|
CHAPTER FIVE Here I can do no better than quote at some length the redoubtable Abbe Georges de Nantes, writing in the June, 1970, issue of his The Catholic Counter-Reformation. After this quotation, I will summarize the most important points in his disclosure.
I am aware that the above quotation is difficult reading. The information it contains, however, has more than just historic significance, so it must be shown as clearly as possible what the passage says. On the 3rd of April, 1969, the pope presented his "New Missal." The Apostolic Constitution, Missale Romanum is the text of the address he gave on that occasion. It has the same relationship to the "Novus Ordo Missae" as Quo Primum has to St. Pius V’s Missale Romanum. What I intend doing is first show the complete Latin text of the crucial conclusory paragraphs of the decree, then point out the sentence which was deliberately mistranslated, and finally indicate the fabricated insertion. You will see what remains of the "decree." The following are the last three paragraphs as they appear in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, which is the official organ of the Holy See:
The first sentence of the above, >"Ad extremum... placet,"< was deliberately mistranslated. It was immediately sent around the world. When attention was called to the error, no effort at all was made to set things right. Here are the two renderings:
Abbe de Nantes tells us that the middle paragraph, i.e., >"Quae Constitutione... Adventus,"< was not in the original text of the Pope’s announcement. It was altogether made up and inserted by members of the "Vatican Press Bureau." These people (or this person, whoever) found the Pontiff’s words a bit weak, and so tried to "firm them up" a bit. It goes without saying that the inserted words have no binding force whatsoever – expect that the Holy Father himself made no move to have them deleted and proceeded ever after as if they were his own. Here is the forgery:
Now, the final paragraph:
The internal evidence to support Abbe de Nantes’ (and others’) assertion is easy to see. In the inserted paragraph a specific date is given when the new "Missal" is to become official. But in the paragraph following it, which I quote below, the Pope says that his "Decree" is to be considered "firm and effective now and in the future." But he neither mentions nor indicates any date at all; whereas, above a specific date is given. This insertion obviously has no continuity with its context. We have here, then, a clear case in which there is discovered the most perfidious and shameless chicanery in a matter than which nothing could be more sacred or important for the Church and the souls of the faithful, which, after it is brought to light, is ratified by the Pope (at least implicitly), enforced by the bishops, and completely ignored by the so-called theologians and scholars of the Church, not to mention the priests. We are left with two sentences which contain the Pope’s directive concerning the "Novus Ordo." One occurs in the first of the three paragraphs quoted above. It begins, >"Haud secus Nos..." You will notice I emphasized the word, "confidimus," "We hope." The English is:
The last paragraph has this translation. In it I have emphasized the word "volumus," "We wish":
The point I am making is that, when the text is purged of its forgery and given its correct translation, we find the whole weight of the document and the Act of abolishing the Mass and introducing its deceptive Semblance rests on two words, "confidimus," "we hope," "we trust," "we have confidence that," "we wish," etc., and "volumus," "we wish," "we desire," "we would be pleased," etc. Two words of such thin-voiced wistfulness are supposed effectively to command, nay, force the whole Latin Church to forsake its most precious Treasure, the most essential means for our salvation, completely to forget over fifteen hundred years of tradition (figured most conservatively), to ignore the solemn promulgations, edicts, injunctions, instructions, and anathemas of most of the Successors of the Great Fisherman, to bury in silence the rapturous prayers and encomia inspired by it in the Saints of the West, and, without question or hesitation, to begin the performance of a bureaucratic Composition, whose real meaning and purpose having been the subject of the most resentful criticism and telling attacks since it first saw the light of day. This truly is what our enemies may well describe as "popery" in the authentic sense of the word! As if our religion were nothing more than the dumb and servile fulfillment of the Pope’s mere wishes, totally unrelated to morality, Revelation, history, law, or even plain common sense! If Satan could contrive a more effective way of exposing the lustrous Bride of Christ to ridicule and confusion, what could it possible be? One obvious question is: Why did His Holiness not speak in tones similar to St. Pius? Why did he not proceed in this fashion: Explain where the Tridentine Mass was deficient and then show how the "Novus Ordo" has merely corrected these deficiencies – without changing any of the essentials thereof? He might next have solemnly curtailed the use of the old Missale Romanum, joining to this curtailment his own weighty anathemas to anyone who should do so thereafter. He might then have expounding detail the doctrinal "richness" of the "New Mass" by delineating clearly the Catholic Truth of its prayers and the reverence of its rites. Then he might have issued a solemn and unmistakable decretal, on the one hand, reasserting the agelessness and unalterableness of the dogmatic truths of Trent, which the "Novus Ordo" supposedly expresses so clearly, while, on the other, commanding all the clergy of the Roman Rite, "Cardinals not excluded," as of a certain date to accept it and adhere to it minutely, under pain of the most serious sin, lest they incur "the wrath of Almighty God and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul!" Why – it is a perfectly valid question – was this not done? Why instead does the Pontiff, in presenting the world with a "New Mass," not explain how it has been possible to produce something even superior to that Mass of which Pope Urban VIII wrote:
Indeed, in speechless disbelief, one cannot help observing that Pope Paul’s Missale Romanum is as different from Pope St. Pius’s Quo Primum as the two things they bestow on the Church. And one can only comment, "For obvious reasons!" Let us once more read the authentic text of his proclamation as I have quoted on page 139. Does it not seem as if our Holy Father were almost painfully aware that the eyes of all Christendom (and uncounted generations yet to be born) are upon him and will ever after remember his taking this reckless step? Does it not seem he cannot bring himself to do it with that spirit which befits so tremendous an Act? Notice how glancingly he accomplishes his dreadful task of voiding (if that were possible) the acts of literally generations of Popes:
You see, Pope Paul admits that the ordinances of his Predecessors deserve to be explained away. One which deserves "particular mention and derogation" is St. Pius V’s Quo Primum of course. Is it for want of courage or for want of reasons that he does not do so? Surely it is not for want of time. Ever since the issuance of Pope Paul’s Missale Romanum, even after the disclosure of foul play in its translation and publication, which, needless to say, without reference to anything else, renders it indefensible and unenforceable, and therefore completely null and void. Pope Paul himself has proceeded, not as if he had imposed a law, but only as if he had asked his people to accept his "New Mass" and had been surprised and saddened by the resulting outcry. Never has he invoked his own "decree" as if it were an irrevocable law; he seems barely to refer to it. In view of all that has been said, it would seem unnecessary to prove that Pope Paul’s "decree" Missale Romanum can in no sense of the word be considered a valid and binding law. However, it may be of some use to present the matter a bit more academically. I will therefore list the requisites for the imposition of a law and show wherein Pope Paul’s is deficient: 1. Concerning the object o the law: The legislator must have province over the mattes in question. The Pope and the Pope alone may legislate on liturgical matters in the Church. Not even he, however, may change the Form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. 63 His attempt to do so in the "Novus Ordo" renders his "decree" Missale Romanum null and void. Further, and much more important, the Pope does have supreme jurisdiction over all religious matters, but he may not command anyone to sin. Due to its intrinsic heterodoxy, the "New Mass" is not only a denial of many of the doctrines of the Faith, but it is also an act of sacrilege. This is the main cause for the complete nullity of this present law. 2. Concerning the subjects of the law: The legislator must have jurisdiction over those who would be bound by the law and indicate the law itself to whom it applies. There is in this "decree" no indication as to who is bound to obey it. 3. Concerning the relationship of the new law with old laws: The legislator must have the right to abrogate previously existing laws which are contrary to the law he wishes to pass. He must officially abrogate these laws before he can impose his own. Pope Paul has not abrogated the decree of Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum, nor any other laws which concern the True Mass. In his "decree," Missale Romanum, he speaks thusly: "notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances of our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation." Nothing here clearly indicates that all previous liturgical laws will no longer be in effect. 4. Concerning the language of the law: The legislator must impose the law as law. That is, the language used must make it clear that a law is being imposed. As we have just seen, the words used by the Pope concerning the acceptance of the "New Mass" are "volumus" and "confidimus," both of which verbs can be translated as "we wish." These words can in no wise be understood to impose a law. 5. Concerning the time of the effectiveness of the law: The legislator must indicate when the law will go into effect. As we have seen, the sentence in the "decree," Missale Romanum, which contains a specific date is a forgery. The "decree" itself assigns no date for the acceptance of the "New Mass." 6. Concerning the enforcement of the law: The legislator must indicate what penalties will be incurred by those who break the law. No such penalties are indicated in the "decree" of Pope Paul. As can easily be seen, in the issuance of the "law’ which introduced the "New Masss," NONE of the requisites for the promulgation of a valid law was fulfilled! Indeed, so patently and so completely null is this decree that it is surprising someone has not brought it forth as evidence that Pope Paul is a prisoner in the Vatican, trying through issuance of such a preposterous proclamation to signal to the outside world that he is not a free agent and that no one should take it seriously. How I would that this proof could be found! To the best of my knowledge, the re is no chance of such a discovery being made. Consequently, the bishops, who seemed to have been in a fog since they left to attend the Second Vatican Council, have no power whatsoever to enforce the "decree." And they have had much too little difficulty doing so, because of the misguided docility and poor theology of their clergy. Where any priest has refused to accept the "New Mass," his superiors have found themselves in a terrible quandary. They have deemed it necessary to make some kind of "arrangement;" usually they have confined the non-conformist to saying Holy Mass privately. Thus, the whole thing reveals itself with a glare. The priest is not censured, nor excommunicated for heresy, nor suspended for disobedience, which would seem logical. To the extent the "arrangement" can be made to look respectable, the priest is given an assignment which takes into consideration his "condition;" he remains in "good standing," is allowed to minister to the people according to the other laws of the Church and his own conscience, and is treated most kindly (generally). It is as if he were convalescing from something, while the deeply concerned doctors keep consulting for a cure. But, one thing is necessary: he must be withdrawn from the public view when he offers the "pestiferous Mass" – to use Luther’s phrase. Thus this priest becomes, like a martyr, the most fortunate of all his confreres; he is granted the inestimable privilege, which has become so rare, of offering the True Mass. The priest, suddenly and unexpectedly, and beyond all his deserts, finds himself rejoicing that he has been "accounted worthy to suffer reproach for the name of Jesus!" (Acts 5:41). Obviously then, as Abbe de Nantes has commented, it is not such a priest who is guilty of anything; it is the True Mass (and the people, no doubt, for wanting it back)! The True Mass is being "quarantined," as something vile, dangerous, and catching. It must be suppressed, gotten out of sight, that the people may forget it, that they may stop clamoring for it – the ignorant unwashed "that knoweth not the law." (Jn. 7:49). They are revisionist! The bishops (many of whom continue to say the "Old Mass" in their private chapels, for reasons of devotion, no doubt – they feel so comfortable with their trusty, old Missale, "illegal" as such a thing is) thus find themselves caught in the middle. They live in terror lest one of their Revolutionary priests will succeed in maneuvering them into an incident which might get back to Rome. At the same time, they find themselves naked, before the ubiquitous, noisome knot of diehards among their flocks, who fixedly behold them in open and stolid opposition to centuries of Tradition (toward which they could not bow often and deeply enough at the Second Vatican Council). They open their Missales to run head-on into St. Pius V, Clement VII, Urban VIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, and John XXIII, the letters of whose editions of the Missale they must page through each time they wish to use it, and whom they now publicly disown. They turn the pages to the names of one magnificent saint after another, how became such, by their own admission, through the Holy Mass, but whose virtue has become too irrelevant to celebrate anymore – it must be "memorialized." Footnotes. 60. The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XXth Century. No. 5. June, 1970. R. P. Georges de Nantes, Editor. Maison Saint-Joseph-10, Saint-Parresles-Vaudes, France. pp. 9-10. 61. Acta Apostolicae Sedis. 30 April 1969. Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 221-22. 62. Apostolic Constitution Si Quid Est of Pope Urban VIII from Missale Romanum, Desclee & Socii. 63. Cf. "Has the Church the Right." P. H. Omlor. Athanasius Press. Reno, Nevada. 1969.
|
