What One Antipope Giveth, the Next Antipope Can Taketh Away

As has been noted on this site endless numbers of times, the conciliar revolution against the Catholic Faith is inherently unstable as it is based on arbitrary claims and Modernist shibboleths that, being false of their nature, are bound to produce a never-ending series of mutations, contradictions and paradoxes that are never “resolved” and can be redefined repeatedly, interpreted, and applied in mutually contradictory ways. One of the foundational goals of Modernist is convince Catholics that what they think is Catholicism is inherently unstable and thus subject to constant modifications and adjustments as the peculiar circumstances of “modern men” vary from one generation to the next and from one place to another.

Alas, it is Modernism that is inherently unstable, something that Pope Saint Pius X noted several times in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:

Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.

13. Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles. For among the chief points of their teaching is the following, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas if they are to be really religious and not merely intellectual speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sense. This is not to be understood to mean that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be invented for the religious sense. Their origin matters nothing, any more than their number or quality. What is necessary is that the religious sense — with some modification when needful — should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which are brought forth the .secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes that these formulas, in order to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore, if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly need to be changed. In view of the fact that the character and lot of dogmatic formulas are so unstable, it is no wonder that Modernists should regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect, and have no consideration or praise for anything but the religious sense and for the religious life. In this way, with consummate audacity, they criticize the Church, as having strayed from the true path by failing to distinguish between the religious and moral sense of formulas and their surface meaning, and by clinging vainly and tenaciously to meaningless formulas, while religion itself is allowed to go to ruin. “Blind’- they are, and “leaders of the blind” puffed up with the proud name of science, they have reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which “they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other and vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, unapproved by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can base and maintain truth itself.” (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: 'These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason'; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.' Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: 'Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

The principal means by which the conciliar revolutionaries have made instability and unpredictability a predictable part of daily life within the parishes, schools, colleges, universities, seminaries and religious communities under their control is the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical travesty. The abomination of desolation that is the Novus Ordo service was meant to accustom ordinary Catholics in the pew to ceaseless changes in what they (and I was part of those “they” for a long time) thought was the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in order to convince them that everything about the Catholic Faith was as unstable and thus subject to change, including Catholic doctrine on Faith and Morals. This instability was not something accidental. This instability and unpredictability were woven into the very fabric of the each of the editions of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s General Instruction to the Roman Missal, which was revised in 1997 and issued in a final (well, as “final” as things ever get within the conciliar structures) English translation in 2002.

The staging of the Novus Ordo liturgical travesty can vary from presbyter to presbyter, from parish to parish, from one hour of the day to another. The same parish can feature a “family liturgy,” a “folk liturgy,” a “youth liturgy,” a “Latin liturgy,” an English liturgy, a Spanish liturgy, a Creole liturgy, an African liturgy, a Korean liturgy, a Vietnamese liturgy, or a Native American liturgy. These “liturgies” are “planned” by mostly lay-led “liturgical committees in which the pastor or his appointed presbyteral curate (excuse me, “assistant pastor”) “listens” to the members of the committee to determine how they will “do” liturgy for the coming weekend.

The egalitarian spirit of Protestantism and of Modernity is the rule of the day, and it is that egalitarian spirit that has, at least in a de facto if not de jure sense, obliterated the distinction between the sacerdotal, hierarchical priesthood of the presumed sacerdos (the one who offers the sacrifice) and the common priesthood of all the baptized through the elimination of the altar rail, thereby obliterating the distinction between eternity (the sanctuary) and time (the nave) and between Christ the High Priest and Victim of every Mass and the redeemed. Although the principal duty of man is the worship of God, the entire spirit of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, is communitarian. As I have noted in many other commentaries even long before the advent of Christ or Chaos as printed journal a quarter of a century ago this year, the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination is an exercise in communitarian fellowship and self-congratulations.

Frequent are the instances in which the "ordinary form" of the "one" "Roman Rite" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism is festooned with balloons and dancers and "rock" "music" (or "folk" music) and all manner of improvised "jokes" told at the beginning of the service as the "presider" either begins or ends the service. You see, there is "room" in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service for such improvisations to be made as its very governing "rites" permit the "presider" to address the "Pilgrim People of God" in a brief  manner before it begins and to issue a farewell message or two upon their departure from this exercise in community self-congratulations, replete with noise and endless distractions in order to fulfill the "Second" Vatican Council's mandate that the faithful be able to the full, "active and conscious" participation" in "liturgical celebrations" (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, November 1, 1963, Number 14).

The Mass, however, is no joking matter. 

A true offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the unbloody re-presentation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Sacrifice to the Father in Spirit and in Truth in atonement for our sins. Our Blessed Mother, who stood so valiantly by the foot of her Divine Son's Most Holy Cross as the Fifth Sword of Sorrow pierced her Immaculate Heart, was not waving balloons. She was not clapping her hands. She was not dressed in pants or short sleeves. She was not conversing with Saint Mary Magdalene or Saint John the Evangelist. There were no strobe lights or mariachis or bongo drums or steel guitars. Calvary was solemn. The earth quaked as Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ commended His spirit into the hands of His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Father in Heaven, thus signifying the end of the Mosaic Covenant as the curtain in the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

Pope Pius XII noted in his first encyclical letter, Summi Pontificatus, October 10, 1939, that there was darkness over the whole earth when Our Lord was Crucified to redeem us:

The Holy Gospel narrates that when Jesus was crucified "there was darkness over the whole earth" (Matthew xxvii. 45); a terrifying symbol of what happened and what still happens spiritually wherever incredulity, blind and proud of itself, has succeeded in excluding Christ from modern life, especially from public life, and has undermined faith in God as well as faith in Christ. The consequence is that the moral values by which in other times public and private conduct was gauged have fallen into disuse; and the much vaunted civilization of society, which has made ever more rapid progress, withdrawing man, the family and the State from the beneficent and regenerating effects of the idea of God and the teaching of the Church, has caused to reappear, in regions in which for many centuries shone the splendors of Christian civilization, in a manner ever clearer, ever more distinct, ever more distressing, the signs of a corrupt and corrupting paganism: "There was darkness when they crucified Jesus" (Roman Breviary, Good Friday, Response Five).

Many perhaps, while abandoning the teaching of Christ, were not fully conscious of being led astray by a mirage of glittering phrases, which proclaimed such estrangement as an escape from the slavery in which they were before held; nor did they then foresee the bitter consequences of bartering the truth that sets free, for error which enslaves. They did not realize that, in renouncing the infinitely wise and paternal laws of God, and the unifying and elevating doctrines of Christ's love, they were resigning themselves to the whim of a poor, fickle human wisdom; they spoke of progress, when they were going back; of being raised, when they groveled; of arriving at man's estate, when they stooped to servility. They did not perceive the inability of all human effort to replace the law of Christ by anything equal to it; "they became vain in their thoughts" (Romans i. 21).

With the weakening of faith in God and in Jesus Christ, and the darkening in men's minds of the light of moral principles, there disappeared the indispensable foundation of the stability and quiet of that internal and external, private and public order, which alone can support and safeguard the prosperity of States. (Pope Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus, October 10, 1939.) 

These words, although they were written to describe the situation of the world forty days after the outbreak of World War II, could be applied to the devastation that has been wrought upon the Catholic Faith and within the souls of hundreds of millions of Catholics as a result of the travesties engendered by the abomination that is the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgically service, known these days most reverentially, as noted previously in this article, even in supposedly traditionally-minded conciliar circles as "the ordinary form of the Roman Rite."

Look at that second paragraph quoted above, highlighted in bold lettering. One can apply the language contained therein directly to the spirit of the conciliar revolutionaries as the planned the Novus Ordo. The likes of Annibale Bugnini and Ferdinando Antonelli did seek to use a "mirage of glittering phrases" to estrange Catholics from the true Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, claiming that they were "liberating" the liturgy from an "enslavement" to rites and phrases and even doctrines that had become "anachronistic."

What happens on a daily basis in conciliar-held Catholic church after another, no matter how "conservative" or even "traditionally-minded" the pastor or curate may be, remains what it has been from its inception: a mockery of what was alleged to be (but thanks be to the Mercy of God was not) the unbloody re-presentation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's offering of Himself to His Co-Eternal and Co-Equal Father in Spirit in and in Truth in atonement for our sins. No "abuse" that takes place in a staging on the conciliar liturgical service can be said to be an "aberration" as each and every instance of "unapproved" improvisations in its staging is but a natural expression of the perverse spirit of the Novus Ordo itself that views the Catholic "past" as anachronistic. The Novus Ordo service was designed to advance the agenda of false ecumenism so as to make what purported to be the "Catholic" liturgy more palatable to Protestants, something that Annibale Bugnini himself admitted in justifying the original alteration of the Good Friday orations:

In the ecumenical climate of Vatican II, some expressions in the Orationes sollemnes of the Good Friday service had a bad ring to them. There were urgent requests to tone down some of the wording.  It is always unpleasant to have to alter venerable texts that for centuries have effectively nourished Christian devotion and have about them the spiritual fragrance of the heroic age of the Church's beginnings. Above all, it is difficult to revise literary masterpieces that are unsurpassed for their pithy form. It was nevertheless thought necessary to face up to the task, lest anyone find reason for spiritual discomfort in the prayer of the Church. The revisions, limited to what was absolutely necessary, were prepared by study group l8 bis. In Intercession 1: "For the Church," the phrase subiciens ei principatus et potestates ("subjecting principalities and powers to it [the Church]") was omitted: even though this was inspired by what St. Paul says about the "angelic powers" (Col. 2:15), it could be misinterpreted as referring to a temporal role which the Church did indeed have in other periods of history but which is anachronistic today.  (Quoted by Michael Davies in The Reign of Christ the King.) 


Says who?

Consider what Pope Pius XI explained was the permanently binding nature of the reiteration of Catholic social teaching by our true popes of the Nineteenth and early-Twentieth Centuries:

Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.

There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism.

It is necessary ever to keep in mind these teachings and pronouncements which We have made; it is no less necessary to reawaken that spirit of faith, of supernatural love, and of Christian discipline which alone can bring to these principles correct understanding, and can lead to their observance. This is particularly important in the case of youth, and especially those who aspire to the priesthood, so that in the almost universal confusion in which we live they at least, as the Apostle writes, will not be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive." (Ephesians iv, 14) (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Furthermore, even though there are some presbyters who try to stage a “reverent” Novus Ordo ceremony, the truth of the matter is that the synthetic liturgy concocted out of a variety of heretical, anti-liturgical propositions from the illegal Council of Pistoia that were condemned by Pope Pius  VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794, and by Pope Pius XII, reacting to the recrudescence of those principles by those who had hijacked the Liturgical Movement after World War I, in Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947, is irreverent of its very Jansenist nature. Even the Latin editio typica of the Novus Ordo service contains prayers that make almost no reference to a God Who judges men when they die, to the horror of sin, to hell or to the need for men to make reparation for their sins. The Novus Ordo is offensive to the honor, glory, and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity even if it is offered in Latin and versus Domini. The Novus Ordo is offensive to God because it was designed to be—and has in fact been—the singular instruction of perdition to accustom Catholics to a different religion that is claimed to be Catholicism but, of course, is a mockery thereof as it is an enshrinement of every Modernist and Judeo-Masonic shibboleth imaginable.

Father William Heidt, O.S.B., a true priest who designed on March 28, 2000, once explained in a class on the Sacred Liturgy at Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut, that the “Modernists have learned the lessons of Martin Luther. Luther was blunt. They are cunning, and they know that they accomplish more to destroy Catholicism by claiming to be Catholic and controlling structures than by breaking away as Luther did. They want to destroy the Faith from within, which is what is happening now.”

Perhaps it is useful at this juncture to summarize what Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI sought to accomplish as one of the architects of the “new liturgy” that was meant to convey the “new mentality” of the new conciliar religion

We must all modify the mental habits we have formed concerning the sacred ceremony and religious practices, especially if we have believed that ceremony to be a performance of outward rites and that in practice no more was required than a passive and distracted attendance.

One must make oneself aware that a new spiritual pedagogy has been born of the Council. That is what is novel about it, and we must not hesitate to make ourselves, first of all, disciples and then upholders of the school of prayer that has begun.

We may not relish this, but we must be docile and trust. The religious and spiritual plan unfolded before us by the new liturgical constitution is a stupendous one for depth and authenticity of doctrine, for rationality of Christian logic, for purity and riches of culture and art. It corresponds to the interior being and needs of modern man. . . . [the liturgical reform] affects habits that are dear to us, habits respectable enough maybe. . . . [and it might also be true that the reform] requires of us some effort.

It is well that this should be so, as one of the goals of the reform was the sharing of the faithful in the rites the priest directs and personifies. And it is good that it is actually the authority of the Church that wills, promotes and kindles the desire for this new manner of praying, thus giving greater increase to her spiritual mission.

It was and is, the Church's first care to safeguard the orthodoxy of prayer. Her subsequent care is to make the expression of worship stable and uniform, a great work from which the spiritual life of the Church has derived immense benefits. Now this care of hers is still further extended, modifying aspects of ancient rituals which are inadequate today.

The Church is aiming with courage and thoughtfulness to deepen th essential significance of community needs and the supernatural value of ecclesiastical worship. Above all, she is making more evident the part played by the word of God, whether of Sacred Scripture or that taught through the Church in the catechism and the homily, thus giving to the celebration its pure and, at the same time, its heart and center. (Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, as quoted in "Be 'Docile' To Liturgy Changes, Pope Says," The Catholic Courier, January 21, 1965, p. 1. Be 'Docile' to Liturgy. See the appendix below for a rough translation from the Italian language original of the general audience remarks, which were divided into parts, the latter part of which reflects the Religious News Service wire report that was published in The Catholic Courier of the Diocese of Rochester. The then universal public face of apostasy, Paul VI, addressed the theme of false ecumenism on January 20, 1965, just in case you'd like to know what this egregious little man did for an encore seven days later.)

Well, ladies and gentlemen, to quote a former colleague of mine, "There you have it."

Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI provided a perfect description of the spirit of the counterfeit church of conciliarism's liturgical revolution that touched almost every theme that has been repeated by its apologists for the past sixty-three years now. Some of us have heard these themes over and over again, whether from the lecterns at which priests or presbyters gave their "homilies" or, in the case of those who us who spent time in seminary, in formal classroom settings.

Every revolutionary prescription imaginable is to be found in this gold mine of propaganda that has been preserved in the archives of the Diocese of Rochester, New York, which itself is a bastion of apostasy and of the lavender collective.

FirstPaul The Sick noted that it was necessary to "modify mental habits," meaning that Catholics had to be "open" to accept a revolutionary program of liturgical change.

SecondPaul The Sick disparaged the Immemorial Mass of Tradition as something that required no more than a "passive and distracted" attendance on the part of the lay faithful. Paul The Sick had to do this as the very ordinary and collects of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition were reproaches to his own immersion in the "mentality" of the mythical entity known as "modern man" and because they contained references to a God Who judges and the necessity of reforming one's life that made his own conscience quite uncomfortable as a result of his proclivities (see "Blessed" Paul The Sick and In Death As In Life: The Antithesis Of Christ The King).

ThirdPaul The Sick demanded complete adherence to the revolutionary liturgical agenda that had begun to unfold and which, quite indeed, had made its "transitional" appearance on Sunday, November 29, 1964, the First Sunday of Advent, as his Ordo Missae of 1965 went into effect, replacing the 1961/1962 Missal of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII that had been in effect for all of three years at that point and, once "revived" to satisfy the poor Catholics "who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition" (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's  Ecclesia Dei adflicta, July 2, 1988) has become a means to incorporate various aspects of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service into its staging.

FourthPaul The Sick, having emphasized that the liturgical revolution had to be adapted to the "needs" of "modern man, further disparaged the Immemorial Mass of Tradition by claiming that its ceremonies and rites were "respectable enough maybe," thus helping to inaugurate a global campaign in the counterfeit church of conciliarism to create a false memory of the past as "bad," something that is being continued to this present day by the current universal public face of apostasy, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who believes and has practiced a “liberated” liturgy.

FifthPaul The Sick appealed to the "people" and the role envisioned for them in the new liturgical rites that conform to their needs and emphasized "community needs," paving the way for the "inculturation of the Gospel" that one of Annibale Bugnini's acolytes, "Monsignor" Piero Marini, who served as liturgical master of ceremonies from 1987 to 2007, used to plan the "papal" extravaganza liturgical services, which were billed as "Masses," during the false "pontificate" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, as the means to provide "papal" precedents for us at the local diocesan level. Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis has taken full advantage of this "inculturation of the Gospel" as envisioned by Montini and Bugnini and later prescribed in Paragraph 395 of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal:

395. Finally, if the participation of the faithful and their spiritual welfare requires variations and more thoroughgoing adaptations in order that the sacred celebration respond to the culture and traditions of the different peoples, then Bishops' Conferences may propose such to the Apostolic See in accordance with article 40 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy for introduction with the latter's consent, especially in the case of peoples to whom the Gospel has been more recently proclaimed. The special norms given in the Instruction On the Roman Liturgy and Inculturation should be carefully observed.

Regarding procedures to be followed in this matter, the following should be followed:

In the first place, a detailed preliminary proposal should be set before the Apostolic See, so that, after the necessary faculty has been granted, the detailed working out of the individual points of adaptation may proceed.

Once these proposals have been duly approved by the Apostolic See, experiments should be carried out for specified periods and at specified places. If need be, once the period of experimentation is concluded, the Bishops' Conference shall decide upon pursuing the adaptations and shall propose a mature formulation of the matter to the Apostolic See for its decision. (Paragraph 395, General Instruction to the Roman Missal.) 

"Cardinal" Bergoglio presided over all manner of liturgical travesties during his time as the conciliar "archbishop" of Buenos Aires, Argentina, from February 28, 1998, to March 13, 2013. He was doing so in perfect compliance with the sentiments expressed on January 13, 1965, by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul The Sick.

SixthPaul The Sick's belief that his liturgical revolution would usher in a period of stability and doctrinal orthodoxy was the product of the sort of self-delusion that inspires both social and theological revolutionaries to march forward with their schemes that can do only one thing: produce instability as the means to accustom the faithful a steady regime of doctrinal deviations and a ceaseless wave of liturgical changes.

The progenitor of the Protestant Revolution, Martin Luther, decried the degeneration produced by his "reforms" but was powerless to stop it as he did not realize that those very "reforms" were the brainchild of the devils himself that of their very nature had to produce instability, novelty and ceaseless change to the point today where many "mainline" Protestants, particularly Anglicans, Presbyterians and Methodists, no longer believe in the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Similarly, even though Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul The Sick at times in the 1970s decried certain aspects of his vaunted "renewal" of the Church that, according to the translation of his January 13, 1965, general audience address, was supposed to produce what he called "the vision of the new spiritual springtime," he was powerless to stop what he had put into motion as it was a revolution against the very integrity of the Sacred Liturgy that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had taught the Apostles between the time of His Resurrection on Easter Sunday and that of his Ascension forty days thereafter.

Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II decried "unauthorized" liturgical practices by using almost the exact language in two documents, Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980, and Ecclesia de Eucharistia, April 17, 1983, while at the same time championing the "freedom" given in the "renewed liturgy" to give expression to certain needs:

Furthermore we should follow the directives issued by the various departments of the Holy See in this field: be it in liturgical matters, in the rules established by the liturgical books in what concerns the Eucharistic Mystery,(67) and in the Instructions devoted to this mystery, be it with regard to communication in sacris, in the norms of the Directorium de re oecumenica(68) and in the Instructio de peculiaribus casibus admittendi alios christianos ad communionem eucharisticam in Ecclesia catholica.(69) And although at this stage of renewal the possibility of a certain "creative" freedom has been permitted, nevertheless this freedom must strictly respect the requirements of substantial unity. We can follow the path of this pluralism (which arises in part from the introduction itself of the various languages into the liturgy) only as long as the essential characteristics of the celebration of the Eucharist are preserved, and the norms prescribed by the recent liturgical reform are respected.

Indispensable effort is required everywhere to ensure that within the pluralism of eucharistic worship envisioned by the Second Vatican Council the unity of which the Eucharist is the sign and cause is clearly manifested.

This task, over which in the nature of things the Apostolic See must keep careful watch, should be assumed not only by each episcopal conference but by every minister of the Eucharist, without exception. Each one should also remember that he is responsible for the common good of the whole Church. The priest as minister, as celebrant, as the one who presides over the eucharistic assembly of the faithful, should have a special sense of the common good of the Church, which he represents through his ministry, but to which he must also be subordinate, according to a correct discipline of faith. He cannot consider himself a "proprietor" who can make free use of the liturgical text and of the sacred rite as if it were his own property, in such a way as to stamp it with his own arbitrary personal style. At times this latter might seem more effective, and it may better correspond to subjective piety; nevertheless, objectively it is always a betrayal of that union which should find its proper expression in the sacrament of unity.

Every priest who offers the holy Sacrifice should recall that during this Sacrifice it is not only he with his community that is praying but the whole Church, which is thus expressing in this sacrament her spiritual unity, among other ways by the use of the approved liturgical text. To call this position "mere insistence on uniformity" would only show ignorance of the objective requirements of authentic unity, and would be a symptom of harmful individualism. (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980.)

2. All of this makes clear the great responsibility which belongs to priests in particular for the celebration of the Eucharist. It is their responsibility to preside at the Eucharist in persona Christi and to provide a witness to and a service of communion not only for the community directly taking part in the celebration, but also for the universal Church, which is a part of every Eucharist. It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many. A certain reaction against “formalism” has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the “forms” chosen by the Church's great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium as non-binding and to introduce unauthorized innovations which are often completely inappropriate

I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone's private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated. The Apostle Paul had to address fiery words to the community of Corinth because of grave shortcomings in their celebration of the Eucharist resulting in divisions (schismata) and the emergence of factions (haireseis) (cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34). Our time, too, calls for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms as a reflection of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made present in every celebration of the Eucharist. Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church. Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject. No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands: it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality. (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, April 17, 2003.)

Even though Wojtyla/John Paul II decried abuses at the same time he exalted liturgical "pluralism" within the text of Dominicae Cenae, he made it clear that there was no turning back from the "liturgical renewal" as envisioned by Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick in that January 13, 1965, general audience address:

May Christ Himself help us to follow the path of true renewal towards that fullness of life and of eucharistic worship whereby the Church is built up in that unity that she already possesses, and which she desires to bring to ever greater perfection for the glory of the living God and for the salvation of all humanity.

Permit me, venerable and dear brothers, to end these reflections of mine, which have been restricted to a detailed examination of only a few questions. In undertaking these reflections, I have had before my eyes all the work carried out by the Second Vatican Council, and have kept in mind Paul VI's Encyclical Mysterium Fidei, promulgated during that Council, and all the documents issued after the same Council for the purpose of implementing the post-conciliar liturgical renewal. A very close and organic bond exists between the renewal of the liturgy and the renewal of the whole life of the Church.

The Church not only acts but also expresses herself in the liturgy, lives by the liturgy and draws from the liturgy the strength for her life. For this reason liturgical renewal carried out correctly in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council is, in a certain sense, the measure and the condition for putting into effect the teaching of that Council which we wish to accept with profound faith, convinced as we are that by means of this Council the Holy Ghost "has spoken to the Church" the truths and given the indications for carrying out her mission among the people of today and tomorrow.

We shall continue in the future to take special care to promote and follow the renewal of the Church according to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, in the spirit of an ever living Tradition. In fact, to the substance of Tradition properly understood belongs also a correct re-reading of the "signs of the times," which require us to draw from the rich treasure of Revelation "things both new and old."Acting in this spirit, in accordance with this counsel of the Gospel, the Second Vatican Council carried out a providential effort to renew the face of the Church in the sacred liturgy, most often having recourse to what is "ancient," what comes from the heritage of the Fathers and is the expression of the faith and doctrine of a Church which has remained united for so many centuries. (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980.)

Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II was, quite contrary to my own delusional hopes in 1980, propagandizing on behalf of the same kind of "ever-living tradition" as he claimed that the "substance of Tradition properly understood belongs also to a correct re-reading of the 'signs of the times,' which require us to draw the rich treasure of Revelation "things both new and old." It is this "spirit," John Paul II asserted, that must guide a proper implementation of the "liturgical renewal" that has given such great offense to God and has harmed so many souls. Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II and his successor as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, were joined at the hip in believing in the Modernist concept of a "living tradition"/hermeneutic of continuity that must be read according to "the signs of the times" that has been anathematized by the Catholic Church.

Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who had written as "Cardinal" Ratzinger that there had indeed been a "rupture" between the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service (see Appendix B below) contended during his nearly eight years as "Pope" Benedict XVI that no such "rupture" had taken place and that "tradition" must be seen as "living," which is why he helped to engineer "changes" into the staging of the Missal of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII as reflected in its 2013 editio typica that gave concrete form to the recommendations he made in the explanatory letter he sent to the conciliar "bishops" to accompany Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007:

It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal.  The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage.  The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal. (Letter to the "Bishops" that accompanies the Motu Proprio Summorum.)

Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's belief in a "reform of the reform" that was designed to merge the "ordinary" and "extraordinary" forms of the "one Roman Rite" into one synthetic whole over the course of time is now a thing of the past. Gone.

Yes, the “happy days” of a “pope” in lavender are here again, and his fourth successor is making it clear that he wants the liturgical revolution’s mentality to put be into practice by every “bishop” and presbyter around the world even as he makes sure that his own slimy fingerprints cannot be found on a new document ending private “stagings” of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination in the Basilica of Saint Peter in favor of “concelebrations” and consigning the stagings of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition to the Clementine Chapel in the basilica’s crypt:

Vatican City, Mar 12, 2021 / 06:01 pm MT (CNA).- A new letter from the Vatican Secretariat of State has banned the private celebration of Masses at side altars in St. Peter’s Basilica, effective March 22.

The regulation might seem tailored to meet COVID restrictions, as Italy prepares to tighten its pandemic measures once again. However, the new rule appears to be permanent. 

The letter stresses that Lent is a time to focus on the Word of God and celebration of the Eucharist. It says the changes are intended to ensure “the Holy Masses in St. Peter's Basilica take place in a climate of recollection and liturgical decency.”

Until now, the 45 altars and 11 chapels in St. Peter's Basilica have been used every morning by priests to celebrate their daily Mass. Many of them are Vatican officials who begin their day with the celebration. 

Not all of the Masses are crowded - in some cases, in fact, the priest celebrates Mass alone, with no faithful participating. 

The individual Masses were in addition to the general daily Mass schedule in St. Peter's Basilica. According to that schedule, there is one Mass per hour from 9 a.m. to noon, in Italian, at the Altar of the Chair. There is another Mass in Italian at 8.30 a.m. at the altar of the Most Holy Sacrament, while every day at 5 p.m., there is a Mass in Latin.

On Sundays, there are five Masses celebrated in Italian and one in Latin.

Under the new measures, all priests will be able to participate in a pre-listed series of concelebrations: at 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. in the Chapel of the Choir; and at 7.30 a.m. and 9 a.m. at the Altar of the Chair. All the other Masses stay scheduled as they have been until now, although the Mass schedule on Sunday might change. On the feast day of a saint whose relics are in the Basilica, one of the Masses can be celebrated at the altar dedicated to that saint.

The measures also ask that the Masses have lectors and cantors. 

Another change - Mass offered in the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite will be limited to the Clementine Chapel in the Vatican Grotto.

There has been a broad discussion of whether to end the practice of individual Masses, as part of a general reform of the management of St. Peter's Basilica. However, decisions were postponed until the appointment of the new Archpriest of the Basilica, following the retirement of Cardinal Angelo Comastri, who had previously served in the role but had surpassed the normal retirement age of 75.

On February 20, Pope Francis appointed as the new archpriest Cardinal Mauro Gambetti.

However, the letter from the Secretariat of State is not addressed to Gambetti, but to Archbishop Mario Giordana, extraordinary commissioner of the Fabric of St. Peter. This is unusual, since the Fabric of St. Peter does not deal with liturgical celebrations in the Basilica, but is instead charged with its conservation and maintenance. 

The fact that the letter was released by the First Section of the Secretariat of State has also garnered attention, as the first section is a sort of Ministry of Internal Affairs, in charge of all the Curia offices' direction and coordination, but typically not liturgical celebrations. 

Additionally, the release of the letter was not accompanied by any kind of official Vatican communication. Nor was the letter signed in full by Archbishop Edgar Pena Parra, who heads the First Section of the Secretariat of State, but instead included only his initials.

These anomalies have prompted some speculation that the letter may have been forged. However, two Vatican officials who asked for anonymity confirmed to CNA that the document is real. (Private Novus Ordo Stagings No Longer Permitted in Saint Peter’s Basilica.)

Oh, this document is very real.

Here are a few brief observations for your consideration.

First, although it is an oversimplification, the Secretariat of State’s initialed but unsigned letter to the Fabric of Saint Peter, which has been rife with charges of financial irregularities (see Suspected Fraud in the Fabric of Saint Peter), is, in essence, putting the custodial/maintenance/hospitality department in charge of “liturgical” rules in the Basilica of Saint Peter. 


The Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo litugical service is indecent of its very false nature.

Second, even though his fingerprints are not on the document sent by the Secretariat of State to the Fabric of Saint Peter, Jorge Mario Bergoglio wants what is now to be the “norm” in the Basilica of Saint Peter to be them model for every parish in the world. The document sent to the Fabric of Saint Peter represents Bergoglio’s “green light” to his carefully chosen Jacobin/Bolshevik “bishops” and “pastors” to demand the practice of private stagings of the Novus Ordo service in public to cease in favor of “concelebration.”

Third, the collectivism of the conciliar revolutionaries is based in a Marxist suppression of individuality in favor of the “identity” of the collectivity, something that I noted at length in G.I.R.M. Warfare, which is undergoing extensive revisions at this time for republication in late-April of this year, on the subject of “concelebrations”:

Paragraph 36 of GIRM reads: “Other parts, most useful for expressing and fostering the active participation of the faithful, and which are assigned to the whole gathering, include especially the Penitential Act, the Profession of Faith, the Universal Prayer, and the Lord’s Prayer.”

Comment and Analysis: The mantra of “active participation” is repeated so frequently that it is almost as though the authors of GIRM are trying to convince themselves that there has not been enough such participation in the past fifty-two years. The celebration of the what the lords of conciliarism to be the “Eucharistic Liturgy” has become little more except an exercise in constant, frenetic activity on the part of the faithful in the lion’s share of parishes around the world. Constant and frenetic activity, however, is not the same thing as the sense of the interior participation of the faithful as it has been encouraged by the Church traditionally.

That interior participation does indeed require a full, conscious, and quite active exercise of the will to unite the mind and heart totally to the Sacrifice offered by an alter Christus to the Father in Spirit and in Truth in the Name of the One Who offered Himself up once on the wood of the Cross.

How interesting it is that the very people who keep mistaking noise and motion for the true sense of active participation of the soul in the Mass have destroyed the sensus Catholics to such an extent that an ordinary Catholic who has been immersed in the mania that is part of the Novus Ordo liturgical service might find the reverence found within a true offering of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition to be “boring.” The entire aim of those who planned and implemented the conciliar liturgical revolution has been to destroy any understand of the need for reverence and solemnity in what purports to be Holy Mass. Moreover, the architects who planned the Novus Ordo abomination have destroyed even the faithful’s theoretical belief in the Mass as the unbloody re-presentation of Calvary.

Paragraph 114 of GIRM reads: “Moreover, among those Masses celebrated by some communities, a particular place belongs to the Conventual Mass, which is a part of the daily Office, or the “community” Mass. Although such Masses do not involve any special form of celebration, it is nevertheless most fitting that they be celebrated with singing, especially with the full participation of all members of the community, whether of religious or of canons. Therefore, in these Masses all should exercise their function according to the Order or ministry they have received. Hence, it is desirable that all the Priests who are not obliged to celebrate individually for the pastoral benefit of the faithful concelebrate in so far as possible at the conventual or community Mass. In addition, all Priests belonging to the community who are obliged, as a matter of duty, to celebrate individually for the pastoral benefit of the faithful may also on the same day concelebrate at the conventual or community Mass.[93] For it is preferable that Priests who are present at a celebration of the Eucharist, unless excused for a just reason, should usually exercise the function proper to their Order and hence take part as concelebrants, wearing sacred vestments. Otherwise, they wear their proper choir dress or a surplice over a cassock.”

Comment and Analysis: Again, more irony. Here we see the triumph of the collectivism of Marxism, which denies the individuality of the human soul in favor of the collective identity of the masses. The conciliar liturgy has become a vehicle for the collectivists to deny the individuality of a man’s presumed priesthood, thus stressing a collective consciousness during the celebration of what is said to be Holy Mass. The individual exercise of a man’s priesthood is thus denigrated as somewhat destructive to the desire to “build community” whereas the collective exercise expressed by the re-institution of concelebration by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/ Paul VI was meant to be the “fullest” expression of unity within the priesthood and the Church. Thus, side altars and side chapels must go the way of the buffalo. Anything that smacks of individualism is divisive and narcissistic, and this is what the letter sent by the Secretariat of State to the Fabric of Saint Peter is meant to accomplish.

Yes, concelebration does exist in the past in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. The Ordination Mass of Priests in the Traditional Latin Mass is one in which the newly ordained priests do indeed concelebrate with the ordaining bishop.

Paragraph 115 of GIRM reads: “By Mass with the people is meant a Mass celebrated with the participation of the faithful. Moreover, it is appropriate, in so far as possible, and especially on Sundays and Holydays of Obligation, that the celebration take place with singing and with a suitable number of ministers.[94] It may, however, take place even without singing and with only one minister.”

Comment and Analysis: This part of GIRM describes some of the more mundane details of “Mass with the people.” Even in this part of GIRM, however, there are very telling signs of the extent to which the new religion is meant to eclipse most vestiges of our living liturgical tradition. Paragraph 115, for example, asserts that every Mass should be celebrated “with singing and with a suitable number of ministers.” This is not part of Catholic tradition. Low Mass, which is a derivation of the High Mass, is offered during the week in as simple a form as possible. The emphasis in Low Mass is on the action of the priest offering a propitiatory sacrifice to the Father through the Son in Spirit and in Truth. The fixed nature of the rubrics of Low Mass leaves almost no options for a priest [A1] (save for the selection of additional Collects, Secrets, and Postcommunion prayers, principally on days when several feasts occur together). Understanding the pastoral needs of the faithful to attend to their daily duties (which is why Low Mass was originally instituted), daily Mass in the traditional Latin rite is simple and to the point. Our lives are meant to be simple and to the point. The Novus Ordo service, however, has introduced a mania for showmanship and spectacle. Almost no time is left for personal recollection, which is not an accident because the conciliar liturgical revolutionaries eschew private devotions in favor of the group consciousness. Those attending the Novus Ordo service on a daily basis in the new order of things are invited constantly to keep active (singing, speaking, seeking out their neighbors at the “sign of peace,” at least in pre-plandemic times), which detracts from the sense of personal interior recollection we are supposed to develop while hearing Holy Mass.

Furthermore, Paragraph 115 demonstrates the conciliar’s liturgy’s preference for large numbers of people in the sanctuary (readers, acolytes, extraordinary ministers).

Introibo ad altare Dei.

Only the priest/presbyter (and those males who are permitted to enter with him to serve him an the altar of sacrifice) is supposed to enter the holy of holies. However, the sense of participatory democracy engendered by the Novus Ordo requires individuals to play some active visible role alongside the priest in order that there be a “full expression” of the unity of the Church. This is nothing other than egalitarianism of the worst sort, which contributes in no small measure to the laicization of presumed priests and the clericalization of the laity, to say nothing of the profanation of what purports to be Holy Mass, which makes perfect sense as

Paragraph 116 of GIRM reads: “If at any celebration of Mass a Deacon is present, he should exercise his function. Furthermore, it is desirable that an acolyte, a reader, and a cantor should usually be there to assist the Priest Celebrant. Indeed, the rite described below foresees an even greater number of ministers.”

Comment and Analysis: As noted earlier, concelebration was part of Catholic tradition at one time. Its reinstitution by Montini/Paul VI has resulted in the triumph of the collectivism of Marxism, which denies the individuality of the human soul in favor of the collective identity of the masses. What is thought to be Holy Mass has become a vehicle for the collectivists within the counterfeit church of conciliarism to deny the individuality of a man’s presumed priesthood, thus stressing a collective consciousness during the celebration of the conciliar liturgy. The individual exercise of a man’s presumed priesthood is thus denigrated as somewhat destructive of the desire to “build community” whereas the collective exercise expressed by the institution of concelebration by Paul VI is meant to be the “fullest” expression of unity within the conciliar church’s presbyterate. Thus, side altars and side chapels must go the way of the buffalo. Anything that smacks of individualism is divisive and narcissistic. Is there any wonder that many men within the conciliar structures are no longer attracted to what they think is the priesthood in religious communities where a man’s presumed priesthood is denigrated as part of a collective consciousness?

Promiscuous concelebration leads to spectacles unworthy of the dignity of the priest and the solemnity required in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is rather logical when one considers that the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic liturgical abomination is a no such thing.  This has been true at all antipapal liturgies (World Youth Day, “canonization” ceremonies, liturgies concelebrated during antipapal visits, to say nothing of all of the antipopes’ public liturgies in the Basilica of Saint Peter and elsewhere in Rome).

I was present at Saint Peter’s in October of 1984 for a closing purported liturgy of a worldwide retreat for priests. Over 5,000 priests/presbyters were present in Saint Peter’s to “concelebrate” with the Antipope John Paul II from their pews. Many of these priests and presbyters stood on their chairs and snapped photographs of the future “Saint John Paul II” as he processed up the main aisle in Saint Peter’s. Others were hollering and applauding. Some were apparently “slain in the spirit” and took a nosedive down to the floor as they caught sight of “Pope John Paul II.” This same phenomenon took taken place all across the world during the 9,666 days of Karl Josef Wojtyla’s anti-papacy.

Every true priest exercises the priesthood and victimhood of the Chief Priest and Victim of every Mass, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. There was one Victim and one Priest who atoned for the sins of mankind by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross. There should thus be one priest celebrating every Mass. The Mass is celebrated by an alter Christus, not alter Christi. The fact that newly ordained priests concelebrate Mass with their ordaining bishop in the authentic Roman Rite’s ordination rite is an exception that proves the rule. The fact that the Traditional Rite reserves concelebration to that instance indicates the importance of individual priests celebrating Mass on their own.

Finally, how does concelebration bring out the “unity” of the “whole People of God”? Is it being asserted here that the faithful are virtual concelebrants with the priests who are concelebrating? The blithe acceptance of this collectivism can lead one to conclude that the “People of God” have drunk the spiked Kool Aid of the People’s Temple outside of Jonestown, Guyana.

Paragraph 200 of GIRM reads: “Visiting Priests should be gladly admitted to concelebration of the Eucharist, provided their Priestly standing has been ascertained.”

Comment and Analysis: A presbyter on Long Island told me in the late-1990s that he was denied permission to concelebrate at an altar in a church in Phoenix, Arizona, because the feminists, who were charge of the church’s liturgy committee, believed that “concelebration” was not “inclusive” given the lack of women around the altar, although I had been in more than a few Novus Ordo travesties where women did indeed gather around an altar as some of thing even extended their right arms at the time of the purported consecrations.”

Paragraph 201 of GIRM reads: “When there is a large number of Priests, concelebration may take place even several times on the same day, where necessity or pastoral advantage commend it. However, this must be done at different times or in distinct sacred places.[101]

Comment and Analysis: As a priest-teacher at Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland, in 1981, “Indolence is an enduring trait of many seminarians and priests.” Indolence is a fancy word, as you know, for laziness. The General Instruction to the Roman Missal has created a situation in which men who presume themselves to be priests can “concelebrate” and then get about their day’s business. I knew of many priest/presbyters in the past who concelebrated, especially on Sundays, and then went about leisure activities after the concelebrated Mass. Gone is the zeal for souls and the desire to offer Holy Mass to those who are starving for it. (Although not relevant to “concelebration,” there was a true priest on Long Island, long since dead, who staged the Novus Ordo with a stole draped over a cheap alb that was so thin the people could see his golf shirt beneath the alb, meaning that he was ready to take off for the links immediately after concluding his eighteen-minute liturgy. He was out of the parking lot before the people were!)

Paragraph 203 of GIRM reads: “To be held in particularly high regard is that concelebration in which the Priests of any given diocese concelebrate with their own Bishop at a stational Mass, especially on the more solemn days of the liturgical year, at the Ordination Mass of a new Bishop of the diocese or of his Coadjutor or Auxiliary, at the Chrism Mass, at the Evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper, at celebrations of the Founder Saint of a local Church or the Patron of the diocese, on anniversaries of the Bishop, and, lastly, on the occasion of a Synod or a pastoral visitation. In the same way, concelebration is recommended whenever Priests gather together with their own Bishop whether on the occasion of a retreat or at any other gathering. In these cases the sign of the unity of the Priesthood and also of the Church inherent in every concelebration is made more clearly manifest.[102]

Comment and Analysis: Although there is but one priesthood, a true bishop possesses the fullness of its powers. Thus, the General Instruction to the Roman Missal places priests/presbyters in positions of equality with a “bishop,” as concelebration does, it is the Catholic practice in the genuine Roman Rite of Holy Mother Church for true priests to humbly acknowledge their subordination to their superior in authority and in power, that is, the bishop. True priests attend Mass celebrated by a bishop, except, as noted earlier, for newly ordained priests at their own Mass of Ordination. On the contrary, the conciliar notion the spirit of egalitarianism that is of the essence of the Novus Ordo. (From the revised text of The Worst Revolution in History: The Conciliar Revolution Against the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is the new working title for the original G.I.R.M. Warfare book, published in 2004 and revised in 2005.)

Pope Pius XII’s Mediator Dei condemned almost everything that was part of the anti-liturgical agenda of the conciliar revolutionaries even though he would later accept the false representations made to him by Fathers Annibale Bugnini, C.M., and Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M., about the various liturgical changes that His Holiness authorized in the 1950. Mediator Dei spoke specifically about concelebration:

95. Some in fact disapprove altogether of those Masses which are offered privately and without any congregation, on the ground that they are a departure from the ancient way of offering the sacrifice; moreover, there are some who assert that priests cannot offer Mass at different altars at the same time, because, by doing so, they separate the community of the faithful and imperil its unity; while some go so far as to hold that the people must confirm and ratify the sacrifice if it is to have its proper force and value.

96. They are mistaken in appealing in this matter to the social character of the eucharistic sacrifice, for as often as a priest repeats what the divine Redeemer did at the Last Supper, the sacrifice is really completed. Moreover, this sacrifice, necessarily and of its very nature, has always and everywhere the character of a public and social act, inasmuch as he who offers it acts in the name of Christ and of the faithful, whose Head is the divine Redeemer, and he offers it to God for the holy Catholic Church, and for the living and the dead.[88] This is undoubtedly so, whether the faithful are present — as we desire and commend them to be in great numbers and with devotion — or are not present, since it is in no wise required that the people ratify what the sacred minister has done.

97. Still, though it is clear from what We have said that the Mass is offered in the name of Christ and of the Church and that it is not robbed of its social effects though it be celebrated by a priest without a server, nonetheless, on account of the dignity of such an august mystery, it is our earnest desire — as Mother Church has always commanded — that no priest should say Mass unless a server is at hand to answer the prayers, as canon 813 prescribes.

98. In order that the oblation by which the faithful offer the divine Victim in this sacrifice to the heavenly Father may have its full effect, it is necessary that the people add something else, namely, the offering of themselves as a victim. (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.)

It should go without saying that Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionaries believe in not word of what Pope Pius XII wrote seventy-two years, four months ago. Indeed, theirs is an anti-liturgical revolution against everything contained in Mediator Dei, which is why Bergoglio and his appointed henchmen in the Secretariat of State and the Fabric of Saint Peter want to do away with centuries-old custom of priests who worked in and around the Vatican in Rome offer their own private Masses on side altars and chapels every morning before they went to work in a dicastery.

Although I recognize now that I did not attend any true Masses in the Basilica of Saint Peter during the six times I visited Rome between October of 1984 and May of 2005, I was, however, impressed with the early morning sight of one altar boy after another come out the door to the sacristy in front of a priest carrying his chalice and burse. People, including many Romans, would arrive at different times between 7:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. and stick close to the sacristy door so that they could follow a priest to the altar where he was going to offer what they (and I at the time) thought to be Holy Mass. Most of those priests, especially in 1984 and 1987, were old enough to have been true priest, and they came in various shapes and sizes. It was a ritual of Roman life to go to Saint Peter’s Basilica and wait for the first available priest, and the sight itself, acknowledging that true Masses were not being offered when I was there, was a marvel for a Catholic to be behold.

Long before the conciliar revolution, however, there were true priests offering the true Mass on those altars, and one can only imagine the scene as one after another offered the same Mass without any variation, each adding glory to God and grace to the world. Those days are long gone, and Bergoglio and his minions are making sure that even the vestige of the sight itself is eradicated with the mere initialing of a document from the Secretariat of State, which does not deal with liturgical matters to begin with, to the Fabric of Saint Peter. Such is the hatred of everything to do with Catholicity, including men they presume to be priests attempting to offer what they think is a true Mass even though it is not.

Second (yes, this is only the second point about the letter sent to the Fabric of Saint Peter by the Secretariat of State), the consigning of the offerings/stagings of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition to the Clementine Chapel in the crypt of the Basilica of Saint Peter may or may not signify the ultimate demise of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, but it does signify that the Antipope Emeritus’s motu proprio will be greatly curtailed if it does in fact survive the death of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s immediate predecessor. Although “Pope Francis” does indeed want to emphasize the communitarian nature of the conciliar presbyterate by having his minion, “Archbishop” Pena Parra, initial the letter to the Fabric of Saint Peter to end even private stagings of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo service, the real intent of the initialed letter was to make sure that the hated Mass which expresses the transcendence of God and the mysterium tremdendum of the ineffable Sacrifice of the Cross that they deny is such can never rise above ground in the Basilica of Saint Peter ever again.

This signifies a return to the days of Virgilio “Cardinal” Noe, who was a true Modernist revolutionary who gained a reputation for the hatred of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition while he was the archpriest of the Basilica of Saint Peter from July 1, 1991, to April 24, 2002, that he gained the well-deserved nickname of “No Way Noe” because of his steadfast refusal to grant permission for priests/presbyters to offer/stage any version of the Mass of Tradition anywhere within Saint Peter’s Basilica. (It was Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II who had appointed Noe to be the archpriest of the Basilica of Saint Peter in 1991 and had entrusted him with all manner of other duties, including serving as the prefect in the Congregation for the Rites. Early on, however, Noe was trying to throw his liturgical weight around with the newly "elected" Polish "pope" by bossing him around in an elevator about the rubrics for an upcoming liturgy in the Basilica of Saint Peter in October of 1978." Wojtyla/John Paul II said the following to him, "Can I be pope today?" Noe thereupon shut down and the two got along famously thereafter. Virgilio Noe died in 2011 after a career of a theological and liturgical destruction, to say nothing of the physical destruction of the Altar of the Chair of Saint Peter in the Basilica of Saint Peter undertaken under his own supervision and assiduous direction.)

While I know priests and presbyters with celebrets from “Pontiifical” Commission Ecclesia Dei who did offer or stage the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition inside of the Basilica of Saint Peter and lived to tell the tale without being noticed or punished, Virglio Noe inspired fear in the hearts of his fellow “cardinals,” including Alfons “Cardinal” Stickler, who had planned but offer a Nuptial Mass in the Traditional Rite in the Basilica of Saint Peter in 2001 before running afoul of Noe, who terrified Stickler so much that that the elderly priest, who was not a bishop but considered himself to be one as well as a member of the concilar College of Cardinals, explained to the then engaged couple that he could say a “reverent” Novus Ordo in Latin for them but could not defy Noe (the couple refused and made arrangements in their home country)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is letting his actions, although undertaken by Pena Parra, speak volumes about how he has viewed Summorum Pontificum’s “liberation” of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition offered or staged in full view of the public on side altars in the Basilica of Saint Peter. He hates even the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition because he hates the Faith that it expresses with its permanence, beauty, structure and orderliness, a point that Monsignor Klaus Gamber, who was himself not a traditionalist and was in favor of liturgical reforms, was honest enough to make in The Reform of the Roman Liturgy:

Not only is the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969 a change of the liturgical rite, but that change also involved a rearrangement of the liturgical year, including changes in the assignment of feast days for the saints. To add or drop one or the other of these feast days, as had been done before, certainly does not constitute a change of the rite, per se. But the countless innovations introduced as part of liturgical reform have left hardly any of the traditional liturgical forms intact . . .

At this critical juncture, the traditional Roman rite, more than one thousand years old and until now the heart of the Church, was destroyed. A closer examination reveals that the Roman rite was not perfect, and that some elements of value had atrophied over the centuries. Yet, through all the periods of the unrest that again and again shook the Church to her foundations, the Roman rite always remained the rock, the secure home of faith and piety. . . .

Was all this really done because of a pastoral concern about the souls of the faithful, or did it not rather represent a radical breach with the traditional rite, to prevent the further use of traditional liturgical texts and thus to make the celebration of the "Tridentime Mass" impossible--because it no loner reflected the new spirit moving through the Church?

Indeed, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the prohibition of the traditional rite was announced at the same time as the introduction of the new liturgical texts; and that a dispensation to continue celebrating the Mass according to the traditional rite was granted only to older priests.

Obviously, the reformers wanted a completely new liturgy, a liturgy that differed from the traditional one in spirit as well as in form; and in no way a liturgy that represented what the Council Fathers had envisioned, i.e., a liturgy that would meet the pastoral needs of the faithful.

Liturgy and faith are interdependent. That is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernist) theology. The traditional liturgy simply could not be allowed to exist in its established form because it was permeated with the truths of the traditional faith and the ancient forms of piety. For this reason alone, much was abolished and new rites, prayers and hymns were introduced, as were the new readings from Scripture, which conveniently left out those passages that did not square with the teachings of modern theology--for example, references to a God who judges and punishes.

At the same time, the priests and the faithful are told that the new liturgy created after the Second Vatican Council is identical in essence with the liturgy that has been in use in the Catholic Church up to this point, and that the only changes introduced involved reviving some earlier liturgical forms and removing a few duplications, but above all getting rid of elements of no particular interest.

Most priests accepted these assurances about the continuity of liturgical forms of worship and accepted the new rite with the same unquestioning obedience with which they had accepted the minor ritual changes introduced by Rome from time to time in the past, changes beginning with the reform of the Divine Office and of the liturgical chant introduced by Pope St. Pius X.

Following this strategy, the groups pushing for reform were able to take advantage of and at the same time abuse the sense of obedience among the older priests, and the common good will of the majority of the faithful, while, in many cases, they themselves refused to obey. . . .

The real destruction of the traditional Mass, of the traditional Roman rite with a history of more than one thousand years, is the wholesale destruction of the faith on which it was based, a faith that had been the source of our piety and of our courage to bear witness to Christ and His Church, the inspiration of countless Catholics over many centuries. Will someone, some day, be able to say the same thing about the new Mass? (Monsignor Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, p. 39, p. 99, pp. 100-102.)

Yes, it is the hatred of the Holy Faith, not of “us” as whoever writes on the Rorate-Caeli website believes, that motivates Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s desire to restrict, if not eliminate, any version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition from public view within the Basilica of Saint Peter.

Then again, Summorum Pontificum has been a trap from the beginning as was issued by Ratzinger/Benedict XVI not because he, a dogmatic evolutionist, cared about the integrity of the Faith as enshrined in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, was meant to “pacify” the “spirits” of those “attached” to it, something that the Antipope Emeritus explained on several different occasions:

Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith - ecumenism - is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light - this is inter-religious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love 'to the end' has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity - this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical 'Deus caritas est'.

"So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who 'has something against you' and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009.)

Fr Federico Lombardi, S.J., Director of the Holy See Press Office: What do you say to those who, in France, fear that the "Motu proprio' Summorum Pontificum signals a step backwards from the great insights of the Second Vatican Council? How can you reassure them?

Benedict XVI: Their fear is unfounded, for this "Motu Proprio' is merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar with it and want to live with this liturgy. They form a small group, because this presupposes a schooling in Latin, a training in a certain culture. Yet for these people, to have the love and tolerance to let them live with this liturgy seems to me a normal requirement of the faith and pastoral concern of any Bishop of our Church. There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and this liturgy.

On each day [of the Council], the Council Fathers celebrated Mass in accordance with the ancient rite and, at the same time, they conceived of a natural development for the liturgy within the whole of this century, for the liturgy is a living reality that develops but, in its development, retains its identity. Thus, there are certainly different accents, but nevertheless [there remains] a fundamental identity that excludes a contradiction, an opposition between the renewed liturgy and the previous liturgy. In any case, I believe that there is an opportunity for the enrichment of both parties. On the one hand the friends of the old liturgy can and must know the new saints, the new prefaces of the liturgy, etc.... On the other, the new liturgy places greater emphasis on common participation, but it is not merely an assembly of a certain community, but rather always an act of the universal Church in communion with all believers of all times, and an act of worship. In this sense, it seems to me that there is a mutual enrichment, and it is clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our time. (Interview of the Holy Father during the flight to France, September 12, 2008.)

Liturgical worship is the supreme expression of priestly and episcopal life, just as it is of catechetical teaching. Your duty to sanctify the faithful people, dear Brothers, is indispensable for the growth of the Church. In the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum”, I was led to set out the conditions in which this duty is to be exercised, with regard to the possibility of using the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962) in addition to that of Pope Paul VI (1970). Some fruits of these new arrangements have already been seen, and I hope that, thanks be to God, the necessary pacification of spirits is already taking placeI am aware of your difficulties, but I do not doubt that, within a reasonable time, you can find solutions satisfactory for all, lest the seamless tunic of Christ be further torn. Everyone has a place in the Church. Every person, without exception, should be able to feel at home, and never rejected. God, who loves all men and women and wishes none to be lost, entrusts us with this mission by appointing us shepherds of his sheep. We can only thank him for the honour and the trust that he has placed in us. Let us therefore strive always to be servants of unity! (Meeting with the French Bishops in the Hemicycle Sainte-Bernadette, Lourdes, 14 September 2008.)

Ratzinger/Benedict’s supposed magnanimity to traditionally-minded Catholics attached to the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the mistaken belief that it is the Catholic Church and the conciliar entity has true sacramental rites, true bishops, true priests and continues to have true popes was based on sentiment towards those who have a “nostalgic” or “aesthetic” attachment to an “older” liturgy, not upon a desire to protect the inviolable integrity of the doctrines of the Holy Faith. Summorum Pontificum was bound to weaken over time as it was founded upon false premises that were not clear in the ever opaque, obscurantist, Hegelian mind of Antipope Benedict XVI.  Ratzinger/Benedict repeatedly contradicted himself in the explanatory letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum in 2007 and then in the explanatory letter he issued in early 2009 to explain why he lifted the ban of excommunication that his predecessor, Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, had imposed upon Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alonso de Galaretta in 1988 after they had been consecrated without a “papal” mandate by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who remains “excommunicated” thirty years after his death on March 25, 1991.

No, nothing is ever stable or secure within the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Well, I qualify that last statement: Nothing is ever stable or secure within the counterfeit church of conciliarism except for the revolutionary hatred of the true Catholic Faith and of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was offered by countless numbers of saints and helped to fortify the witness of most of the saints that Holy Mother Church has raised to her altars for public veneration and esteem.  

A Few Concluding Observations

By way of conclusion, therefore, it should be noted that the remaining numbers of Catholics who bother to attend Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical travesty are aware that the doctrinal and liturgical revolutionaries of conciliarism who planned a synthetic liturgy intended to destroy the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church to appeal to Protestants so as to make what presented itself, albeit falsely, as Catholicism, "less threatening" to them.

 How do we know this to be so?

They told us, that is how:

We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants." (Annibale Bugnini, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.)

Let it be candidly said: the Roman Rite which we have known hitherto no longer exists. It is destroyed. (Father Joseph Gelineau, an associate of Annibale Bugnini on the Consilium, 1uoted and footnoted in the work of a John Mole, who believed that the Mass of the Roman Rite had been "truncated," not destroyed. Assault on the Roman Rite)

Douglas Horton, a Protestant observer at the "Second" Vatican Council who wrote a four-volume diary of that council's sessions, explained his hope for a Catholic liturgy that was able to speak to the times, a goal that has worked so well in "mainstream" Protestant sects that most of them on the verge of absolute extinction, something that is practically the case with the false religion of conciliarism in once proudly Catholic Europe. Here is an excerpt from Mr. Horton's diaries:

Some of the fathers are grandly radical. "Reformation is not only desirable but necessary." Today's mind is not that of the sixteenth century, and therefore a liturgy to reach the people with the unchanging truth of Christ should not be exactly like that of the sixteenth century." Uniformity when not needed contradicts the the very nature of the church." We have pomp and ceremony: we should take out the pomp--and the ceremonies should be made made understandable." "Better say one word in a known language than a thousand words in an unknown one--a sentiment which suggested that the council should be at least as radical as St. Paul. . . .

It has just come over me that the most striking and memorable rite of all to be seen here in St. Peter's would be the celebration of the Lord's Supper as we know it in our local village church in New Hampshire, and as it is well known in hundreds of thousands of Protestant communities where Puritan simplicity is the norm. Imagine, at the head of the nave in the mighty cathedral, a table such as might be found in any home in the neighborhood, a minister inviting to it the entire Christian community gathered at the church, the same and bread and cup being used (whether wine or grape juice) as are used in everyday life, the words of the service being in the mother tongue of the worshipers, the living Christ present, his Spirit pervading all--this, in my mind, would be an exciting event for the old basilica. (But I should add that I expect to wait a few generations before the sons of Rome agree with me.) (Douglas Horton, Vatican Diary: 1962: A Protestant Observes the First Session of Vatican Council II, pp: 45; 118.) 

Mr. Horton did not have to wait generations for his "dream" to come true. His dream was shared by the man who became the conciliar "pontiff" on June 21,1963, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI:

"[T]he intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should coincide with the Protestant liturgy.... [T]here was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense, in the Mass, and I, repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass" (Dec. 19, 1993), Apropos, #17, pp. 8f; quoted in Christian Order, October, 1994. (Jean Guitton, a close friend of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI. The quotation and citations are found in Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, The Remnant Publishing Company, 2002, p. 317.) 

Behold the wreckage of Mr. Horton's "dream," which has become a nightmare that was unimaginable sixty-two and one-half years ago upon the death of Pope Pius XII.

The Novus Ordo has bred disbelief in the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament and has countenanced disrespect and familiarity with what purports to be His Eucharistic Species as part and parcel of its very perverse nature.

Contempt for the sacrificial nature of the priesthood and the Mass has been bred by having the celebrant, whether validly ordained or not, of the Novus Ordo service face the people, a novelty that was introduced by Protestantism and made its appearance in any number of "Mass of the Future" celebrations that took place here and there prior to the altars being turned around in the 1960s as the focus of Catholics was no longer on the priest as an alter Christus but as a "presider" who gawked at them as they gawked at him and noted his own "individual" style of "presiding" during the "liturgy."

Contempt for the distinctive nature of the ordained priest as a sacerdos, not the "presider" of a service, has been bred by the removal of the altar rail in most conciliar-occupied Catholic churches, thereby obliterating the distinction between the sacerdotal nature of the ordained priest and the common priesthood of the faithful that each Catholic has by virtue of his Baptism.

The removal of the altar rail has also obliterated the distinction between time and eternity that is supposed to be represented, respectively, by the nave of a Catholic church and the sanctuary. Holy Mass, although at a particular time and in a particular place by a particular priest, is the unbloody re-presentation of the one Sacrifice of the Son to the Father in Spirit and in Truth on the wood of the Holy Cross. It is at one and the same time Calvary and a foretaste of the eternal glories of Heaven. The very architecture of a Catholic church is supposed to signify this distinction. The removal of the altar rail--and the introduction of the time-bound vernacular languages, which are subject to change and ideological manipulation--have combined to make of what purports to be the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass a culture-conditioned "celebration" that celebrates the here-and-now, not the transcendent mystery of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

The invasion of the sanctuary by lay people to fulfill all manner of roles has further obliterated the distinction between the sacerdotal priesthood of the ordained priest and the common priesthood of the faithful by which we, by means of our prayers and sacrifices and sufferings and mortifications and penances, help to sanctify our own daily life and the world by uniting our prayers and offerings to those of the alter Christus in the Mass. The priest has thus been reduced to a mere (and apparent) "sacramental machine" who is to sit during most the "Mass" as the lay people read and sing and serve at the altar.

Disbelief in the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Eucharist has been bred by mandating, at least in most instances in most places around the conciliar world, that the faithful stand for the reception of what purports to be Holy Communion, signaling that they are but the equal of the One they believe they are receiving in "Holy Communion."

This disbelief in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist has been hastened further by the "permission" granted by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI in 1977 for the reception of what purports to be "Holy Communion" in the hand, thereby making it appear once again as though we are not dumb sheep who need to be fed on the tongue by our shepherds, that we are capable of "feeding ourselves" with our unconsecrated hands.

The proliferation of "Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist" (otherwise known as "Eucharistic Ministers") has added to the confusion of roles between the laity and the putative clergy while it has led to numerous, repeated instances of allegedly consecrated "hosts" falling to the ground and spillage of what purports to be the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer onto clothing and the floor. The of one parish wrote in his bulletin many years ago now that what he believed to consecrated hosts were the “Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity of Jesus Christ” after he had been informed that his parishioners were finding presumably consecrated hosts on the windshields of cars in the parking lot as well as in the pews of the church in question. The pastor in question was understandably concerned about what would have been sacrileges if the hosts had been consecrated, although I should note that there are some instances in some conciliar settings where there is a co-mingling of ciboria containing consecrated and unconsecrated hosts if a true priest is either in residence at a parish or offers the “Extraordinary Form” (aka the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition) and deposits hosts from his true offering of Holy Mass into a ciborium that is placed into the tabernacle. What a mess.

Little needs to be mentioned concerning the decorum of many of the faithful, the immodesty of attire, the endless talking in church before, during and after the "service," the banal and sometimes most offensive "music" that enshrines the false spirit of the world and reaffirms the faithful in their essential "goodness" (which coincides with the General Instruction to the Roman Missal's contention in Paragraph 15 that "outward signs of penance belong to another age in the history of the Church"), and the disgraceful conduct of many of the "presiders" during Novus Ordo services.

Alas, it would be useful to note once again that of all of the egregious elements of the "liturgical reform" effected by the "Second" Vatican Council and its aftermath, the elimination of the universal language of the Church, Latin, has resulted not in a "greater understanding" of the Mass, as was expected by the fathers of the "council," but in a contempt for the Mass and a loss of the sacred, the mysterious and the transcendent. Latin expresses the universality and immutability of the Faith, lifting our spirits above the time bound constraints of the moment to God, Who lives outside of time and space. The incredible arrogance of "modern man," which asserted that Latin made the Mass "inaccessible" to the people, helped to create a false "memory" of the past that sought to wipe out the truth that hundreds of millions of illiterate peasants over the centuries knew the Mass very well, being immersed in its glories from the time that they were in their mothers' wombs. One can behold the rotten fruit of such arrogance in a local conciliar parish, where very few people even care to genuflect as they dress immodestly and congregate to speak loudly right in front of where the Blessed Sacrament is supposed to be reposed, no less in such spectacles that have taken place at the theatrical farces represented by the outdoor "liturgies" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

A true offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass can ever disturb our peace.

A true offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is, of course, the unbloody re-presentation of God the Son's Sacrifice of Himself to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Father on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins. T

he Twenty-second Session of the Council of Trent made this abundantly clear with the following pronouncement on September 17, 1562, four hundred years, twenty-four days before the opening of the "Second" Vatican Council by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII:

CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. (Session Twenty-Two, Chapter IX, Canon VII, Council of Trent, September 17, 1562, CT022.) 

The path to Heaven can be trod only by those who are willing to bear the Cross and to lift it high in their daily lives. considering it our privilege to bear witness to the truth of the state of the Church Militant in this time of papal vacancy and, if possible where one lives, to hear the Immemorial Mass of Tradition offered at the hands of true bishops and priests who reject conciliarism, seeking only to live in such a way that we will be ready at all times to die in a state of Sanctifying Grace as a member of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

On the Feast of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem

Although the time for first vespers for the Feast of Saint Joseph has begun, it is still Monday, March 18, 2019, and it is thus appropriate, I believe, to include the lesson about the life of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem contained in Matins for the Divine Office teach us about our saint’s unswerving fealty to the doctrine of the Catholic Church and his profound hatred of heresy, error and all sin:

Cyril of Jerusalem was given to the study of the Holy Scriptures from a child, and so learnt therein that he became an eminent champion of the orthodox faith. He embraced the monastic institute in perpetual continency, and all hardship of living. He was ordained Priest by holy Maximus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, and undertook with eminent success the task of preaching the word of God to the faithful and of instructing the catechumens. Thus did he compose those truly wonderful Catecheses, wherein he has embraced, clearly and fully, all the teaching of the Church, and stoutly defended every one of her doctrines against the enemies of the faith. His treatment of these subjects was such that he has overthrown therein, not only the heresies which had then come into being, but, by a kind of foreknowledge, even those which were to arise in later times. Of this an instance is his contention for the real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the wondrous Sacrament of the Eucharist. After the death of holy Maximus, the bishops of the province chose Cyril in his place.

to endure many wrongs and sufferings at the hands of the Arian sect. The Arians could not bear that Cyril should steadfastly withstand their heresy. They assailed him with calumnies, deposed him in a pretended council, and drove him out of his see. To escape their rage he fled to Tarsus in Cilicia, and as long as Constantius lived he bore the hardships of exile. After his death and the accession to the imperial throne of the Apostate Julian, Cyril was able to return to Jerusalem, where he set himself with burning zeal to deliver his flock from false doctrine and from sin. He was driven into exile a second time under the Emperor Valens. But when peace was restored to the Church by Theodosius the Great, and the cruelty and insolence of the Arians were restrained, Cyril was received with honour by the Emperor as one of Christ's most eminent soldiers, and was restored to his see. With what earnestness and holiness he fulfilled the duties of his exalted office was made manifest by the flourishing state of the church of Jerusalem at that time, of which a picture hath been left for us by holy Basil, who dwelt there for a while when he went to worship at the holy places.

Tradition hath handed down that God Himself crowned with signs from heaven the holiness of this venerable Patriarch. Among these signs is numbered an apparition of a cross, more resplendent than the beams of the sun, which appeared at the beginning of his Patriarchate. Not only Cyril himself, but heathens and Christians alike were eye-witnesses of this marvel, and Cyril first gave thanks to God therefore in the church, and then sent news thereof by letter to the Emperor Constantius. A thing no less wonderful came to pass when the Jews were commanded by the profane Emperor Julian to attempt the restoration of the temple which had been destroyed by Titus. A great earthquake arose, and great masses of fire broke forth from the earth and consumed all the works, so that the Jews and Julian were dismayed and stayed their hand, all the which it can be proved that Cyril had foretold. A little while before his death he was present at the second Council of Constantinople; herein was condemned the heresy of Macedonius, and once more the Arian heresy. After his return to Jerusalem he died a holy death in the 69th year of his age and the 35th of his episcopate. The Supreme Pontiff Leo XIII. commanded that his office and Mass should be celebrated throughout the universal Church. (Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of St. Cyril of Jerusalem.)

Heresy and error never just “go away.” They must be fought by Catholics, who are soldiers in the Army of Christ by virtue of the Sacrament of Confirmation. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem understood this, which is why he fought vigorously against heresy and error and to provide catechumens with proper instructions in the Holy Faith so that they could withstand the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil to stain their baptismal gown and thus to be more prone to embrace heresy and error.

The Abbot of Solesmes’s prayer to our saint, bishop and doctor will give us encouragement in a bloodthirsty world shaped by a rejection of the very true Faith that Saint Cyril fought so hard to defend and to propagate:

Thou wert a true child of the light, O Cyril. Thou didst give thy heart to Holy Wisdom, while yet a child, and she set thee up as a lighthouse at the entrance of the harbour to be the guide of unfortunate souls tossing on the sea of error. The Church confided to thee the mission of preparing for baptism those happy multitudes whom her recent victory had won for her from all ranks of society, and this mission was to be accomplished in a century rich in holy doctors and in the region consecrated by the mysteries of our redemption. Thou wast nourished by Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Mother of all mankind, and thy words flowed pure and abundant as water from a spring. History tells us that the many duties of thy holy ministry would not permit thee to devote thyself exclusively to the Catechumens, and thus thou wert led to improvise those admirable instructions wherein the science of salvation was the knowledge of God and of His Son Jesus Christ, contained in the creed of the Holy Church. Preparation for baptism, for life, for the love of God, was the acquisition of this knowledge, so deep, so far-reaching and so necessary. It was to be acquired, not by the impression of vain sentimentality, but the reception of the word of God in the right spirit, and by constant meditation, so that the souls comes to be firmly established in the fullness of truth, in moral rectitude, and in hatred of evil.

Thou wast sure of thy hearers and didst not fear to unveil before their eyes the arguments and abominable devices of their secret enemies. There are times and circumstances, only to be judged by the shepherds of the flock, when it is necessary to disregard the revulsion of feeling caused by such revelations in order to denounce the danger and warn the sheep against intellectual or moral scandals. Thus, O Cyril, thy invectives pursued Manicheism to its utmost secret haunts. Thou didst see in this heresy the principal agent of that mystery of iniquity which pursues its path of darkness and destruction throughout the ages, until it shall bring the world to decay. In these times the Manichee triumphs openly. The societies founded by him have gained power. The secret of the Lodges still hides from the uninitiated the sacrilegious symbols and dogmas brought once from Persia, but the prince of this world has cleverly united all social forces in the hands of this ally. The first use he makes of his power is attack the Church out of hatred for Christ. He assails her fruitfulness by denying her right to reach what she has received from her divine Head. The children, whom she has brought forth and who are hers in virtue of their baptism, are snatched from her by main force, and she is forbidden to preside over their education. Thou didst understand so well the claims of the sacrament of regeneration. Protect the baptism of so many innocent souls in which men seek to stifle the germ. Strengthen and rekindle the faith of Christian parents and even then that if it is their duty to defend their children from death at the risk of their own bodies, they must remember that the souls of these little ones are still more precious. It has greatly consoled us to see how many have understood this and, faithful to the dictates of their conscience, have suffered violence rather than yield to the regulations of a pagan state. Bless also, strengthen and multiply those faithful souls who devote themselves to the instruction of poor children whose spiritual interests are betrayed by the secular power. There is no mission to-day more urgent than that of catechists, and none, surely, dearer to thy heart.

Holy Church has just related to us the apparition of the holy Cross, which marked the beginning of thy episcopate, and similar marvels have been witnessed in our own time. But the apparition in thy day announced a triumph—the triumph thou didst foresee when St. Helena discovered the three of our redemption, the triumph which, at the time of thy death, had been confirmed by the fulfilled of the prophecies concerning the Jewish Temple. Can it be that our times are to witness only defeat and ruin? We have confidence in thy aid, O holy Pontiff. We remember that the triumph which thou didst witness was brought by the sufferings of the whole Church, in which thou thyself didst share by thy thrice-repeated deposition and twenty years of exile. The Cross, whose great anniversary is not approaching, is not conquered, but triumphs in the sufferings of the faithful and their patient endurance. It will appear once more, a sign of eternal victory, over the ruins of the world on the Day of Judgment. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Volume V, Lent, pp. 419-420.)

It is the Faith that matters, the entire Faith without any compromises, now and for all eternity.

Aren't we willing to suffer some more for the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our state in life permits?

Relying upon the help of Our Lady, Saint Joseph, and Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, may we always lift high the standard of the Holy Cross in our own lives so that our soul will be in ruins when the day of the Particular Judgment comes for us. 

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us! 

Saint Joseph, pray for us. 

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us. 

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us. 

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us. 

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us. 

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us. 

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, pray for us.

Appendix A

A Summary of Some of the Principal Problems with the Novus Ordo service

Permit me to provide you yet again with a summary of some of the principal defects found in the Protestant and Novus Ordo service. This will be followed by a longer explication that is taken from Chapter Two of G.I.R.M. Warfare. Perhaps this will be of help to some of those who read this site and for the friends of those who read this site.

First, the Novus Ordo service is the synthetic product of an unprecedented exercise in liturgical manufacturing that was designed to enshrine false ecumenism. The Immemorial Mass of Tradition was not invented by a committee, no less one that was headed by a man, Father Annibale Bugnini, C.M., the Secretary of the Committee, which was called the Consilium, that planned the "new Mass." Bugnini was suspected of being a Freemason and advised by six liberal Protestant observers (who made their "observations" in coffee breaks so that those comments could be read into the record by Consilium's bishop-members). The Immemorial Mass of Tradition was taught in all of its essential elements by Our Lord to the Apostles before He Ascended to the Father's right hand in glory on Ascension Thursday. 

Father Adrian Fortescue explained in the early part of the Twentieth Century that the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, which was not "written" by the Council of Trent as some conciliar apologists continued to assert falsely, is the oldest of the liturgical rites in the Roman Catholic Church:

Essentially, the Missal of Pius V is the Gregorian Sacramentary; that again is formed from the Gelasian book, which depends upon the Leonine collection. We find prayers of our Canon in the treatise de Sacramentis and allusions to it in the [Fourth] Century. So the Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest Liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that Liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world, and thought he could stamp out the Faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as God. The final result of our enquiry is that, in spite of some unresolved problems, in spite of later changes there is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours. (Michael Davies, ed., The Wisdom of Adrian Fortescue

Second, as the offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is indeed the unbloody re-presentation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Redemptive Act on the wood of the Holy Cross and is at the same time a foretaste of Heavenly glories, its rubrics are meant to reflect the immutability of God and not the passing currents of any individual age. A true and valid offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, although it takes place at a particular time in a particular place, is meant to reflect the timelessness of eternity and the unchanging nature of God as it reflects the differences between the hierarchical priesthood of the ordained priest and the common priesthood of the lay faithful by means of their baptism in various ways, including the separation of the sanctuary from the nave of a Catholic Church by an altar rail.

Third, abject lies were told by Bugnini and company about where the various constituent elements of the Novus Ordo originated. Far from being the "recapturing" of some allegedly simpler liturgy in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, a claim that was itself an exercise in the antiquarianism condemned by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947, the Novus Ordo service borrowed heavily from the now defunct Gallican Rite, from various Oriental Rites, from various strains of Protestantism, and even from the "table prayers" of Talmudic Judaism, which were inserted at the personal behest of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI and replaced the traditional Offertory of the Mass that clearly denotes the sacrificial nature of Mass, something that is not reflected clearly in the Novus Ordo service.

Fourth, while ignoring all of the mistranslations of the Latin editio typica of the Novus Ordo service into vernacular languages, the editio typica itself contains a less full expression of the Catholic Faith than is found in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. References to the miracles of various saints have been changed, if not eliminated altogether. Various parts of the Ordinary of the Mass, including the Confiteor, have been watered down. All references to a God Who judges, to the possibility of the loss of one's immortal soul for all eternity, and to the need of doing penance for one's sins have been changed or eradicated (see Paragraph 15 of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal and my analysis of same as found in G.I.R.M. Warfare that I have repeated on this site numerous times, including in Blind to Truth, Blind to the Horror of Personal Sin (see Appendix B).

Fifth, the "Eucharistic Prayers" that have been added since 1969--and the changes made to the Roman Canon itself--do not make clear the sacrificial nature of the Mass. Others, who are much more learned than I am, have provided solid evidence concerning the invalidity of these "Eucharistic Prayers." (See Invalidity of the Novus Ordo MissaeMatter and Form of the Sacrament of the Holy EucharistArticle on the Eucharistic Form of Consecration.)

Sixth, the General Instruction to the Roman Missal requires the novelty of laity in the sanctuary during what purports to be a valid offering of Holy Mass. Young boys and adult males are permitted by the special permission of the Church to enter the sanctuary as altar servers in the Mass, serving as the extension of the hands of the priest, who is a male. No other personage, male or female, is permitted in the sanctuary. This is not so in the Novus Ordo service, where the priest sits at almost every Mass as a proliferation of laity "participates" in reading and singing. This blurs the distinction between the sacerdotal, hierarchical priesthood of the ordained priest and the common priesthood of the lay faithful. This is yet another fact about the Novus Ordo service that obliterates the sacrosanct nature of the sanctuary during Mass, thereby eliminating the sense of the timelessness of the unbloody re-presentation of the Son's one Sacrifice to the Father in Spirit and in Truth on the wood of the Holy Cross.

Seventh, the hands of the non-ordained are permitted to distribute what purports, albeit falsely, to be Holy Communion at a putative offering of Holy Mass. This has taught Catholics that they can touch what they believe to be the Sacred Species by with their own hands and that they can have arrogated unto themselves certain of the functions reserved solely to validly ordained priests.

Eighth, the distribution of what purports to be Holy Communion in the hand, which has been sanctioned officially since 1977 (after years of this sacrilege being permitted at the parish and diocesan levels without Roman approbation), has made sacrilege an accepted part of almost every staging of the Novus Ordo service in the world. The hands of the non-ordained must never touch, no less distribute, the Sacred Species. The number of allegedly consecrated Hosts dropped (or placed into pockets or purses or books, some of which have been used in purported black Masses) and the amount of what is said to be Most Precious Blood of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that has been spilled is known only to God, Who is deeply offended by the callous manner in which Catholics have been taught to receive what they believe is His Real Presence in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. (See Michael Davies on Communion in the hand and my own Missing the Real Culprit Once Again, which was written about three hundred seventy-nine days before the first article on this site was published that explore the possibility of the truth of the canonical doctrine of sedevacantism and that it may apply in our own days).

Ninth, the General Instruction to the Roman Missal's penchant for endless options in the offering of the Novus Ordo service make any discussion of a a fixed rite laughable and absurd. A liturgical rite must convey the permanence and immutability of God and the permanence and immutability of man's need for Him as He has revealed Himself solely through His true Church, the Catholic Church. A liturgical rite that admits of ceaseless changes and endless options, some undertaken in the name of the ideology of "inculturation" of the Gospel, produces instability in the souls of the faithful, leading them to believe that God and His truths are mutable. Paragraph 395 of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal makes it almost impossible to distinguish "approved" liturgical experimentations from "unapproved" improvisations.

Tenth, the 1997 edition of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal's support for the "free-standing" altar and for Mass facing the people continues to undermine the Christocentricity of the Mass and the fact a priest's personality and celebratory "style" are utterly unimportant in the context of offering Holy Mass. A priest is an alter Christus who acts in persona Christi. Our focus is on a priest's actions as Christ, the Chief Priest and Victim of every Mass, not on his own personality. No liturgical rite of the Catholic Church featured this harmful Protestant novelty prior to the 1960s.

Eleventh, the calendar of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo service, completing the revolution that began in 1951, offends God by eliminating the feasts of a great number of saints, some of whose sacrifices in defense of the Faith have been disparaged as never having taken place! The number of Octaves, which served to extend the celebrations of important feasts, were reduced from fifteen to three in 1956, and from three to two in the Novus Ordo calendar. The nomenclature used to describe the Sundays of the year was changed after nearly two millennia of usage. The words of Pope Saint Pius V, which warned against any changes to the Missal he propagated in 1570, have been ignored with impunity, resulting in a loss of the sense of the sacred, a loss of belief in the Real Presence, and a loss of devotion to the great saints of the first centuries of the Church. (See Pre-Vatican II Liturgical Changes: Road to the New MassThe Pius X and John XXIII Missals ComparedLiturgical Revolution.)

In short, as can be seen from this brief and far from exhaustive list of problems with the Novus Ordo service, this liturgical fabrication, which is itself an abuse against God and the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood, generates one abuse after another as the Faith is undermined at every turn. 

Take it from one who used to think that we could "fight" scenes such as the one above: such scenes are the logical, inexorable result of the very false foundations of the Novus Ordo service. No priest or presbyter who stages the Novus Ordo service can take refuge or comfort by saying, "Well, I don't do such things." There is no difference between offering God prayers that do not fully communicate the truths of the Catholic Faith--prayers that do not communicate fully the sacrificial nature of the Mass--and the scene above.

Appendix B

Material Concerning Paragraph Fifteen of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal

(As found in Blind to Truth, Blind to the Horror of Personal Sin)

This is all very reflective of the spirit of conciliarism that is reflected in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo service itself, which deemphasizes the horror of personal sin and thus our need as sinners for Holy Mother Church to impose upon us external penances to discipline our frequently disordered and unruly bodies and souls:

The same awareness of the present state of the world also influenced the use of texts from very ancient tradition. It seemed that this cherished treasure would not be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the style of language would be more in accord with the language of modern theology and would faithfully reflect the actual state of the Church's discipline. Thus there have been changes of some expressions bearing on the evaluation and use of the good things of the earth and of allusions to a particular form of outward penance belonging to another age in the history of the Church. (Paragraph Fifteen, General Instruction to the Roman Missal, 1997.)

Who says that forms of "outward penance" belong to "another age in the history of the Church? Revolutionaries, that's who. Revolutionaries whose hatred for the need to do personal penance for one's sins is indicative of their lack of appreciation for the horror of personal sin (see Having No Regard for the Horror of Sin and Just A Matter of Forgiveness?). Revolutionaries who, although they would be loath to see the analogy, are just as much in league with the adversary, who hates the Holy Cross and the fact that believing Catholics, despite their own sins and failings, embrace It and love It as they attempt to lift It high with joy and gratitude in their own daily lives, as the social revolutionaries who make no pretense at all of their open hatred for Christ the King and the very instrument upon which He redeemed sinful human beings.

Appendix C

A Matter of the Faith, Not of Any Kind of "Personal Preference"

(Adapted from G.I.R.M. Warfare)

The wreckage wrought by the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo service is truly mind-boggling.

A synthetic liturgy, which was the product of men who believed that a "new age of energy" had dawned upon man, continues to demonstrate its inherent degeneracy as time progresses. We have, as I have noted on so many occasions in the past, become a congregational church. Each parish has its own distinctive ways of "doing" liturgy. The Mass varies widely from priest to priest even in the same parish. Sadly, the Novus Ordo contains enough approved options within it to make it the plaything of a particular priest, who feels free to give himself a little bit of "variety" now and then by using the options available to him most arbitrarily. There is nothing of a permanent nature which is beyond the ability of national episcopal conferences, diocesan liturgical commissions, parish liturgy committees, or individual celebrants to tamper with as circumstances dictate. The result is impermanence and instability, the exact opposite of what a liturgical rite is supposed to produce.

Although many presbyters who have been installed (the conciliar rites of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination are as bogus as the Novus Ordo itself) since 1969 have come to appreciate the beauty and the permanence of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, some of these men have been coopted by the new order of things into professing publicly that the Mass of the Roman Rite, the Mass of our glorious, living liturgical tradition in the West, is merely a matter of preference, not an exercise of the worship of the Blessed Trinity which is inherently more perfect, more beautiful, more glorious, more befitting the dignity of God than the banality offered by the Novus Ordo. One such priest, who was known once (and not so long ago) for his stirring defense of the importance of the restoration of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition for exactly these reasons, has let the allure of a pastoral appointment and the careerism engendered thereby to lead him to state that the "same Lord" is present in both Masses, that a preference for the "old" is a personal matter which ought not to detract from the objective good found in the new Mass. This is all so reminiscent of what a fictional character once told a blackmail victim of his as to why it was so easy to stoop to the use of whatever means deemed necessary to achieve a particular end: "Once you lose integrity, the rest is easy." And the Novus Ordo makes it easy for men once known for their courage to lose their integrity and to try to use  positivism to convince others that what is a matter of objective truth is simply a matter of personal preference, which is nothing other than the method used by liberals to attempt to reduce all matters of worship and doctrine to the level of subject preference rather than objective truth.


The principal end of the Mass is the worship of the Blessed Trinity. The nature of God demands that we, His creatures, worship Him. However, the worship we are to offer the Father through the Son in Spirit and in Truth must befit His dignity as God. It must of its nature be an expression of beauty. We are creatures who have bodies and souls. Our bodies contain within them the senses which are affected by the environments in which we find ourselves. Even the smallest detail of the environment in which we find ourselves affects our senses, whether or not we realize it. Thus, a Catholic is called to recognize the fact that every aspect of his home life, for example, is to reflect beauty and order. We are to remind ourselves that we, although sinners who have marred the beauty of our sins by the stain of our sins, are meant to live for all eternity in the glory of beauty Himself, the very Beatific Vision of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If this is so in the right ordering of our domestic lives, how much more is it to be the case with respect to the Sacrifice of the Mass?

As a work of beauty, the Mass must reflect permanence and stability. The infinite perfection of God is of its very nature permanent and stable. As far as is possible, therefore, the Sacred Mysteries must convey the Infinity, Permanence, Transcendence, and Stability of the Blessed Trinity. This is why the various Eastern liturgies are rich in symbolism (melodious chant, icons, grails signifying the "holy of holies" beyond which the laity are not to pass). A solemn High Latin Mass conveys this symbolism different than do the Eastern liturgies. However, the glory of Gregorian chant, the waft of incense, the fixed, prescribed rituals (such as the thirty-three Signs of the Cross which are made by a priest during the celebration of Mass in the Traditional Latin Rite), the singing of the Asperges me, Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, Collect, Epistle, Gradual, Lesser Alleluia, Gospel, Offertory, Preface, Pater Noster, Communion, Postcommunion, and Ite, Missa est, and the dignity of the priest acting in persona Christi convey collectively a beauty and order reflective of the organic nature of its development over the first centuries of the Church. No human being could have created such beauty and order synthetically. Its development over time itself is expressive of how Catholics began to appreciate and understand the nature of the Mass and the beauty and reverence due God in His Infinity as God.

As I have noted in the past, there are those who have justified the Novus Ordo on the basis of an appeal to antiquarianism, the exaltation of what is alleged to have been the simpler rites of the first three centuries of the Church. As Monsignor Klaus Gamber pointed out in The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, the efforts of early Twentieth Century liturgists such as Pius Parsch to discover the "roots" of the liturgy were based on false assumptions and bad history. Indeed, as Pope Pius XII noted in Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947, said antiquarianism was really little else than an effort to project back onto the past a reality which never existed in order to justify "reforms" which were at odds with the whole history of authentic liturgical development and destructive of the ends of the Mass.

To the extent, however, that the rites were simpler in the first few centuries of the Church, there are two very simple explanations as to why this was so. First, the Church was underground in most of the world until the Edict of Milan was issued by Emperor Constantine in 313 A.D. Yes, there were churches and basilicas which had been erected prior to that time. However, given the fact that various Roman emperors engaged in periodic, episodic persecution of the first Catholics between 67 A.D. and 313 A.D., a good deal of the reason why the earlier rites were simpler in form and rubric was that the Mass was said "on the run" a good deal of the time. This is why priests celebrated Mass in their street clothing (a chasuble was garb worn by ordinary Roman citizens) so that they would not be suspected of "anti-state" activities while walking above ground-and so that they could escape readily if they had to flee the place where they were celebrating Mass. Interestingly, this vitiates one of the arguments made by supporters of women's ordination to the priesthood. The fact that women wore chasubles during Mass did not mean they were priestesses or deaconesses. Chasubles were simply street garments. Period. Thus, part of the reason the rites were simpler in the first few centuries than they later became is explained by the necessity of the times. When the period of persecutions ended with the Edict of Milan, Catholics came to realize over time the beauty which was due God. It was then that huge cathedrals and basilicas began to be built. It was then that the rites began the steady process of growing in their ornateness and beauty.

Second, as the late Dr. Adrian Fortesque noted so ably in his works, the Mass of the Roman Rite underwent few changes (principally effected by Pope Gregory the Great) from the fifth century forward. And the changes which did manifest themselves occurred slowly, organically, imperceptibly. Indeed, the Missale Romanum promulgated by Pope Saint Pius V in 1570 so perfectly reflected the grandeur of tradition that it was adopted universally in one diocese after another even though the Holy Father had permitted places which had rites of their own dating back more than 200 years to keep those rites. With several exceptions, including the Ambrosian Rite in Milan, Italy, and the Mozarabic Rite in Toledo, Spain, the Missale Romanum was embraced everywhere as a fitting expression of what had developed into a fixed rite over a thousand years before.

In addition to the splendor of the rites, the beauty which is owed God in the celebration of the Sacred Mysteries concerns the appearance of a church itself. The High Altar, positioned in the back of the sanctuary so that the priest is in conversation with God, is of utmost importance. The altar conveys the sacrificial nature of the Mass, in contradistinction with the use of a table (almost a requirement by many diocesan liturgical commissions today for the building of new churches and the wreckovation of older ones), which conveys a mere meal or banquet.

The steps leading to the altar convey the fact that we must make an effort to approach God, that we need His ineffable grace to climb the stages of spiritual perfection so as to offer our own lives right readily in a sacrificial manner in union with the Sacrifice offered in an unbloody manner at the hands of a priest. The Communion railing signifies several things, including the distinction between the priesthood of the ordained priest (which is different both in degree and in kind from that possessed by the lay faithful as a result of their baptism) and that we possess by virtue of our baptism. Thus, the communion rail also signifies that the holy of holies is reserved for those who are themselves consecrated to handle the Sacred Species as well as for those chosen to assist them during the unbloody representation of Calvary. The communion rail also signifies the distance which separates us in this vale of tears from eternity. Although we desire Heaven-and are given a foretaste of Heavenly glories in the celebration of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition (as well as in the Eastern Divine Liturgies), we are still in this vale of tears. There is a distance which separates us from eternity.

Additionally, the beauty befitting God in a Catholic church, which is meant to provide a fitting ambiance for the celebration of the Sacred Mysteries, requires that there be a Crucifix to orient us to the fact that there is no other path to Heaven than by embracing our own individual crosses on a daily basis. There must be images of the Sacred Heart, the font of Divine Mercy formed out of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. Statues of the Blessed Mother, who made possible our salvation by her perfect acceptance of the will of the Father at the Annunciation, must be visible to remind us that she stood so valiantly by the foot of the Cross. Representations of Saint Joseph, the head of the Holy Family and the Patron of the Universal Church, must be present, as well as statues of the individual patron saints of the church and/or diocese. We, the faithful, must not be positioned in the "round." As our participation in the Mass is principally interior (requiring an active effort on the part of the intellect and the will), our attention and reverence will be affected necessarily by our being positioned in direct view of the High Altar, which is the focus of our attention during Mass, and upon which is placed the tabernacle where the Eucharistic King awaits our worship before and after Mass.

The music, therefore, which is sung or played during the Mass must uplift our souls to God, not reflect the banality of this world. It is meant to reflect the beauty, solemnity, reverence, permanence, stability, honor, dignity, and glory that are due God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Though, as Pope Pius XII noted in Mediator Dei, new musical compositions are not to be excluded from the celebration of the Mass just because they are new, any composition which proposes itself to be played in Mass must of its nature reflect the elements noted above. What we have seen in the counterfeit church of conciliarism is the canonization of the profane to such an extent that the music played in stagings of the Novus Ordo service is meant to reflect the spirit of the world rather than to reflect the permanence and beauty and solemnity of the Sacred Mysteries. There is simply no substitute for Gregorian Chant in the Roman Rite. It is more than a little telling that the various Eastern rites have never permitted profane compositions to be included in their ancient chants. The destruction of order, reverence, nay, even belief in the Real Presence, in the Latin rite has been made all the more possible by the profane music introduced in the past fifty-two years.

Finally, and so very importantly, we must present souls to the Blessed Trinity which are as beautiful as they can be. Though we may have much to do to make reparation for our forgiven mortal sins and for our unforgiven venial sins (as well as for our general attachment to sin), we are to be minimally in a state of sanctifying grace in order to receive Holy Communion worthily. The inherent nature of the Mass does not depend upon the beauty of our souls. However, its efficacy in our own lives depends upon the extent to which we prepare to root out all that is ugly, selfish and thus displeasing to the Blessed Trinity. An important symbolic representation of this is the attire we choose to wear when hearing Holy Mass. An outward display is frequently a pretty good sign of an interior disposition (or lack thereof).

A second constituent element of the end of Adoration is solemnity. Calvary was no joke. It was not a gabfest. Our Blessed Mother did not say to Saint Mary Magdalene, "Hey, Mary! You look great today." The Mass does not need endless improvisation or adaptation. It is what it is. Our Lord embraced the will of the Father in His Agony in the Garden. He offered Himself up on the wood of the Cross to pay back in His own Sacred Humanity what was owed to Him in His Infinity as God, that which we could not pay back on our own with our finite bodies. Our Lord paid back to Himself the blood debt of our own sins. Our puny, finite little minds cannot possibly even begin to fathom the horror and the pain Our Lord experienced as He effected our redemption on the heights of Golgotha. Our Lord fulfilled the Father's will so that His Infinite Mercy could be extended to us sinful creatures, who do not merit that mercy but who are the beneficiaries of this gratuitous, unforced gift of gifts. There were silence and tears among the several faithful souls who stood by the wood of the Cross. They were not distracted by the flies and the heat and the noise of the crowd busily jeering Our Lord. Our comportment must be exactly that which was demonstrated by the Blessed Mother, Saint John the Evangelist, Saint Mary Magdalene, and the handful of others who were at the foot of the Cross on the first Good Friday.

Every aspect of the Mass demands solemnity, sobriety, reverence. The priest in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition did not come out to greet the people (quite a significant change in all liturgical tradition, both in the East and in the West). He came out to pray at the foot of the steps leading to the High Altar, preparing himself and the faithful gathered (if any) for the perfect prayer which is the Mass. He is in conversation with God. We unite our prayers with those of the priest. However, the focus of a priest in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is not the people. It is Christ, the King.

Although there are responses that the choir sings in a Solemn High Mass, the priest addresses us as a priest, not as an entertainer who has to add something of his personality or his own wordiness to "make" the Mass a more "complete" experience for us. The entirety of the Mass must convey solemnity, especially at that sublime moment when the priest utters the glorious words, Hoc est enim Corpus Meum. . . . Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aerteni testamenti: mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. The very solemn nature of the Roman Rite did this. No priest had to exaggerate the elevation in order to convey that which is lacking in the essence of the Mass (as some do in the Novus Ordo). No priest had to improvise words to emphasize that the words of consecration are indeed the most important part of the Mass (as some do quite idiosyncratically in the Novus Ordo). Every aspect of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition conveyed reverence and solemnity.

Solemnity is also conveyed in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition by the very positioning of the priest in conversation with God (or ad orientem, in the case of the actual, Eastward orientation of the High Altar of a particular church). As I have noted on other occasions, the first person to celebrate a "liturgy" facing the people was Martin Luther. Father Joseph Jungmann, who was a supporter of "liturgical reform" but was intellectually honest about some points despite the questionable nature of much of his other research, noted, "The claim that the altar of the early Church was always designed to celebrate facing the people, a claim made often and repeatedly, turns out to be nothing but a fairy tale." We do not need to look at the priest and he does not need to look at us. Both priest and people are called to focus their attention on God, not on each other. While a particular priest celebrating a particular Mass is important in that there would be no Mass celebrated at that time without his having been ordained to the sacerdotal priesthood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, his individual personality is unimportant, totally irrelevant. We need to focus on the work he is doing in persona Christi by virtue of the powers given him by God at the moment of his priestly ordination. The orientation of the priest toward the High Altar of Sacrifice is an important constituent element of the solemnity befitting the Adoration of the God the Father through the God the Son in Spirit and in Truth.

Permanence and Transcendence are two other constituent elements related to the end of Adoration found in the Mass. A rite is meant of its nature to be fixed, not ever changing. Rapid change bewilders the faithful. Constant, unremitting change (and the variations that exist within parishes, among parishes, and among priests/presbyters) leads people to conclude that doctrine itself must be subject to the sort of change and evolution evidenced in the liturgy. Everything is up for grabs, including the nature of God Himself. Nothing is fixed in the nature of things or in the Deposit of Faith Our Lord entrusted to the Church through the Apostles. That this is one of the chief goals of the liturgical revolutionaries is plain for all to see and is something that has been the fodder of much discussion over the past fifty-two years.

A liturgical rite is meant to reflect permanence. God is unchanging. Our need for Him is unchanging. His truths are unchanging. As the liturgy is meant to provide us with a sense of same sort of security we find in our earthly dwellings, our homes, as a foretaste of the security we will know in our Heavenly dwelling if we persist until our dying breaths in states of sanctifying grace, it is obviously the case that it should reflect the permanence and transcendence of God and of the nature of His revelation. The Immemorial Mass of Tradition conveys this sense of permanence by virtue of the fixed nature of the rites (the gestures, the stability of the liturgical calendar, the annual cycle of readings, the repetition of the readings of a Sunday Mass during the following week if no feast days or votive Masses are celebrated on a particular day). It also conveys the sense of permanence and transcendence by its use of Latin, a dead language.

As Dr. Adrian Fortesque pointed out in his works, Latin is by no means a necessity for the celebration of the Mass. The various Eastern rites are offered in different idioms. And Latin itself was once the language of the people. (Indeed, one of the ways to rebut the charge made so sloganistically by Protestants that Catholics desired to "hide" the Bible from the people prior to the Protestant Revolt is to point out that when Saint Jerome translated the Bible from the Hebrew and the Greek into the Latin Vulgate, he did so to make it accessible to the people. Latin was the language of the people at that time.) The fall of the Roman Empire in the West, however, led to Latin's falling into disuse as the vernacular of the people. This was an "accident" of history, admitting, obviously, that all things happen in the Providence of God. This "accident," however, wound up serving to convey the sense of permanence and transcendence which is so essential to the Adoration of the Blessed Trinity in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

As Latin is now a dead language, it is no longer subject to the sort of ideological manipulation and deconstructionism found in a living language. A dead language is what it is. Its words have a permanent meaning. This "accident" of history, which, of course, has occurred within the Divine Providence of God, has helped to convey the sense that God is permanent, His truths are permanent, our need for Him is permanent, and our worship of Him must reflect this permanence. Furthermore, Latin conveys the universality of the Faith. A dead language is beyond the ability of anyone, including a priest, to manipulate. Thus, the Mass of the Roman Rite is the same everywhere. It is the same in New York as it is Spain. It is the same in the United Kingdom as it is in Japan. It is the same in Nigeria as it is in Argentina. It is the same in its essence in 2010 as it was 1571. This furthers the sense of permanence as a constituent element of the end of Adoration.

Latin also conveys the sense of the Mysterium Tremendum.

Although it is possible to pray the Mass with a priest by the use of a good Missal (such as the Father Lasance Missal), even those who are fluent in ecclesiastical and scholastic Latin understand that Latin conveys of its nature a sense of mystery. The Mass after all contains within it the mysteries of salvation. We know intellectually what the Mass is and what takes place therein. However, not even the greatest theologian in the history of the Church understands fully how these mysteries take place. We accept them as having been given us by Our Lord through Holy Mother Church. We want to plumb their depths by means of assiduous prayer and study. No human being, however, can possibly claim to understand the mystery of God's love for His sinful creatures, no less His desire to reconcile us to Himself through the shedding of His own Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross. Latin conveys the sense of the tremendous mystery which is the Mass.

Again, it is not an incomprehensible language, as some defenders of the new order of things contend so arrogantly. Even illiterate peasants in the Middle Ages understood the Mass as a result of their being immersed into it week after week after week. Indeed, they had a better understood of the nature of the Mass (and of its ends) than do the lion's share of Catholics today, immersed as they have been in almost forty years of vernacular and banality. Nevertheless, Latin conveys the beauty and the glory and the honor and the permanence and the transcendence and the mystery associated with God and His Revelation.

To be sure, Latin is not an absolute guarantor of such qualities. The constituent prayers of the Mass must express the fullness of the Holy Faith, something which is not done in the Latin editio typica of the Novus Ordo. A simple comparison of the prayers found in the Missale Romanum promulgated by Pope Saint Pius V and the Novus Ordo of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI demonstrates that the expression of the faith has been changed quite radically. This is especially the case with feasts of the Blessed Mother. That those responsible the current synthetic liturgy felt free to tamper with the expression of the faith indicates that it is not simply Latin in se which is the guarantor of the permanence associated with the Adoration of God in the Mass. It is the use of Latin and the prayers which most fully express within themselves the Deposit of Faith which convey such permanence and universality. And, naturally, as Latin is the Mass of the Missale Romanum of Pope Saint Pius V, it does not need to be translated into a living language for its celebration by the priest, who thereby is simply an agent to whom has been entrusted our glorious liturgical tradition, to be celebrated in all of its beauty and splendor.


The second end of the Mass we need to examine is that of reparation. The Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice offered by a sacerdos, that is, one who is able to offer a sacrifice. By its perpetuation in an unbloody manner of the Sacrifice offered by God Son to His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal God the Father in Spirit and in Truth, each celebration of the Mass adds honor and glory to God and grace to the world. Satisfaction is thereby given to God for the sins of men. The fruits of this satisfaction may be applied to a specific soul presumed to be in the Church Suffering in Purgatory (which is one of the principal reasons for having Masses said for the dead).

Additionally, however, the faithful are to remind themselves that they have an opportunity in each Mass to make reparation for their own forgiven mortal sins, their unforgiven venial sins and their general attachment to sin. Almost all the prayers contained within the Immemorial Mass of Tradition reflect man's duty to do penance for his sins and to be aware of a God Who, though merciful, is also just. The prayers at the foot of the altar, the Confiteor, and the Kyrie do this in a very specific way at the beginning of Mass. Many of the Collects and Offertories and Secrets and Communions and Postcommunions also do this.

Consider, for example, the following, said by a priest as he ascends the steps to the High Altar following the prayers at the foot of the altar: 

Aufer a nobis, quaesumus Domine, iniquitates nostras: ut ad Sancta Sanctorum, puris mereamur mentibus introire. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen. "Take away from us our iniquities, we beseech Thee, O Lord; that, being made pure in heart we may be worthy to enter into the Holy of Holies. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen."

Consider also, the Collect for Septuagesima Sunday: 

Preces populi tui, quaesumus Domine, clementer exaudi: ut, qui juste pro pecatis nostris affligimur, pro tui nominis gloria misericorditer liberemur. Per Dominium. "Do Thou, we beseech Thee, O Lord, graciously hear the prayers of Thy people, that we, who are justly afflicted for our sins, may be mercifully delivered for the glory of Thy name. Through Our Lord." Also, Quinquagesima Sunday, which fell on February 10, 2002: Preces nostras, quaesumus, Domine clementer exaudi: atque a peccatorum vinculis absolutos, ab omni nos adversitate custodi. Per Dominum. "Of thy clemency harken unto our prayers, O Lord, loose us from the bonds of sin, and keep us from all adversity. Through Our Lord."

Consider also the prayers at the blessing of the ashes on Ash Wednesday: Oremus, Deus, qui non mortem, sed penitentiam desideas peccatorum: fragilitatem conditionis humanae benignissima respice; et hos cineres, quos causa proferendae humilitatis, atque promerandae veniae, capitibus nostris imponi decernimus, benedicere pro tua pietate, dignare: ut, qui cinerem esse, et ob pravitatis nostrae demeritum in pulverem reversuroscognoscimus; peccatorum omnium veniam, et praenia paenitentibus repromissa, misericorditer consequi meramur. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen." O God, Who desirest not the death of sinners, but their repentance, most graciously regard the frailty of human nature; and, of Thy loving-kindness, deign to bless these ashes, which we intend to put upon our heads to express our lowliness and win Thy pardon, that we, who know that we are but ashes and for the guilt of our fall shall return to dust, may be worthy to obtain, through Thy mercy, the forgiveness of all our sins and the rewards promised to the penitent. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen."

Finally, consider one of the Collects to be said in Votive Masses in honor of the Seven Dolors of Our Lady: 

Cordibus nostris, quaesumus, Domine, gratiam tuam beningus infude: ut peccata nostra catsitgatione voluntaria cohibentes, temporaliter, potius maceremur, quam supplicis deputemur aeternis. Per Dominum. "Of Thy goodness pour Thy grace into our hearts, we beseech Thee, O Lord, that, bridling our sinful appetites with voluntary discipline, we may suffer temporal mortifications rather than be condemned to eternal punishments. Through Our Lord."

There are no such expressions in the Novus Ordo whatsoever. It is an expression of a different faith, of, the belief that the force of the energy unleashed by "the general will" can effect a new spirit in man and thus in the Church.

These are clear expressions of the Reparation as one of the four ends of the Mass. And it is this spirit of reparation which is supposed to uppermost in our minds and our hearts as we hear Mass, mindful of our own need to make reparation for our own sins by cooperating with the graces we receive in Holy Communion, as well as the actual graces which flow out in the world as a result of the offering of each Holy Mass. As penitents who are aware of the debt we owe but cannot pay back on our own, we are supposed to be reminded by the very spirit of the Mass that we are to called to be co-redeemers of Our Lord by our patient and loving embrace of whatever crosses (physical, emotional, spiritual) we are asked to bear to make satisfaction for our own sins, to say nothing of offering the merits we earn for the Poor Souls in Purgatory and for the conversion to repentance and the true Faith of all erring, unrepentant sinners. Indeed, black was required as a liturgical color in Masses offered for the dead to remind us that physical death is a punishment for Original Sin. We are to grieve over what sin has done to the order of God's creation while at the same time we give thanks to Him for His ineffable mercy. The Mass, therefore, is supposed to remind us of the great mercy extended to us by God in permitting us to endure redemptive suffering for our own sake and for the sake of the salvation of the whole world.

As the unbloody perpetuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross, the Mass teaches us that there is no other path to an unending Easter Sunday of glory in Paradise than the Cross. That is why, you see, the replacement of the Crucifix in churches with representations of the "Resurrected Jesus" or of barren crosses coincide with an expression of the faith which no longer stresses a spirit of interior penance or of a need for external acts of penance. Souls which grow to love God with a fever pitch voluntarily take unto themselves whatever sufferings and humiliations which come their way without complaint, understanding that their sins deserve far worse than they are asked to bear in this vale of tears. None of us suffers as his sins deserve. Our Lord is infinitely merciful. He only permits us to bear what we have the capacity to bear by means of the graces He won for us on Calvary, and which are extended to us in each and every celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. One who loves God understands his need at all times to make reparation. Those who are totally consecrated to Our Lady give her, who is our Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate, all of their sufferings and merits to be used as she sees fit for the honor and glory of the Blessed Trinity and for the salvation of souls. What a tremendous trust in our Blessed Mother and a surrender of our attachment to our merits to give to the one who stood at the foot of the Cross as her Immaculate Heart was pierced with a sword of sorrow all of our merits gained by our acts of penance and mortification. Such a spirit can develop only when the Mass emphasizes our need for reparation, which is why its solemn and reverent celebration is so essential to the right ordering of individual souls.

The Confiteor found in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition expresses the desire on the part of both the priest and the faithful to express sorrow and contrition for sins:

Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, beatae Mariae semper virgini, beato Michaeli archangelo, beato Joanni Baptistate, anctis Apostolis Petro et Paulo, omnibus Sanctis et vobis fratres, quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo, et opere: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Ideo precor beatam Mariam semper virgenem, beatum Michaelem archangelum, beatum Joannem Baptistam, sanctos Apostolos Petrum et Pualm, omnes Sanctos, et vos fratres, orare pro me ad Dominum Deum nostrum. "I confess to almighty God, to blessed Mary ever virgin, to blessed Michael the archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy apostles Peter and Paul, to all the saints, and to you, brethren, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed; through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault. Therefore I beseech the blessed Mary ever virgin, blessed Michael the archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy apostles Peter and Paul, all the saints, and you, brethren, to pray to the Lord our God for me." It is no accident that the Confiteor found in the editio typica of the Novus Ordo has been much simplified. Although it does contain the triple mea culpa, there are no references to Saint Michael the Archangel or to Saint John the Baptist or to Saints Peter and Paul. There are reasons for this, and they relate to de-emphasizing the end of Reparation in the Mass.

The Confiteor found in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition has the priest and the server (praying for the people) confession sorrow for sins to almighty God and to the Blessed Mother, Saint Michael, Saint John the Baptist and to Saints Peter and Paul.


Well, the Blessed Mother was conceived immaculately without any stain of sin on her soul. Sin is what caused her to undergo her Seven Dolors. It grieves her now, which is why she has visited us sinful, ungrateful men on so many occasions in the past 470 years. 

Saint Michael is the one who won the victory over Lucifer when he rebelled against God in Heaven. 

Saint John the Baptist was freed from Original Sin at the Visitation when he leapt for joy in his mother's womb as he heard the voice of the Mother of the One Whose precursor he was meant to be pierce his ears. He lived a life of austere penance and mortification, calling sinners to a symbolic baptism of repentance to prepare the way for his Lord and Savior. 

Saints Peter and Paul were sinners. Saint Peter denied Our Lord three times. Saint Paul persecuted the infant Church, presiding over the stoning of Saint Stephen, the first Christian martyr. However, their fidelity to the spread of the Gospel brought them to Rome, the seat of the most powerful empire in the history of the world. They were willing to shed their blood for Our Lord, thereby planting the seeds for the growth of the Church which itself would be headquartered from thereon out in Rome. They were purified by their martyrdom, giving us an example of how we must be willing to die to all things, especially to the influence of sin in our lives, in order to be prepared to die a martyr's death on behalf of the Faith. We need their intercession to help us avoid sin and to embrace a spirit of mortification and penance in our daily lives. Thus, you see, there is no place for such expressions in a synthetic liturgy created by men who no longer believed that there was a need for penance and mortification, no less the invocation of those who lived sinless lives-or were purified of sin by means of their willingness to die for the Faith.

Alas, the most telling expression of the end of Reparation found in the Mass is in the words of the Consecration of the Chalice: 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 the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and everlasting testament, which for you and for many shall be shed unto the remission of sins." ". . . . Which for you and for many shall be shed unto the remission of sins." Although we cannot offer of ourselves the propitiatory sacrifice offered once by Our Lord to the Father on the wood of the Cross-and although we in the laity cannot do so by uttering the words of Consecration, we can and must nevertheless be inspired by the Mass and fortified by the graces received therein to make a sacrifice of our lives in reparation for our sins and those of the whole world. There is no other path to Heaven than by doing so, which is why it is so essential for the Mass to communicate its end of Reparation clearly and unequivocally.


The third end of the Mass to be discussed is that of Petition. Petitions are made for the forgiveness of sins, as well as to help us to cooperate with the graces we receive in the Mass. Many of the Collects and Offertories and Secrets and Communions and Postcommunions found in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition make very direct petition to God for our needs, especially as they relate to the salvation of our immortal souls. Indeed, the Offertory Prayers recited at the Offering of the Host and the Offering of the Chalice petition God in a most beautiful way that we might have the right disposition to enter deep into the sublime moment of the Consecration.

All of that being true, however, it is in the Roman Canon (and in the Prefaces) that we find the most perfect expression of this end of petition in the Mass.

The priests asks first of all the Father to bless "these gifts, these presents, these holy unspotted sacrifices, which we offer up to Thee, in the first place, for Thy holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to guard, unite, and guide her, throughout the world; as also for [there is, of course, no true pope at this time] our Bishop, and for all who are orthodox in belief and who profess the Catholic and apostolic faith."

You see, there is no need for the silly, inane, often ideologically laden "petitions" which are offered in the Novus Ordo during what is now called the General Intercessions. All of the petitions and needs of the Church and the world are contained in the very structure of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, especially as they are expressed in the Roman Canon.

The first part of the Roman Canon asks God to bless the gifts and sacrifices which are about to be offered up to Him, in the first place for the Church, the holy Catholic Church, as well as for the Sovereign Pontiff, the local Ordinary, and for those who "are orthodox in belief and who profess the Catholic and apostolic faith." Words count. Words matter. We do not ask God's blessing on heretics, apostates, schismatics, or dissenters. We ask for God's blessing on those who are true believers in the Deposit of Faith. The Roman Canon is not an exercise in religious indifferentism (can the same be said of the recently composed "Eucharistic Prayers"of the Novus Ordo?). This is a very important petition.

"Be mindful, O Lord, of Thy servants (here the priest and the faithful remember interiorly those in the Church Militant they desire to pray for; there will be more concern This is a beautiful summary of the true needs of others, starting first with the salvation of their immortal souls. None of us is guaranteed to persevere until the point of our dying breaths in states of sanctifying grace. No one is so guaranteed, including our closest friends and relatives. We must pray ceaselessly for our-and their-spiritual well-being, both now and at the hour of our deaths, which not even a terminally ill person knows. There is thus no need for people to pray out loud in church during Mass about this sick relative or that sick relative, thus descending into endless displays of narcissism and sometimes even false piety. The Canon expresses all our needs so perfectly. Isn't it a petition of our prayers to pray for all of the needs of the faithful?

"Having communion with and venerating the memory first, of the glorious Mary, ever a vigin, mother of Jesus Christ, our God and Our Lord: likewise of Thy blessed apostles and martyrs Peter and Paul, Andrew, James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Thaddeus; of Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian, and of all Thy saints; for the sake of whose merits and prayers do Thou grant that in all things we may be defended by the help of Thy Protection. Through the same Christ Our Lord. Amen."

Again, it is no accident that a priest or a presbyter in the Novus Ordo has the option of omitting almost all the saints listed in what is now called Eucharistic Prayer I (The Roman Canon). There is a need to "rush" through the Canon after what is usually an excessively long "Liturgy of the Word" (including the General Intercessions). If the Roman Canon is used at all, long lists of saints should be omitted. Their absolute inclusion in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, however, indicates that we are to be grateful to them for their fidelity, and to offer our petitions to them, who have gained the crown of eternal glory, for our protection and help by the grace of God. We need the help of the saints to become saints ourselves.

"Wherefore, we beseech Thee, O Lord, graciously to receive this oblation which we Thy servants, and with us Thy whole family, offer up to Thee: dispose our days in Thy peace; command that we be saved from eternal damnation and numbered among the flock of Thine elect. Through Christ Our Lord Amen."

Asking God to receive the oblation which is being offered up by the priest and the people (who unite their prayers with his by their interior participation in the Mass), the priest asks God to dispose our days in His peace, not the peace of this passing world, and to command that we be saved from eternal damnation in order to be numbered among the flock of His elect. We are not assured of our salvation. We must work out our salvation in fear and in trembling. We are reminded of this in no uncertain terms in this part of the Roman Canon, the Hanc Igitur.

Following the Consecration of the Host and the Chalice, thanks are given in the second part of the Canon as the priest asks God to look upon the gifts just offered "with a gracious and tranquil countenance." In the Supplices te rogamus the priest asks that God's holy angel will take the offerings to His altar on high, "that as many of us as shall receive the most sacred Body and Blood of Thy Son by partaking thereof from this altar may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace." After this point, though, the Canon petitions God directly for the needs of particular souls of the dead for whom he and the faithful pause to pray as well as for all of the souls of the faithful departed. Memento etiam Domine, famulorum famuliarumque tuarum (name of deceased) qui nos praecesserunt cum signo fidei, et dorminunt in somno pacis. Ipsis Domine, et omnibus in Christo quiestcentibus, locum refrigerii lcuis et pacis, ut indulgeas, deprecamur, per eumdem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen. "Be mindful also, O Lord, of Thy Servants (name of deceased), who have gone before us with the sign of peace and who sleep the sleep of peace. To these, O Lord, and to all who rest in Christ, grant, we beseech Thee, a place of refreshment, light, and peace. Through the same Christ Our Lord. Amen." No need for maudlin displays of sentimentality or pompous expressions of concern for the decease. Everything is included in the Canon.

The Nobis quoque peccatoribus continues with a petition that:

"To us sinners also, Thy servants, who put our trust in the multitude of Thy mercies, vouchsafe to grant some part and fellowship with Thy holy apostles and martyrs; with John, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, Ignatius, Alexander, Marcelinus, Peter, Felicitas, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia, and will all Thy saints. Into their company do Thou, we beseech Thee, admit us, not weighing our merits, but freely pardoning our offense: through Christ Our Lord."

Obviously, the Pater Noster itself is a prayer of petition offered by the Divine Redeemer Himself. However, the Immemorial Mass of Tradition does not contain the Protestant doxology which has found its way into the Novus Ordo. The prayer as uttered by Our Lord Himself is recited by the priest. Each of the individual petitions found in the Pater Noster has been the subject of extensive exegesis by sound theologians over the centuries (including entire chapters dedicated to the subject in the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

Each petition provides food for meditation, summarizing, if you will, the entirety of a Catholic's interior life of prayer. Although the prayer is recited by the priest, the faithful do not remain inert and inactive. They pray the prayer to themselves, meditating on our constant need for God's help, mindful, especially, of the fact that we who have been forgiven much are called to offer that forgiveness right readily. People who are about to partake of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man must understand that the Lord they receive in Holy Communion means to conform them to Himself in all aspects of their lives. This prayer of petition summarizes the Catholic Faith and the Mass itself.

The prayers said by the priest after the Pater Noster and the Agnus Dei are his own personal petitions for the needs of the Church and to prepare himself for the reception of Holy Communion. Once again, the faithful are called to read those prayers silently, understanding how succinctly the truths of the Mass are summarized just prior to the priest's completion of the sacrifice by his partaking of the Sacred Species. The Novus Ordo simplifies all of this, leading in most instances directly from the Agnus Dei to the priest's and to the faithful's reception of Holy Communion, thus de-emphasizing our need to petition God just prior to our encounter with our Eucharistic King.

While it is the ordained priest acting in persona Christi who perpetuates the Sacrifice of the Cross in and unbloody manner, the faithful do offer their petitions in union with those offered by the priest in the name of the entire Church. It is in this way that the laity exercise the common priesthood they have by virtue of their baptism. The common priesthood of the lay faithful is exercised in the context of Holy Mass by means of fervent, interior prayer of the heart, mind, and soul, which is offered up to the Father in Spirit and in Truth as they are sanctified by the worthy reception of Holy Communion and by the fruits which flow forth from the Mass. No member of the laity needs to have a "role" in order to feel "involved" in the Mass. The laity do not belong in the sanctuary as readers or extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist (the proliferation of which has resulted in what the revolutionaries desired: a blurring of the distinction of the priesthood of the ordained priest and the common priesthood each Catholic has by virtue of his baptism). They do not have to engage in elaborate processions bearing various gifts to the altar, where they are greeted invariably by a "presider" who tells them a little joke or two before sending them back to their pews. They do not have to be "ministers of hospitality" or "ministers of greeting." The mania for activity, a total rejection of the true concept of active participation found in Pope Pius XII's Mediator Dei, has resulted in the replacement of true interior participation with mindless activity and verbosity, all of which detract from the nature of the Mass, turning what purports, albeit falsely, to be the Sacred Mysteries into an anthropocentric, communitarian exercise of mutual self-congratulations.

The participation of the lay faithful in the end of Petition found in the Mass requires them to be recollect before Mass, to spend time in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, to pray some of the wonderful prayers found in the various Latin-English hand missals, many of which have been reprinted in recent years. True participation in the Mass requires us to follow the Mass carefully, meditating upon the beauty of the prayers, some of which have been cited in this commentary. The Mass is ever ancient, ever new. Its fixed nature conveys the inestimable treasures contained in all  its rites and prayers.

There is constant food for thought, no matter how many times we have celebrated a particular feast day or have heard a particular reading. And just as it is the case that honor and glory are added to God and grace is added to the world each time a priest celebrates Holy Mass, so is it also the case that our prayerful, interior participation in Mass (and the prayers we offer therein, as well as those we offer before and afterward) helps to build up the Mystical Body of Christ. Each ligament in the Mystical Body helps to support each other, as Saint Paul noted. None of us in the laity knows the efficacy of our prayers here in this vale of tears. But we are called to be faithful to our prayers, both the formulaic prayers found in the Mass and in Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary and our own mental prayer, the development of which is an important part of passing through the stages of spiritual perfection. It is the Mass which provides us the perfect framework to become more perfect lovers of the Blessed Trinity who are ever eager to serve Him in all aspects of our daily lives. Indeed, our very lives are meant to be offerings of praise and petition to God. That is why we are to be prepared for Holy Mass. For it is in the Mass that we are reminded day in and day out to conform everything about our very being to the standard of the Sacrifice of the Cross, which is re-presented before our very eyes in the greatest miracle we can ever behold in this mortal life.

As I noted throughout my own analysis of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal in G.I.R.M. Warfare, the Mass is complete and valid even when offered by a priest without a congregation, something which has been under attack by liturgical revolutionaries for some time now. No member of the laity needs to be present to make a Mass "valid." A priest celebrating Mass by himself without a congregation is praying in the name of the whole Church. And, as noted earlier, an entire company of witnesses is with him mystically as he offers Holy Mass. While it is good for the faithful to attend Mass during the week to receive the spiritual fortification, they need to do battle with the forces of the world, the flesh, and the Devil, the petitions offered by the priest for the entire Church, including the faithful, are all that are necessary for the good of Holy Mother Church. The rubrics and the prayers of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition convey this throughout.

The Eastern liturgies contain numerous, sometimes even repetitive, prayers of petition to the Blessed Trinity. As is the case with the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, the Eastern liturgies emphasize man's dependence upon God in all its prayers. However, "modern" man, who believes in his own essential goodness, wants to reduce expressions of petition found in the prayers of tradition and to replace them with ever-changing prayers of topicality, which are to be prayed aloud by people seeking narcissistically to be noticed in the context of the production called "the weekly liturgy." It is the Immemorial Mass of Tradition in the Latin Rite which orients man properly in his petitions to God, respecting the hierarchy Our Lord Himself established for the offering of those petitions.


The final end of the Mass is Thanksgiving. As each of us knows, the word "Eucharist" mean Thanksgiving. It is in the Mass where the priest and the laity (if any are assembled) give thanks to God for all He has given them, starting with the great gift of our Catholic Faith and all of the treasures contained therein. 

Quid retribuam Domino pro omnibus quae retribuit mihi? Calicem salutaris accipiam et nomen Domini invocabo. Laudans invocabo Dominum, et ab inimicis meis salvus ero. "What shall I render unto the Lord for all the things that He hath rendered unto me? I will take the chalice of salvation and call upon the name of the Lord. With high praises will I call upon the Lord, and I shall be saved from all mine enemies."

The rubrics and the prayers found in the Missale Romanum are found with expressions of gratitude. "Is there no one else to return thanks but this foreigner?" We, who are adopted sons and daughters of the living God by virtue of Our Lord's Redemptive Act, are called to be ever thankful to God, understanding that it is in the context of Holy Mass that we are to give such thanks as we are given the privilege of transcending time at the unbloody re-presentation of Calvary.

We are to give God thanks for everything. We thank Him for his many blessings to us, especially having the privilege of being fed by Holy Communion. We thank Him for the crosses and humiliations He sends us to make us more dependent upon Him and detached from our pride and selfish desires. We thank Him for the unmerited gift of His Divine Mercy, extended to us so freely in the baptismal font and in the confessional. We thank Him for not treating us as our sins deserve. We thank Him for the Deposit of Faith entrusted to Holy Mother Church. We even thank Him for living in these difficult times. We are to thank Him for living in these difficult times as He has known from all eternity that we would be living in them and that the graces won for us on Calvary are more than sufficient for us to deal with the difficulties we face. We thank Him for the gift of our families and friends. We thank Him for keeping us close to Him. For, as Saint Paul notes in his Epistle to the Romans, it is only God Who can prompt us to love Him more fully an to keep close to Him at every moment of our lives. And we thank Him for giving us our Blessed Mother to be our intercessor and true Heavenly mother, as well as for giving us all of the angels and saints who desire to assist us as we walk the rocky road that leads to the narrow gate of Life Himself.

Part of the way we express our Thanksgiving to God in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is in the very beauty of the sacred rites. The beauty of the rites and the care taken to appoint a particular church demonstrate not only our desire to adore God but also our desire to thank Him for enlightening our intellects and strengthening our wills by means of the true Faith. God is due honor and glory. He is also due ceaseless acts of Thanksgiving. Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro. Dignum et justum est. "Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. It is meet and just." Indeed, every single one of the sixteen prefaces found in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition begins with an expression of thanks: Vere dignum et justum est, aequem et saltuare, nos tibi semper, et ubique gratias agere: Domine sancte, Pater omnipotens, aeterne Deus. "It is truly meet and just, right and profitable, for us, at all times, and in all places to give thanks to Thee, O Lord, the holy One, the Father almighty, the everlasting God." (The Preface for Sundays, Missale Romanum).

As is the case with each of the ends of the Mass, the end of Thanksgiving is meant to flow out of the Mass. The beauty and solemnity of even a low Immemorial Mass of Tradition convey a sense of security and stability conducive to urging the faithful to stay after the conclusion of the Prayers after Low Mas added by Pope Leo XIII. As the Mass is a foretaste of Heaven, which is our true home, it is right and fitting that we should desire to stay after Mass for more than a token period of time to express our thanks for the sublime privilege of having been kept alive for one more day to hear Holy Mass one more time and to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion. None of us knows whether the Mass he has just attended will be his last. None of us knows when he is going to die. Each of us needs to pause in order to give thanks to the Father through the Son in Spirit and in Truth. And one of the fruits of the end of Thanksgiving found in the Mass is our desire to spend extended times in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament outside of Mass. Although I have written about Eucharistic piety extensively in these pages, suffice it to say that our love of the Mass should impel us to offer our own adoration and thanks to God before the Prisoner of the Tabernacle. Eucharistic piety is the key to developing a more intimate love of God and a greater appreciation of the mysteries contained within Holy Mass.

As Pope Pius XII noted in Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947:

"The fact that the sacred function, liturgically considered, has come to an end does not dispense him who has communicated from making his thanksgiving. On the contrary it is most seemly that after he has received Holy Communion and after the Mass is over he should collect his thoughts and, in close union with his Divine Master, pass such time as circumstances allow in devout and salutary converse with Him. It is therefore an error, due to paying more heed to the sound of words than to their meaning, to say that such thanksgiving out not to be prolonged after the ending of Mass, on the ground that the Mass itself is a thanksgiving, and also that it comes under the category of private devotions and is not directed to the benefit of the community.

"On the contrary, the very nature of the Sacrament require that Christians should become holier by receiving it. The congregation has been dismissed, it is true, but the individual members of it, united with Christ, ought to continue to sing in their souls a hymn of praise, 'giving thanks always for all to God and the Father in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.' The liturgy of the Mass itself recommends this, when it bids us recite the following prayer: 'Grant, we beseech Thee, that we may remain for ever in thanksgiving . . . and never cease from praising Thee.' And so, if at all times we must thank God and never cease from praising Him, who shall dare to find fault with the Church for urging her priests and the faithful to remain for some time after Communion in converse with the Divine Redeemer, and for having inserted in the liturgical books special indulgenced prayers for priests to recite in preparation for Mass and Communion and in thanksgiving afterwards?

"Far from discouraging the interior sentiments of individual Christians, the liturgy fosters and stimulates them in order to increase their likeness to Christ and through Him to guide them to the heavenly Father. And this is why it requires those who have communicated at the altar to render due thanks to God. The Divine Redeemer loves to listen to our entreaties, to speak with us familiarly, and to give us a refuge in His Heart which burns with love for us. (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.)

"Indeed, these acts of private devotion are quite necessary, if we are to receive in abundance the supernatural treasures in which the Eucharist is so rich, and to pour them out upon others according to our powers, in order that Christ Our Lord may reach the fullness of His power in the souls of all."

As the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is Christocentric of its nature, its very sense of reverence and beauty and splendor and mystery impel the faithful to say a while longer after Mass in a prayerful thanksgiving.

Can the same be said of the Novus Ordo service, wherein the cacophonous noise and activity and "simplicity," which appeal so much to those who have a limited span of attention and whose faith has been attenuated by the banality found in the context of a bogus liturgical service?

Are the faithful prone to make a good thanksgiving after their service in the Novus Ordo world? And is their tendency to bolt right out of the pew not related to the inherent invalidity and other flaws and inadequacies contained within the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo service.

Concluding Remarks

No right- thinking priest who has to do all of the work involved in the celebration of the Missale Romanum can contend that the Novus Ordo communicates the ends of the Mass as beautifully, splendidly, permanently, reverently, solemnly, and universally as the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. Indeed, no right-thinking priest who has celebrated the Immemorial Mass of Tradition cannot come to recognize over the course of time the inherent harm contained within the Novus Ordo precisely because of its being a synthetic product of revolutionaries bent on changing the expression of faith (which has resulted by and large in a destruction of the faith and a loss of belief in the Real Presence and of the sacerdotal and propitiatory nature of the Mass itself).

A mere matter of preference?

All one needs to do is to look at the heritage of the preceding 1500 years prior to the unprecedented changes wrought by the Novus Ordo to see the fruit produced in souls by the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. Indeed, it was the Immemorial Mass of Tradition which served as the bulwark of the Faith when it was under siege by the Protestant Revolutionaries and, in due course, by the various ideological revolutionaries in Europe and here in the United States. Even though the life of the Faith was indeed being attacked violently in Europe and Latin America in the Nineteenth Century and undermined more subtly in the United States in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, those many Catholics who remained in the one sheepfold of Peter were true believers. It was the Mass which kept them from having their faith entirely eclipsed by the forces set loose in the world during the Renaissance and have been permutating ever since. Once the Mass was replaced with a synthetic concoction, however, the bulwark was gone. The Novus Ordo service that represents itself falsely as a Catholic Mass became a place to canonize the profane and to glorify the spirit of the day. Gone was the need for personal penance and mortification. In were endless efforts to sin against the supernatural virtue of Hope by presumption. Gone was reverence. In came showmanship and spectacles to tickle the ear and to delight the eye. A mere matter of preference? Not at all.

 [A1]A suggestion I might add here is to finish off this sentence with something like:

“… no options for a priest to tamper with.”


Or something along that nature. Just my two cents.

 [A2]This is more a question on my end. Of course, with the sacristy being the sacred ground where the Sacrifice of the Mass is conducted, the priest but also the altar boys are present and allowed in. As such, is this sentence referencing something more than the sacristy? Or are altar boys not supposed to be present unless circumstances demand it in the sacristy? Apologies for my lack of understanding

 [A3]Just a Holy Orders check for this fellow