Christ said, "Go first to be reconciled to thy brother." (Mt. 5:24).

The Rite of Peace, joined with the Penitential Rite, in which all confess to their brothers and sisters, is that act of reconciliation with one’s brothers, enjoined by Christ. It is therefore a perfect preparation for the reception of Christ in the Eucharist. By thus making peace with one’s brethren, a person is allowing himself to be liberated; he is finding himself in the community of the Church and manifesting both the personal and communal peace which Christ alone can give.

In order for this peace to be given in great abundance, all barriers which divide those present must be allowed to fall. This is the time when the saying of the Great Apostle is being fulfilled: "There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28). It goes without saying that the greeting of peace is to be given to all present. Special efforts should be made to make non-Catholics feel included. In fact, it would be a serious breach of charity to exclude anyone due to his creed, race, national origins, or political persuasion. Likewise, the fact that some in the congregation may be living in mortal sin, or may be excommunicated due to a bad marriage (or to his having left the priesthood without proper dispensation), etc., should not be allowed to interfere. To do so would spoil the whole idea of the peace which is celebrated by this rite. It is not the time and place for such factors to be considered. What is important is that everyone present give himself to his brothers and sisters, and allow the natural communication of the peace of Christ to flow from each into all. Everyone should cast aside his own timidity, self-consciousness, and selfishness. He must, as it were, hand himself over to the community, allow himself to become a part of it, make himself an ingredient in the communal blend. This is what the "new liturgy" means.

It is to be hoped by the time of the Rite of Peace comes, everyone will be ready to join in enthusiastically and joyously. Under ideal circumstances, the service "builds up" to this phase of the "mass." Let us consider how this build-up has been structured into the "New Mass" taken in its entirety.

At this point I supply "New Mass" "presidents" with a few helpful hints for a more successful Rite of Peace. After all, they may not have discovered yet the inherent dynamism of the "New Mass" nor realized that there is an ultimate fulfillment which the brothers and sisters are expected to arrive at. If everything is properly arranged, and everyone pointed in the right direction, success is assured. It would be nothing short of tragic for the brothers and sisters to miss out on this!

The president can do much to evoke spontaneity and meaningfulness in this part of the service by making the proper arrangements, though he should not actually dictate what the service is going to be. He should do everything possible to get those who will attend to pitch in on it. They can help him choose the music, find the right musicians, decorate the church, etc. They will be able to come up with ideas he could never have thought of. For instance, they know what kind of music they like; in some cases he may not even know what’s popular. And how would it be if he used something that they didn’t even know, or something that has been off the lists for a couple of months! If the people did not know the "numbers," they would not be able to let themselves go the way they have to. They have to be able to enjoy themselves, throw themselves into the action, get caught up in the rhythms. Doing so has a wonderfully liberating effect on everybody; it allows him to praise God and at the same time to become one with the assembled group. The idea is that all together become one voice, one heart, one being. This is how each discovers what true freedom is and comes to realize how he needs the others, that as a Christian he is already a part of the others and has yet to learn to show it. The "mass" is supposed to be an experience of love.

Throughout, for the best effect, things should be kept moving; the people should be kept singing. The guitar is decidedly the best instrument for the melody line, though, of course, the prolonged beating of drums excites people, whether they want it to or not. It is good if there are multi-colored banners around; pictures and posters chosen by participants help to create atmosphere, help everyone to relate to each other. All the senses should be appealed to. Get as many people as possible involved in the decorating; it doesn’t matter if it is poor art, so long as it is the work of the people, something that they can consider part of themselves. They may even want to carry their banners and signs into the church, then to have a procession around the church at the time of the Presentation of Gifts. This kind of thing makes everyone realize that the Church is related to the times. Processions are like protest marches, marches of the people, a phenomenon of twentieth-century life. The more activity that can be incited into the greatest number of people, the better things will go.

At the Penitential Rite, all confess to each other. This should be a heartfelt renunciation of all selfishness, prejudice, and chauvinism. For these are the things which divide people. Each person must realize he should overcome any hesitancy about being at complete ease during "mass." The new thinking is that this is the perfect time and place for one to reach out to others in a spirit of love and acceptance and self-giving. The heartfelt participation of all in the responses and singing will assist greatly toward helping each one release himself into the community.

It is important that the commentaries which interlard the various parts of the "mass" contain ideas of reconciliation, forgiveness, love, surrender, peace, generosity. Just the repetition of these words helps orient those present toward the Rite of Peace. Moreover, it is highly important that the president, or whoever gives the homily, dwell on these themes. Equally necessary is saying nothing which may cause divisions or discord or embarrassment among the brothers and sisters. He should, for example, avoid mentioning such ideas as the "Church," or the "Papacy," which to many represent the Establishment, a very dissonant concept. Similarly jarring are words like "the law," "sin," "self-discipline," "grace," "the Judgment." It should not be necessary to say it, but just in case the question should come up, all controversial issues should be skirted, such as the divinity of Jesus, the Resurrection, the existence of the devil or Hell, etc. It has been found best to dwell on social needs and projects.

With a little trouble and imagination, you can achieve some real momentum during the Eucharistic Prayer. There is enough time really to set the sage, so to speak. Some may go for the idea of turning the lights down during this period; it kind of suggests the Upper Room. Then you can read the narrative of the Last Supper. Make sure they don’t miss this. Its purpose is to set the scene for the Rite of Peace. The Last Supper was the communal meal of Jesus with his Apostles. That was the time He gave them the symbol of unity and brotherhood, the Eucharist.

If all has gone according to plan, by the time the Rite of Peace comes, the people will be ready to show how much they have enjoyed having the "mass" with each other. It will be easy for all to circulate freely. Those who hardly knew each other will find they have been drawn together just by having assembled and given themselves to the communal action.

The climax comes when they have their meal together. Nothing is more pleasant and friendly than a meal shared with those one loves. And by now, everyone will feel that he loves everyone else and will have a glow, as it were. And all the while let the music continue to play upon them, soothe and refresh and stimulate them.

Some may be inclined to accuse me of exaggerating. That is because they have not admitted what the "New Mass" is when it is carried to its logical conclusions. What I have said above is descriptive of its true intentions, for which the evidence is so abundant it is hard to escape, which intentions are easily discernible to the very make-up of the "New Mass." The meaning is that no matter how this Impropriety is carried out in a typical parish church, the same underlying implications are present and are having their effect.

This fact should need no proving. But consider that according to the Code of Canon Law, only those who are in good standing in the Church should be allowed to participate in liturgical functions, that is, fulfill a role in the ceremonies. Others, such as excommunicated persons and non-Catholics may (or must, as the case may be) attend only. For the Rite of Peace, this injunction should also cover those who, though not excommunicated, are known to be living in sin. Since they are obviously rejecting the peace of Christ by their way of life, this should go without saying. Did not Our Lord say:

And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon him; but if not, it shall return to you. Luke 10:6

What Catholic church is there today which does not encourage all in attendance to take part in the Rite of peace? Such a question may strike the reader as unkind. That of course is the point. That it appears unkind is sufficient indication how the thinking of the "New Religion" has effected everyone. And yet, it was for just such reasons as we are speaking of that the kiss of peace ceased to be given among the lay people in the traditional Liturgy. Rather than violate the truth and spirit of the ceremony on the one hand, and rather than be forced to exclude particular individuals on the other, it was found necessary so to abbreviate it.

As mentioned earlier, the "reformers" claim to be restoring this rite to its ancient usage. It serves their purpose not to recall that "in the Early Church" only believers were permitted to attend the Mass proper. As time went on, it was found advisable to have the men and women take separate places, the men on one side, the women on the other. It need not be said that, in those days, according to the true spirit of worship, there was nothing of the "old home week" idea about the rite. Also, that women, dressed like street-walkers might be allowed to enter the church was unthinkable.

It is plainly contrary to all reason for anyone and everyone to be permitted, even encouraged to take part in such a ceremony. The peace of Christ cannot exist between his friends and those who, for whatever reason, refuse to accept His total sovereignty over them. His peace resides in the heart of the man who adheres to Him through the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. Peace is the fruit of such a relationship. Peace among men, the peace which is supposed to exist in the Catholic community, is the unity and harmony which exists among those who share this relationship of union with Christ. The union of all is in Christ. Christ Our Lord, then, is the source and bond of their unity. The Blessed Eucharist is both the cause and the perfect symbol of this unity, as the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is the visible embodiment of it. Such a communion of peace and love is impossible among people who are indisposed for, or uninterested in, or incredulous of the Mystery of the Eucharist and the Truth of Catholicism.

Yet, the undeniable implication of the Rite of Peace in the "New Liturgy" is that no supernatural basis for peace, charity, or fraternity is necessary, or, as far as anyone can judge, even exists. It is no accident that while the glad-handing is taking place, Christ (if the Consecration of the host has been valid) remains on the "altar" alone and unattended and almost certainly forgotten.

Someone may argue: "You are suggesting that to perform this rite is to neglect and dishonor Christ." I most certainly am. This "rite" falsely suggests that all the feigned and forced friendliness is in honor of Christ, Who is (Allegedly) physically present on the "altar." My argument is very simple. This rite does not unit one with his neighbor in the Eucharistic Christ; it pits his neighbor against Christ. It says in effect that those present are failing in love if, during the most precious and solemn moments when Jesus of Nazareth is passing by, they do not turn away from Him and fuss over their brothers and sisters. This rite makes it an obligation, a strict duty of charity, to turn away from Christ and to devote oneself to the greeting and salutation of his fellows.

It may be objected: "But in the ‘Old Mass’ there was the kiss of peace. This is just the same thing, except that now all the people participate." I have already discussed some of the ways in which the Rite of Peace in the "New Mass" is not at all the same thing as the kiss of peace in the True Mass, in that it includes everyone present, regardless of his condition of soul and relationship to the Church. If there had been any dishonor to the Divine Majesty in the ceremony of the kiss of peace as it has been practiced in the Church for many, many centuries, the great saints would have prevailed upon the Popes to suppress it. The old rite needs no defense.

What I am saying here is that the Rite of Peace in the "Novus Ordo" is something patently and intrinsically different . It is indefensible. It is another and a most striking instance of how, by seemingly minor adjustments, the "New Mass" has the people worshiping themselves, instead of God. "The people is Baal." If there is any time in the whole "mass" when absolutely no need exists for those present to concern themselves with each other and begin to act as if, after having been together since the beginning of the service, they have just discovered long-lost friends, if there is any time, I say, it is at this period of the "mass." Otherwise nothing could prevent them from spending the rest of the day with each other once "mass" is over, just a few moments later. Imagine it: at just the time when every mind and heart should be bent on the adoration of Christ and the preparation for Communion, all are supposed to begin to "pal around" with each other! The "liturgists" have the nerve to call this a symbolic action. It is that indeed; it is an incomparable symbol of the scorn Satan has for the Blessed Jesus and those who adore Him.

The only thing truly required of those present for the new Rite of Peace is that they join in, which suggests another un-accidental turn-about: those who perceive the sacrilegious impiousness of this light-headed socializing and who for reasons of conscience refuse to participate, those who do cherish their union with Christ enough not to offend Him thus, become, by their refuse outsiders! They are regarded as uncooperative, uncharitable, and even defiant of the laws of the Church, and, incredible to say, as irreverent! It should be plain that the true basis of this "love-making," as the "New Order" imposes it, is simply "being human" and not minding participation in it. In a word, the thing is sheerest paganism. Indeed, it is worse because it claims to be religious; pagans usually know the difference. The Rite of Peace celebrates a fiction, a falsity! It implies that Christ is present and is imparting His own Spirit of love and joy to all who are taking part in an act which He cannot but find hypocritical and loathsome.

Not only is there nothing in this silliness worthy of Christ’s truth, but we must see it as really a form of Revolutionary "Sensitivity Training." These words have gotten to be a technical term. "Sensitivity Training" refers to contrived situations in which people, knowingly or otherwise, are subjected to a process of "depersonalization," or better, "communization." In such situations, they are seduced into saying and doing things which implicitly, sometimes very explicitly, go counter to their own personal beliefs, clear knowledge, and natural inclinations. They are cornered into violating their own natures and personalities and consciences.

The aim of the Revolution is to demoralize, corrupt, and dehumanize us. It would have us renounce our Faith, our need of Christ and of His Sacrifice, even our inner spiritual selves and our individualities. Such a renunciation is necessary in order that we become the complete possession of the community.

When the Revolution speaks of peace, it means "surrender." In the context of the Rite of Peace, "Peace be to you" means: "May you surrender yourself completely to the new rules and programs and desensitizing manipulations of your handlers. Under this regimen you must be convinced that it is blameworthy obduracy on your part not to accept and welcome, with feeling, your own depersonalization."

Now you can understand why in the "Confiteor" you must confess to your brothers and your sisters; you must think as sins all those things which keep you form being one with the community. The new, fanatical insistence on participation has a similar purpose. The Revolution cannot tolerate the solitary man, the self-possessed man, the contemplative, the man who does not need to be forced to conform.

The Revolution incessantly repeats the word "freedom." What it means by this word is that every man should free himself from the laws and self-preserving instincts of his own nature, that he should dispossess himself of all inner strength, restraint, and virtue, to say nothing of the inner dominance of Christ by His truth and grace. The purpose of corrupting a person is to put him at the disposal of his fallen nature; the purpose of destroying his faith and of dispossessing him of all certainty is that he will have to be controlled from without. The Revolution means to unshackle a man interiorly, that it may have the excuse of encircling him with the mindless mob (which the "Community" is), of regimenting him, binding him, and putting him under guard. Despising virtue, which is man’s mastery of himself by the power of Christ, even being unable to comprehend it, the Revolution cannot conceive a community of truly free men, nor the idea of peace through the rule of the Spirit of God.

The true Revolutionary cannot stand to be alone, to be in silence, to be inactive. In such a condition he would either go mad or find God. Because of his own spiritual vacuity and restlessness, and because of his conceited passion for ruling, for managing others, he cannot permit anyone to be alone. In the traditional Liturgy, having learned from long and loving experience, the Church has arranged periods of silence. It exhorts him who comes to Mass to search his soul, to admit his sinfulness, to express his sorrow, to implore the Father of good gifts for strength, light, charity, and peace, for all that is necessary to serve Him. The time after the Our Father is to be spent preparing for the great movement of Communion, when Christ the King enters the body and soul and holds secret tryst. "Heart speaks to heart." The time after Communion until the end of Mass is all too brief, so we are urged to remain and continue to; give our souls to God alone, that He might in His turn and according to His measureless goodness bestow his Godly powers, His tender mercy, and His peace such as the world cannot give.

With the introduction of the "New Mass," we have been given to understand that these beautiful manifestations of the sanity, purity, and wisdom of the Roman Rite were all wrong, and must be curtailed. Yes, I know, they will tell you: "No, we are not saying all these things were wrong; they are just out-of-date." Either way, it is a lie.

According to the thinking embodied in the "New Mass," charity and communal harmony require you to busy yourself doing something with everyone else – sing along, march around, listen to the commentator, go here, go there. In the Rite of peace, all are saying "peace, peace." But there is no peace. They will not leave you alone that you may find any. Therefore, true to the unfailing policy and method of the Revolution, probably that which has caused more disturbance, distraction, anger (totally justified), and dissension than any other of all the detestable innovations in the "New Mass" is this execrable artificiality called the "Rite of Peace."

This "rite" has been introduced by those very men who are supposed to be pastors and men of peace. Yet they have been so "communized," that they are incapable of seeing the effects of their own brutality, the sorrow and distress of the best of God’s people.

As these good people will tell a priest whom they trust, "We go to pray, we remain to fulfill an obligation, we come home to weep. Father, what shall we do?" I for one will say, "Do not go back there. But do not surrender."

How truly symbolic is the "Rite of Peace." It begins with the "president." From him, it spreads among his prisoners. He has no peace in his own soul because he is involved to his very ears in the Great Sacrilege. He is at that moment committing another mortal sin. He now wishes the others, "Peace." Yes, "surrender." He and his confreres have been busy trying to pacify the consciences and placate the indignation of the people for many months now, telling them that they must accept "the changes," that it is virtuous to go along, that they must surrender their wills and reasons to the authority of the Church, that the pope can do no wrong. No lie, no subterfuge is impossible to these "peace-keepers." They are no longer shepherds; now they are herders.

The "presidents" may take consolation in the fact that they have done their work well. The planners of the Revolution knew from the beginning that they could find no more effective hands than those of priests. The process of the "pacification" of the people has succeeded surprisingly well under their ministrations. By now the great majority of the faithful have lost all will to resist. They now come to church dutifully, listen dumbly to any sort of vomitable mishmash, blare out any vapid chanty, say, "We beseech you to hear us" to any entreaty, be it sane or silly, shell out thousands and thousands for the denudation of their churches or for the building of new prayer-halls, compel their children to submit to any perversion (in the public schools they will do it for nothing), and do all this smilingly, songfuly. They have become numbers, faces, bodies, sheep – the "Community" – the Commune! What more could a "president" want? Or a commissar, for that matter!

So much having been said, little imagination is required to anticipate what the devisers of the "New Religion" want the Communion of their "mass" to be. After the merry-making of the Rite of Peace, everyone should be in a jovial enough mood to share in a little "supper" as a sign of their freshly renewed affection and a kind of "memorial" of their chummy get-together "Communion" in the "New Mass" is nothing more than a restoration of the ancient agape, the love-feast. The very early days of the Church, it was a meal which followed the celebration of the Mass. St. Paul mentions it only to scold the people for their use of it to desecrate the Mass.

When you come therefore together into one place, it is not now to eat the Lord’s supper. For every one taketh beforehand his own supper to eat. And one indeed is hungry and another is drunk. What, have you no houses to eat and drink in? Or despise ye the church of God; and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? Do I praise you? In this I praise you not. Corinthians 11:20-22

What would this "Great Lion of God" say about the goings on in "Catholic" churches today?

May I call your attention at this point to Pope Paul VI’s "decree" Missale Romanum (Appendix II). Truly it is one of the most curious writings in the annals of the papacy. And it is appropriate that we take notice of it here. This "decree" should be read carefully, for it is a classic example of "Pauline" circumlocution and eel-like ambiguity. You will notice throughout, for instance the Pope nowhere clearly and dogmatically delineates the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Sacrifice, and, more particularly, that of the Blessed Eucharist. On the contrary, by a studied effort, he chooses his words so that they are easily susceptible of a Protestant interpretation. Presumably, Protestant ministers do read this "decree." If so, they find nothing in the present-day official understanding of the Church concerning the "mass" which prohibits their participation in it.

The Pope speaks of the three principal parts of the Mass, the Offertory, the Consecration, and the Communion, only to indicate that the "Reform" has required their "simplification":

Also to be eliminated are elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, above all in the rites of offering the bread and wine, and in those of the breaking of the bread and of communion. (Appendix II. Par. 7).

The Offertory, as we have seen, has been suppressed.

Now, how many Catholics know that the term "the breaking of the bread" (the "Fractio Panis") is a scriptural phrase which the early Christians used to refer to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? (Acts 2:42). But you must realize that no Protestant thinks of the term in that way. The unavoidable question is, why does Pope Paul use this expression to refer to the Consecration since among Catholics it is by no means an normal way of speaking of it. He pretends that this expression is quite familiar to us, but it is not, anymore than it is natural for us to refer to each other as "brothers and sisters."

Now read the following excerpt from Pope Paul VI’s Missale Romanum:

All this [he says] is wisely ordered in such a way that there is developed more and more among the faithful a "hunger for the Word of God" [Amos 8:11], which, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, leads the people of the New Covenant to the perfect unity of the Church. We are fully confident that both priests and faithful will prepare their hearts more devoutly and together at the Lord’s Supper, meditating more profoundly on Sacred Scripture, and at the same time they will nourish themselves more day by day with the words of the Lord. It will follow then that according to the wishes of Second Vatican Council, Sacred Scripture will be at the same time a perpetual source of spiritual life, an instrument of prime value for transmitting Christian doctrine, and finally the center of all theology. (Appendix II, Par. 10).

This is from a comparatively long explanation of how the Sacred Scriptures have been given a great prominence in the "New Mass." I ask you to take careful note: First, the imagery which we Catholics normally associate with the reception of the Body of Our Lord is used throughout in connection with our hearing of the reading of the Scriptures. Second, Holy Communion is given the Protestant terminology, the "Lord’s Supper." Third, not the reception of the Blessed Eucharist but the hearing of the word of God "leads the people of the New Covenant to the unity of the Church" (typical Protestant biblical phraseology). Fourth, the reception of Holy Communion is intertwined with the listening of the word of God, which occurs during the early part of the "mass." Fifth, the reception of the Eucharist is strictly communal – no mention of the personal union of the soul with its Spouse and King. (The community, in case it needs to be said, cannot receive Sacraments, only its members; but further, you should be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ to do so.) Sixth, the community, having shared the "Lord’s Supper," will nourish themselves, not on the Body of Christ, but "with the words of the Lord!" Seventh, again, as if to identify the words of Christ with the Word in the Flesh, the Pope says, the Sacred Scriptures, not the Blessed Eucharist, will be "a perpetual source of the spiritual life." Eighth, nowhere in all this discussion about the Holy Scriptures does the Pope warn that its interpretation is strictly subject to the divine Magisterium of the Church, and understandably enough. No Protestant would hear such a thing!

There is not a line in all this writing that is heretical, you understand. Yet, with such words as these, the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter, whose patronal namesake is the "Apostle of the Gentiles," the spiritual sovereign of the world, introduces his Revolutionary Instrument. For this incredible "decree" stands in the same place in the Novus Ordo Missae as Quo Primum does in the Missale Romanum.

And they took the bullock which he gave them, and dressed it: and they called on the name of Baal from morning even till noon, saying: O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered: and they leaped over the altar that they had made.

And when it was now noon, Elias jested at them saying: Cry with a louder voice,: for he is a god, and perhaps he is talking, or is in an inn, or on an journey, or perhaps he is asleep, and must be awaked.

So they cried with a loud voice, and cut themselves after their manner, with knives and lancets, till they were all covered with blood. 3 Kings 18:26-28

Protestants need take no comfort at seeing the Mass being "accommodated" to their beliefs, however. The final purpose of the Revolution is their subversion also, as many of them know all too well. For its essential motif is not Protestant, but ecumenical. Nor is it the true ecumenism which the Church learned early in its history, that of living at peace with non-believers, even of working with them for truly humane goals, hoping and laboring at the same time to bring them to the knowledge of the Truth. For some years, this term has been used to refer to the hoped-for reunion of various schismatic and heretical Christian bodies with the true Fold of Christ, the Catholic Church. However, in keeping with its character, the Revolution has adopted the term for its own treacherous purposes. What it understands by ecumenism is the melting of all religious denominations into the pseudo-religious hash of universal brotherhood. The Revolution calls for abandoning all doctrinal beliefs and moral imperatives as the way to liberty, the dissolution of all churches and nations for the sake of International Communism, and the subordination of all personal rights, possessions, and dignity as the means to absolute equalitarianism. Instead of God, the Revolution worships "man;" instead of Heaven, it promises an earthly utopia – "the Age of Aquarius;" and instead of virtue it produces hedonism and utter inhumanity. The so-called "New Mass" is a major step toward the establishment of the universal "Rites of Man," the ritual expression and manifestation of that same spirit which produced the infamous and impudent "Declaration of the Rights of Man" of the French Revolution.

Forever sighing with "love," the "New Mass" frees its participants from the discordant tedium of believing anything. Those who desire to keep their faith are foolish to think they can frequent it and participate in it and fulfill their religious obligations by it, to say nothing of exposing themselves to it, without danger of absorbing its pseudo-pious heterodoxy and its enerating, corruptive anthropocentrism. True Catholics’ mere tolerance of the "New Mass" is an assent to its manifold denials. At the "new Mass," what one believes is unimportant, so long as he does not make trouble, so long as he is "sincere," so long as he participates, so long as he allows every form of sacrilege and blasphemy to have its "rightful" place as the "sincere" expression of any of the loving brothers and sisters. Some may believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation; some may not. Some may believe in Heaven and Hell, in the Catholic Church, in the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary; some may believe in absolutely nothing, except "life," or "peace," or "love" (or "Om")! "Let us not say," quoth the Flower Children, "‘It is not important.’ Rather, let us say, ‘It is not important enough that our difference of belief should disrupt our brotherly relationship, that it prevent our loving each other.’" This is to say, in other words, that Divine Truth is less important than human brotherhood.

Adult Catholics haven’t caught on yet. They still go to church as if they were attending Mass, still make the same signs of reverence, still keep in silence, and still genuflect – whether the Blessed Sacrament is in their churches or not. You may ask, "Well, is it?" I answer, "Who knows?" Does it matter? It may matter to you, of course – or let us hope so – but does it matter to the others who are also in attendance? To your priests? To your bishop? To the Pope? If they cared one way or the other, would they be a party to the suppression of that Liturgy whose every words, rubric, and sign strove to effect, bear witness and to adore, in as worthy a way as is humanly possible, the True Presence of the Crucified Son of God – regardless of what the world thought of it. Would they be party to the forcible and illicit installation of an Activity from which all these have been peremptorily removed (or made removable at the whim of the "president"), and in which there is not one unequivocal affirmation of this ineffable Mystery – lest, mind you, it unkindly offend the sensibilities of those present whose "faith" most unequivocally denies it? Thus the "ecumenism" of the "New Religion."

Obviously, it is the younger set who understand, for the "New Liturgy" speaks to them. They insist on having fun at the "New Mass." "That’s what it’s for!" There is a generation gap, you see. The young people and their clerical "soul brothers" are the real members of the "Renewed Church." They do not come for Mass; they gather for a "love-feast." They come for a party; so, is it surprising that they should want to act the part, that they should dress like party-goers (irreligious ones at that), haul in their instruments an their loud-speakers, hire players if necessary, sing their favorite songs, and dance if they feel a need? The generation gap with its complete alienation of many, many young people from true Catholicism, is as real as the abominable Copy is from the True Mass. Great discernment is not required to perceive this. True, many young people consider the antics of the "hippie" crowd extreme, and they secretly disdain the "hippie" clergy. This proves nothing about their own faith. The question is: Do they still believe in the True Church, or would they believe if they knew what it is? Do they accept its moral judgments? Would they accept its authority if it were to begin to command them, as it ought? Do they pray as Catholics? No, the most of them have become complete eclectics, claiming for themselves the right and the wisdom to draw their own conclusions, and do not imagine God would be less than satisfied. They have become complete subjectivist, and are now the defenseless prey of the Revolution, about which most of them have never heard a word.

The "New Mass" bends tows Protestantism so laboriously that at times it is just plain comical. The handiest example of this fact is the leaving to the decision of the "president" whether to make mention of the names of certain saints, particularly the Apostles and the Roman martyrs. Even though this option is indicated in the "missalettes," undoubtedly many attend the "New Mass" without paying any attention to it. In "Eucharistic Prayer, Form Number One," for instance, brackets thus enclose the names of the following saints:

We honor Joseph, her husband, the apostles and martyrs Peter and Paul, Andrew, [James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Jude; we honor Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian] and all the saints.

Again, after the "Narratio," another list is similarly presented:

For ourselves, too, we ask some share in the fellowship of your apostles and martyrs, with John the Baptist, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, [Ignatius, Alexander, Marcellinus, Peter, Felicity, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia] and all the saints.

Perhaps you and I, dear reader, can conjure up a better reason for this unbelievable innovation than I have found in print. The real reason for it, of course, is "ecumenical": Protestants generally accept the fact of the heavenly beatitude of the Apostles, the Evangelists, St. Stephen and St. Barnabas, because their names are in the Bible. If they do not pray to these glorious persons, they do acknowledge that they are saved. Their problem is in unwillingness to believe that the Church can infallibly declare someone to be in Heaven; consequently, they have no interest in honoring the great Roman martyrs. Our liturgical devisers have none either, needless to say, but they thought it expedient to use the device of making the invocation of these saints optional rather than dropping their names outright, having done enough violence to the Canon of the Mass without this.

The real reason for this option, then, is to cater to Protestants; but this is not admitted in the "Novus Ordo." And it is expected that the ordinary Catholic priest will have another reason for availing himself of this wonderful convenience, he having no desire to compromise an article of faith. The question is, therefore, what other and what good reason could such a priest have for deciding that today he will omit invocation of these thirty-two sainted heroes of our Religion, simple men and women indeed, but who once were accused of being extremely dangerous enemies of the Roman Empire and who are now truly and infinitely more dangerous to the forces of the Revolution, since they possess a power of intercession and miracles equal to that of some of the angels. Here Father is then, standing at the Table, surrounded by unseen hosts of Seraphim and Cherubim, Principalities and Powers, convinced that he is now in the act of fulfilling the majestic prophecy of Malachy which says:

For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of Hosts. Malachy 1:11

Here he is, a frail little man, all but annihilated by the proximity of such great heavenly presences and the outbursting power of the Sacramental Mystery; he is like Peter, James and John on Mount Thabor when Jesus was transfigured before them:

And... behold a bright cloud overshadowed them. And lo a voice out of the cloud, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye him. And the disciples hearing fell upon their face, and were very much afraid. Matthew 17:5-6

And now the moment has arrived when this small being must decide whether he will abbreviate the prayers and ignore the saints, who themselves are within his whisper’s reach and who listen for their assignment to assist him and the Church in this divine work of accomplishing the most august Sacrifice. Can you not just hear him now:

"Sorry, Saints, I’ll have to leave you out of it today. I’m in a frightful hurry. I spent too much time on the announcements, and the Scripture readings were a bit longer than usual. And it looks as if there will be a lot of communions today. And I have a golf appointment at ten; the fellas will never forgive me if I’m late. But tomorrow I’ll check with you, tomorrow for sure. Yes, I know, I said that yesterday. But tomorrow for sure; it’s a promise."

The reason so very few people will wish to agree with these conclusions is not that people are dishonest, cowardly, or unintelligent. It is because, as yet, they have not informed themselves of the mode of thinking and action of the Revolution. Even while soaking up its corrosive incongruities and yielding to its influence, they do not see what they are looking at. They think only in straight lines, in Aristotelian definitions, and in blacks and whites. With regard to the "New Mass" the basic error of most people has been to read traditional meanings and intentions into its language. I cannot emphasize strongly enough what a mistaken approach this is. It is like attempting to prove the personal orthodoxy of Pope Paul VI by referring to certain utterances of his which contain mention of this or that Catholic doctrine. I trust I have made it clear that the question of the legality and validity of this accursed Sham can be decided only through study of those decrees of the Church which are completely reliable and unquestionably binding. How few people realize that the very soul of the Revolution is deception and is total objective is influence. The Revolution does not care what people believe. It is totally pragmatic. Sufficient to the Revolution if its program is working, if the masses are permitting themselves to be herded, if they are accepting the trends of thought being served to them, if the desired effect is being achieved, from whatever cause.

The Revolution has no sympathy for the discontent or the internal revulsion of individuals. It is sufficient if the majority outwardly conforms, thus contributing to the illusion which it is creating for the masses. Individuals who cannot or will not conform must somehow be removed from the others, as they threaten to dispel the illusion for others.

Nor does the Revolution use words as ordinary human beings do. This most people are very slow to learn. Its use of words is as peculiarly its own as is that of the True Church when those that speak for Catholicism conform their teaching to its divinely-inspired traditions. Language is a means for the furtherance of the Revolutionary program. It is used as a tool, or better, as a weapon, since the program is a phase, and language a tactic in the struggle for influencing people, not for communicating truth. The Revolution is altogether indifferent to objective truth; it does not define words and, by this very fact, reveals itself as diametrically opposed to such stringency of thought.

The "New Mass" is one of the productions of the Revolution, one of its tools of subversion, and the language of the "New mass" is in the genre of the Revolution. Those how mean to assess the "New Mass" should not expect to find in it that clarity of thought and intention which one expects in the articulations of the Sacred Magisterium of the Church. They should not expect to find clear-cut affirmations or negations. They will find truth suggested – as well as many shades of its opposite. The only consistency they will find is the effort to confuse and to mislead, a refusal to debate fairly, but no legally admissible evidence of the conspiracy which is afoot. For this reason ,the authors of the "New Mass" cannot be convicted of heresy. An ordinary heretic boldly teaches his false belief, firmly denies traditional dogma, and, sometimes, is willing to die in defense of his contentions. The Revolutionary will seem to believe whatever it serves his immediate purpose to believe, will take any shape which pragmatic need dictates.

For this reason also, the effort to decide the validity of the "New Mass" (or, I suspect, of any of the other new Sacramental rites) through analysis of its language is doomed to failure, for all the good it would do. The celebrant of the True Mass must intend to do what the Church intends. But how will you ever be able to guess the true intention of the Church when the formulation of its rites is now in the hands of men whose purpose is deliberately devious and undefinable, whose use of words and whose every act is compulsively nebulous and evasive? How will you ever prove the intentions of their ritual formulations when their own thinking is fluid, and basically nihilistic? Their intention is directly related to the condition of those whom their use of language is meant to influence. Their language does not have objective intention, but dialectic direction; their words are chosen always with a view to inching the thought of the masses into the direction of Revolutionary negations; away, therefore, from objective truth and toward Communism; away from supernatural verities, dogmas, and laws, and toward dialectical materialism, naturalism, cynicism, narcissism, and nihilism. This intention is behind the insatiable need to change the rites of the Church, to change the nomenclature, to change all the prayers, to abolish all the traditions, to ban the merely customary – without regard to any objective benefit or principle.

In their desire for some kind of definiteness and stability, people will concede almost anything if they thing doctrine not in jeopardy, on the promise that the next change will be the last. Whereas, the Revolution, being indifferent to truth or human feeling (but keenly aware of the usefulness of both), will promise anything, give every impression of sincerity, create as convincing a rationale as possible, and seem to compromise on its every demand for the sake of making the smallest further step in its chosen direction. Any change is progress, so long as no stage is final. Exploiting the poor memory, the ignorance, the guilelessness, and the indifference of those who will sacrifice anything to be free of further annoyance (who will surrender every principle in order not to be thought odd by the majority, i.e. , the masses), the Revolution is certain that as soon as one change has been accepted, no matter how resentfully, it is time to agitate for another, being sure to ignore and put to silence all reminders of previous promises. With each change, its uncomprehending subjects stand at an ever greater distance from their point of departure, and remember it ever more vaguely, and think it ever less necessary. For a few moments’ peace (which is never permitted, of course), they will allow themselves to be treated like curs.

With regard to the True Mass, once Catholics – Pope, clergy, and people – surrendered to the Revolutionary principle that the Mass needed to be adapted to modern times, and once the solemn noli tangere ("do not touch") of St. Pius V had been violated, the entire Liturgy and the whole body of the Church (whose heart and heart-beat the Liturgy is) became paralyzed and easy prey for the "arrangers." Since then, we have been surrendering on every front, on every point of doctrine and morality, even on the most basic principles of human life. The wall was breached; ever since, all has been inconsistency, disorder, foolishness, and subterfuge.

And, as the months pass, the erosion of the Faith continues. The Hierarchy and the faithful, who vainly look to the Church for leadership, clear-sightedness, and direction, are now together in a state of heedless, mindless falling away. Only those who have clung to Catholic principles and kept themselves aloof from the wearing propagandization can even perceive the decline. Indeed, the sun has lost its light! (Apoc. 9:2; Is. 13:10; Ez. 32:7).

 Footnotes

35. St. Andrew Daily Missal. The E. M. Lohmann Co. St. Paul, Minn. 1937 & 1951. All translations of the Missale Romanum of Pope St. Pius V are taken from this edition.

36. Allocution of Pope Paul VI on November 19, 1969, La Documentation Catholique. 7 December 1969.

37. Enchiridion Symbolorum. Cc. Trid. Sess XXII, Cap. 4. p. 409, No. 942.

38. "The Robber Church" (Part 2). P. H. Omlor. Interdum, Issue No. 7, May 31, 1971. p. 3.

39. Ibid., p. 4

40. The requisites for the valid celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are four: a) minister: the celebrant must be a validly ordained priest; b) intention: the celebrant must have the intention of doing what the Church does: c) matter: the elements of the Mass must be wheaten bread and grape wine, made without additives; d) form: the proper Form (words) of Consecration must be used. These requisites must be considered to make up the substance of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. According to the Council of Trent, these requirements cannot be altered by anyone, not even the Church itself, since they were established by Christ. (Cf. Enchiridion Symbolorum. Cc. Trid.: Sess. XXI. Cap. 2, No. 1728, p. 405).

41. Ordo Missae -- Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis. Vatican Press. Rome. 1969. pp. 113-14.

42. The General Instruction and the New Order of the Mass. International Committee on English in the Liturgy, Inc. Published by Priests of the Sacred Heart, Hales Corners, Wisconsin. Copyright 1969 by ICEL.

43. The Mass of the Roman Rite – It’s Origins and Development. Rev. Joseph A. Jungmann, S.J. Benziger Brothers, Inc. New York. 1955. Vol. 2, p. 201.

44. The Mass of the Roman Rite. Jungmann. Vol. 2, pp. 194-94.

45. "Omission of the Words ‘Mysterium Fidei’ in the Consecration of the Chalice." A Monitum of the Holy Office dated July 24, 1958. Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Vol. 50, p. 536.

46. Missale Romanum. Desclee. De Defectibus, Ch. V.

47. Critique, p. 13.

48. Ibid.

49. Jungmann. Op. Cit. Vol. 2, p. 201.

50. Critique. P. 13.

51. Questioning the Validity of the Masses Using the New, All-English Canon. P. H. Omlor. Athanasius Press. 780 California Ave., Reno, Nevada 89502. 1969. (First edition: Aladextra Press. 1968).

52. If the Consecration of the wine is invalid, is the Consecration of the bread invalid also? This is a perfectly legitimate question for theologians to discuss. The Church has made no final pronouncement on the matter. A number of factors would enter into the discussion. We do not intend to become involved in the argument here, since our main concern is with the morality and the liceity of the "New Mass." The law of the Church requires that no one allow himself to get into situations of doubt in such sacred matters as these. To do so deliberately, even once, is a serious sin.

53. Missale Romanum. Desclee. De Defectibus. Ch. V, Par. I.

54. Catechism of the Council of Trent. John A. McHugh & Charles J. Callan. Joseph F. Wagner, Inc. New York. 1934. pp. 227-28.

55. Treatise on the Holy Eucharist. St. Alphonsus Liguori. Quoted in Questioning the Validity of the Masses Using the New, All-English Canon. P. H. Omlor. Athanasius Press. Reno, Nevada. 1969. p. 60, Par. 123.

56. The Roman Canon in English Translation. An ICEL booklet citing The Eucharistic Words of Jesus by J. Jeremias (New York. 1966. pp. 179-182, 299) as quoted in "The Ventriloquists." P. H. Omlor. Athanasius Press, Reno, Nevada. 1970. p. 7. (Reprinted from Interdum, Issue 2, February 24, 1970.)

57. Enchiridion Symbolorum. Cc. Florentinum: Decr. pro Jacobitis. p. 342, No. 1352.

58. Missale Romanum. Desclee. De Defectibus. Ch. V. Par. 1.

59. Monthly Missalette. J. S. Paluch. Co., Inc. Chicago. June, 1971. p. 28.