Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
August 27, 2012

Next Stop On The Motu Madness Merry-Go-Round: 1969 and Beyond

 by Thomas A. Droleskey

Many traditionally-minded Catholics live in an alternative universe where there is never any bad news, where the man they believe is a true and valid Successor of Saint Peter is intent on "restoring tradition" and fighting the "dictatorship of relativism." Others know that the false "pontiff" is a Modernist and that he rejects the Social Reign of Christ the King but believe that they can do an "end run" around him to "rebuild Christendom," that it does not matter whether or not Joseph Ratzinger is really "Pope" Benedict XVI, that they can just kind of overlook his "bad points" and just speak about how "they" can "restore" and "rebuild" Christendom.

There is just one teen-weeny, itsy-bitsy problem with such views: Christendom cannot be rebuilt or restored on a foundation of truth and error. The Catholic Faith makes no terms with error. It is impossible for a true and valid Successor of Saint Peter to teach any error in Faith and Morals. It is impossible for the Catholic Church to give us n liturgical rite that is defective in any way or is an incentive for impiety and a vehicle for undermining the integrity of the Faith altogether.

If one wants to restore and rebuild Christendom, you see, one has to recognize that the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service is evil, that it was designed from its very beginning to be the means by which the immutable Faith of our fathers was undermined and eclipsed to rob Catholics of their sensus Catholicus and thus be so unsure of what the Church teaches that they will be open to whatever change the "hierarchy" makes in matters of Faith, Morals and Worship. The doctrinal, liturgical and moral revolutions of conciliarism have robbed the world of the wellspring of Sanctifying and Actual Graces that it would otherwise have enjoyed and plunged Catholics into being ready participants in a culture of utter barbarism and pagan superstitions.

Although it is my intention to revise and update G.I.R.M. Warfare if my new book can generate some income to permit me to complete volumes two and three of Conversion in Reverse, suffice it to note for the moment that numerous articles on this site alone, to say nothing of the excellent work done by so many others, starting with many others over the course of the last forty-five years, have focused on this abomination that is but a mockery of true Catholic worship. The appendices below provide a summary of some of the pertinent information contained in those articles.

Other articles have focused on the simple truth that Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, that so many self-delusional traditionally-minded Catholics believe "liberated" the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was in effect universally in the conciliar church for all of three years (one year with the changes made by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII that went into effect in 1961 and then two subsequent years with those changes and the breaking of the Roman Canon with the insertion of the name of Saint Joseph, thus completing what is called the "1962 Missal") was nothing other than a trap to lead them by increments to a gradual acceptance of various "changes" in what some of them defended for decades as a "rock of stability" (the 1962 Missal) to break down their defenses against the Novus Ordo itself.

The issuance of Summorum Pontificum five years ago has resulted in the gradual spread of mostly simulated stagings of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition in some places, although not in others. Some conciliar "bishops" have been very receptive of the "liturgical pluralism" while others see it as a 'threat" to the hegemony of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service. "Bishop" Robert Morlino of the Diocese of Madison, Wisconsin, is mandating all of his seminarians to learn how to stage what is called the "extraordinary form" of the "one" Roman Rite in the conciliar structures.

This all sounds very fine.

However, it is not.

First, "Bishop" Morlino is not a "bishop." The conciliar rite of episcopal consecration is invalid. Here is a very concise summary of this fact that was written by Father Louis J. Campbell, the pastor of Saint Jude Shrine in Stafford, Texas, in a sermon that he delivered last year:

“Let no one lead you astray with empty words,” warns St. Paul in today’s Epistle (Eph.5:6). We must keep the faith, the faith of our fathers, handed on to us from the Apostles by saints and martyrs, the fathers and doctors of the Church, and holy popes and bishops. Now it is our turn to teach the faith, handing it on to the younger generation unchanged and untainted by heresy, lest the Church become the desolate kingdom spoken of by Our Lord in the Gospel. 

Many, “with empty words,” have tried to destroy the Catholic faith – Arius, Luther, Calvin and Cranmer, to name a few. Then came the Modernists, condemned by Pope St. Pius X, whose heresies lived on to be re-hatched at Vatican II by the liberal theologians, and canonized by the conciliar popes.

If one were to set out to destroy the Catholic faith, a good place to begin would be to tamper with the Sacraments, the Sacrament of Baptism, for instance. But every well instructed Catholic knows that the essential rite of Baptism requires the pouring of water upon the head of the person (or immersing the person in the water) while saying the words: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (or Holy Spirit).  

If the priest baptizing were to say, “I pour upon you the life-giving waters of salvation, that you may share the life of the Holy Trinity,” we would know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Sacrament was invalid, and that the person would have to be re-baptized using the form that is required for validity. We would not have to wait for the theologians to debate the matter, or for the Holy See to issue a decree of nullity. Any Catholic in his right mind would know that the attempted Baptism was invalid. Any attempt by the “liturgical experts” to change the essentials of the Sacrament would not have been tolerated by the Catholic faithful.   

But consider some of the other sacraments. Most of us knew little of what was required, for instance, for the valid consecration of a bishop. In a ceremony rarely witnessed by most of the faithful, the Sacrament was administered in Latin amid mysterious and lengthy rites. Change the form of this Sacrament, and who would notice? Then what better way to destroy the Catholic Church than to render invalid the Sacrament of Holy Orders, since true bishops are absolutely necessary if the Church is to survive?    

The essential matter and form for the valid consecration of a bishop was determined by Pope Pius XII on November 30, 1947, in the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 40, 1948, 5-7), a document which appears to have all the essential characteristics of infallibility. Even if it does not, it is certainly an authoritative document, which Pope Pius expected to be taken most seriously. With the laying on of hands, the consecrating bishop was to say the words of the Preface, “of which,” says the pope, “the following are essential and therefore necessary for validity: ‘Fill up in Thy priest the perfection of Thy ministry and sanctify him with the dew of Thy heavenly ointment, this thy servant decked out with the ornaments of all beauty’” (Comple in sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summum, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica). 

At the end of the document Pope Pius XII states: “We teach, declare, and determine this, all persons not withstanding, no matter what special dignity they may have, and consequently we wish and order such in the Roman Pontifical... No one therefore is allowed to infringe upon this Constitution given by us, nor should anyone dare to have the audacity to contradict it...” 

Pope Pius XII’s body had hardly begun “a-mouldering in the grave” when the agents of change began working in earnest to destroy the Catholic faith. Paul VI, once the confidant and trusted friend of Pope Pius XII, had that “audacity to contradict” when he published his own decree in 1968. In vain did Pope Pius XII “teach, declare, and determine” what was required for the validity of the Sacrament of Orders. Paul VI would introduce entirely new words, requiring them for validity, words which were never used for the consecration of a bishop in the Roman Rite: “So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name” (Pontificalis Romani, June 18, 1968).

As to why Paul VI found it necessary to discard the essential words of the traditional form of consecration and replace them with entirely different words, he says “…it was judged appropriate to take from ancient sources the consecratory prayer that is found in the document called the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome, written at the beginning of the third century.”

Judged appropriate? By whom? None other than Archbishop Annibale Bugnini and his associates of the “Consilium,” who invented the Novus Ordo Mass. And who on earth was Hippolytus of Rome? He was an anti-pope of the third century who separated from Rome because of doctrinal differences and established a schismatic church, although he later returned to the Catholic Church and died a martyr. Who knows but that his “Apostolic Tradition” was drawn up for his schismatic sect? 

And whatever became of Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution, Sacramentum Ordinis?  The name Sacramentum Ordinis was even given to another document by John Paul II, probably as a red herring to throw us off the track.  

What conclusion does one draw? The Catechism of the Council of Trent states: “In our Sacraments… the form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it renders the Sacrament null.” We would never tolerate a change in the form of the Sacrament of Baptism. Never! Can we blithely accept a total deviation in the form of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, a change which omits the part of the traditional form declared essential for validity by Pope Pius XII? I think not! Pope Pius XII changed nothing of the traditional form, but merely designated which part of the form was essential for validity. Paul VI omitted that essential part of the form and replaced it with something entirely new. Not even popes (certainly not would-be popes) can change the form of a Sacrament. Whom do we trust, Pope Pius XII who carefully guarded the traditional sacramental form handed down from ages past, or Paul VI? Paul VI, who on the flimsiest of pretexts changed the essential form of a Sacrament, thus rendering it invalid. The result is that we are left with a whole generation of pseudo-bishops attempting to govern the Church without the grace of office. A miter and a bishop’s ring do not a bishop make. And the Kingdom is brought to desolation (Lk.11:17).   


But even among traditionalists many refuse to consider the possibility of invalid sacramental rites. It’s more convenient to think that if the pope says so it’s got to be OK. But Paul VI told us the Novus Ordo Mass was OK, and look where that has brought us. The day must come when all awaken to the fact that the Church has been brought low by an apostasy more monstrous than we have been willing to admit. Only then will the true bishops emerge, a true pope will restore the hierarchy, and the Church will rise more glorious than ever. “And all mankind shall see the salvation of God” (Lk.3:6).  (Father Louis J. Campbell, "A Kingdom Brought to Desolation (Lk.11:17)," Third Sunday of Lent, March 27, 2011, Saint Jude Shrine, Stafford, Texas.)


No true bishops, "Bishop" Morlino, no men to ordain to offer the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition.

2) The so-called "liberation" of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition has been accompanied by silence about the egregious blasphemies, sacrileges and apostasies of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI that have been discussed hundreds of times on this site. That some of the priests/presbyters in religious communities that operate under Summorum Pontificum have justified their silence in the face of grave offenses to the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity and thus harmful to the souls that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross is repugnant.

3) Although many in the world of Motu madness are just "shocked, shocked, shocked" that the Vatican is going to publish a "revised" version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition will include the "feast days" of the the "saints" that have been "canonized" by the conciliar "popes" and some of the new "prefaces" that are used in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service.

Why be so "shocked, shocked, shocked"? Has not Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI told the world in his "explanatory letter" that accompanied the issuance of Summorum Pontificum five years ago that it was his intention to make changes in what I thought in my indulterer days was a "rock of stability," the 1961/1962 Missal that was supplanted by the Ordo Missae of Paul VI on Sunday, November 30, 1964, the First Sunday of Advent:


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.

I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church's leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: "Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!" (2 Corinthians 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows. (Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum".)

Why are so many people "shocked" to find that Ratzinger/Benedict actually meant what he wrote? His "openness" to the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition has everything to do with aesthetics, not the Holy Faith, which he believes is expressed by the non-Mass of non-pope Paul VI, and with his seeking to "pacify the spirits" of those "attached" to the "older" liturgy in order to break down "obstinacy" and "one-sided" attitudes.

How do I know this?

Well, once again, my good and few readers, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has told us so in his own words. So have those under him:


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.

I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church's leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: "Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!" (2 Corinthians 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows. (Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum".)

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 ON REMISSION OF EXCOMMUNICATION LEFEBVRE BISHOP)

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 place. I 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.)

There is no need to be "shocked" by the forthcoming "2012 Missal" for the "extraordinary form" of the "one" Roman Rite or to rend one's garments over the fact that it is going to permit the the "new and improved" edition of the "1961/1962 Missal" to be staged facing the people and to have the readings proclaimed in the vernacular.  This is all designed to accustom traditionally-minded Catholics to the the eventual merger of the "two forms" into one "renewed liturgy," something that Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself desires and has permitted Kurt "Cardinal" Koch, to do so last year at a conference on Summorum Pontificum without a word of rebuke of doing so:


VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI's easing of restrictions on use of the 1962 Roman Missal, known as the Tridentine rite, is just the first step in a "reform of the reform" in liturgy, the Vatican's top ecumenist said.

The pope's long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist, but to move toward a "common rite" that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said May 14.

In effect, the pope is launching a new liturgical reform movement, the cardinal said. Those who resist it, including "rigid" progressives, mistakenly view the Second Vatican Council as a rupture with the church's liturgical tradition, he said.

Cardinal Koch made the remarks at a Rome conference on "Summorum Pontificum," Pope Benedict's 2007 apostolic letter that offered wider latitude for use of the Tridentine rite. The cardinal's text was published the same day by L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper.

Cardinal Koch said Pope Benedict thinks the post-Vatican II liturgical changes have brought "many positive fruits" but also problems, including a focus on purely practical matters and a neglect of the paschal mystery in the Eucharistic celebration. The cardinal said it was legitimate to ask whether liturgical innovators had intentionally gone beyond the council's stated intentions.

He said this explains why Pope Benedict has introduced a new reform movement, beginning with "Summorum Pontificum." The aim, he said, is to revisit Vatican II's teachings in liturgy and strengthen certain elements, including the Christological and sacrificial dimensions of the Mass.

Cardinal Koch said "Summorum Pontificum" is "only the beginning of this new liturgical movement."

"In fact, Pope Benedict knows well that, in the long term, we cannot stop at a coexistence between the ordinary form and the extraordinary form of the Roman rite, but that in the future the church naturally will once again need a common rite," he said.

"However, because a new liturgical reform cannot be decided theoretically, but requires a process of growth and purification, the pope for the moment is underlining above all that the two forms of the Roman rite can and should enrich each other," he said.

Cardinal Koch said those who oppose this new reform movement and see it as a step back from Vatican II lack a proper understanding of the post-Vatican II liturgical changes. As the pope has emphasized, Vatican II was not a break or rupture with tradition but part of an organic process of growth, he said.

On the final day of the conference, participants attended a Mass celebrated according to the Tridentine rite at the Altar of the Chair in St. Peter's Basilica. Cardinal Walter Brandmuller presided over the liturgy. It was the first time in several decades that the old rite was celebrated at the altar. (Benedict's 'reform of the reform' in liturgy to continue, cardinal says.)

A "common rite."

All efforts to forestall "changes" in the 1961/1962 Missal that was itself a change in a series of liturgical changes that had begun in 1955 and have no real end point have been for naught. Naught.

To wit, the very first issue of Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture to feature of article, the first of three as it turned out, of mine was dedicated to the theme of "The 1962 Missal: A Rock of Stability." The issue was so dedicated as many in what was then the indult world, including me, were "alarmed" that "Pontifical" Commission Ecclesia Dei was using the Society of Saint John (see Exploiting Traditionalists: Orders The Society of St. John and Pray for the Children) to experiment with the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. It was our goal to forestall the imposition of the "1965 Missal" as desired by even some presbyters in the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (and, as it turned out, by some of Father Carlos Urrutigoity's followers within  the Society of Saint Pius X who had been influenced by him at Saint Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota, but who were unwilling to betray the memory of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and join Urrutigoity's new society).Liturgical experimentation was quite at the heart of Father Carlos Urrutigoity, whose corrupt Society of Saint John was chased out of the Diocese of Scranton before it resurfaced in Paraguay, where it operates anew under the protection of "Bishop" Rogelio Livares Plano of the Diocese of Ciudad del Este.

Father Urrutigoity told me personally in November of 1999 that it was his intention to see where the liturgy would have "gone" had it not been for the tumultuous events of the of the "Second" Vatican Council and its aftermath. He was backed fully in this regard, as he told me, by "Pontifical" Commission Ecclesia Dei. I warned one of the Society of Saint John's major benefactors about this when I spoke with him the next day that he was backing a Trojan Horse, something that he came to recognize on his own about seven months later, thereafter asking me to conduct an investigation on the Society that was rejected ultimately by the Diocese of Scranton and saw me denounced by Urrutigoity as doing the bidding of the devil himself. (Yes, you see, I am kind of used to be denounced rather regularly.)

Well, the grand laboratory of liturgical experimentation has expanded into the entirety of the alternative universe that is the Motu world. Again, however, this is nothing new if one considers the history of the past fifty-seven years.

The modernized Missal promulgated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII in 1961 and 1962 was meant of its nature to be transitory, and that it is precisely what it turned out to be, a transitional bridge between the Missal of 1958 that been approved, so we are told, by the dying Pope Pius XIII on October 3, 1958, six days before his death, and that of some future liturgy conceived to be that veritable Trojan Horse mentioned just above into which could be loaded one Modernist presupposition after another, not the least of which is the belief that everything about the Faith (doctrine, liturgy, morals, Scripture studies, pastoral life) is in flux, in evolution, if you will. 

Catholics had to endure truly revolutionary changes in the 1960s in the years leading up to the promulgation of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service by Giovanni Montini/Paul VI on April 3, 1969, that was staged for the first time on Sunday, November 30, 1969, starting with the aforementioned  Ordo Missae of 1965, which eliminated the recitation of Psalm 42 (Judica me) at the foot of the altar at the beginning of Holy Mass.

The vernacular language could be used, except in the Canon of the Mass, which had to be prayed in Latin (until 1967, that is), if the priest desired. The Last Gospel, which had been mandated by Pope Saint Pius V when he issued the Missale Romanum of 1570, thereby codifying a de facto practice that had been observed by priests in many parts of Europe as a private devotion as they left the sanctuary at the conclusion of Holy Mass dating back to the Twelfth Century, was eliminated. The Leonine Prayers, which were made "optional" in the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was promulgated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII in 1961 were eliminated. The priest could also face the people, if he wished, a revolutionary change that became institutionalized universally in the life of Roman Rite Catholics attached to the counterfeit church of conciliarism with the implementation of the Novus Ordo service on November 30, 1969. In other words, the changes inaugurated on November 30, 1964, are very similar, although not entirely identical, with those that are to be included in "Extraordinary Form 2.0," if you will. 

The nature and the extent of the changes contained in the Ordo Missae of 1965 were bound to--and did in fact--bewilder many ordinary Catholics. This is why the following announcement was inserted into the parish bulletin of Saint Matthew's Church in Norwood, Ohio, a facility that is now Immaculate Conception Church, which operates under the auspices of the Society of Saint Pius V, to tell the sheep just to do what they were told as a revolution unfolded before their very eyes and with their own "full, active and conscious participation:"

Today is the First Sunday of Advent and the beginning of the Church's new liturgical year. Today we begin our "New Liturgy". Beginning today many parts of Holy Mass will be said in English. We ask each of you to do your very best to join the priest in the prayers of the Mass. Leaflets with the official text of these prayers were given most of your last Sunday. (For those of you who were unable to obtain your copies last Sunday, you may obtain one at the bulletin stands today.) For the Masses with singing (including the 9:45 a.m. High Mass), you are asked to use the cards found in the pews. Kindly stand, sit and kneel, according to the directions on your leaflet or the card. At the Masses today, seminarians will be on hand to help and guide you in this new participation. We wish to thank Msgr. Schneider, Rector of Mt. St. Mary's Seminary, for his kindness in sending us his students; and also the young men themselves for their generosity in helping us. We know that it will take a while (perhaps even months) before we have this new method of participating in Holy Mass perfected; we earnestly ask each one to cooperate loyally and faithfully to the best of his or her ability to make the public worship of God in St. Matthew Parish a true and worthy "sacrifice of praise." [Historical note: the Mount Saint Mary's Seminary referred to in the bulletin was known as Mount Saint Mary's Seminary of the West, located in Norwood, Ohio.]


The blitzkrieg of liturgical changes that took place from 1955 and thereafter institutionalized impermanence and instability in the lives of those Catholics who still bother to go to the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, accustoming many of them to believe that doctrine can change just as easily and just as regularly as the liturgy. If we pray in novel ways then we are going to believe in novel things--and to be more readily disposed to accept novelties as being part of the normal life of the Catholic Church, which they are not. Indeed, the Catholic Church has condemned novelty and innovation, repeatedly, something that Pope Gregory XVI noted very clearly in Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834:

As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)


Clinging onto a missal that was itself meant to be but one phase of the liturgical revolution while ignoring the evidence presented above is an exercise in nothing than than willful, deliberate self-delusion. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does not possess the Catholic Faith. He is a Modernist to the core of his apostate being, and that particular "expression" of the "one" Roman Rite is now to be "improved." This is simply a logical "evolution" in the trap that went snap a long time ago that goes by the name of Summorum Pontificum.

To have one's spirits completely pacified, however, one needs to Play The Let's Pretend Game

We do not need to be "shocked" at the Motu Madness Merry-Go-Round stops at a destination of Ratzinger/Benedict's choosing: 1969 and the brave new world he has in mind for Catholics with his "cosmic liturgy." He has told us his plans twenty years ago:

Among the more obvious phenomena of the last years must be counted the increasing number of integralist groups in which the desire for piety, for the sense of mystery, is finding satisfaction. We must be on our guard against minimizing these movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too firmly. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 389-390)


Ratzinger/Benedict has resisted those "attached" to the "older" liturgy with a brilliantly executed plan of apparent "kindness" and "liberality" of spirit that has been and continues to be a mask to cover his further institutionalization of the conciliar doctrinal and liturgical revolutions to which he has been committed dating back to his seminary days over sixty-five years ago now. One might as well ride the Central Park Carousel and sing "The Merry-Go-Round Broke Down" than ride the Motu Madness Merry-Go-Round.

As I note very frequently, pray your Rosaries. Know that the Immaculate Heart of Mary will indeed triumph. May it be our privilege to plant a few seeds for that Triumph.

We can console the good God and make reparation for our sins and for those of the whole world, including those of the conciliarists, with each Rosary that we pray.

What are we waiting for?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

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 Joseph Calasanctius, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix A

The Liturgical Changes of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII

This a thorough listing of the changes that are reflected in the "Missal of 1962."

At last we come to "the liturgy of John XXIII," more properly called that of "middle Bugnini." The following changes were instituted in the Mass, the Divine Office and the Calendar:

1. The lives of the saints at Matins were reduced to brief summaries.

2. The lessons from the Fathers of the Church were reduced to the briefest possible passages, with the somewhat naive wish that the clergy would continue to nourish their souls with patristic writings on their own.

3. The solitary recitation of the Divine Office was no longer held to be public prayer, and thus the sacred greeting Dominus vobiscum was suppressed.

4. The Last Gospel was suppressed on more occasions.

5. The proper conclusion of the Office Hymns was suppressed.

6. Many feast days are abolished, as being redundant or not "historical, for example: (a) The Finding of the Holy Cross. (b) St. John Before the Latin Gate. (c) The Apparition of St. Michael. (d) St. Peter's Chair at Antioch. (e) St. Peter's Chains, etc.

7. During the Council, the principle of the unchanging Canon of the Mass was destroyed with the addition of the name of St. Joseph.

8. The Confiteor before Communion was suppressed.

It is to be noted that the "Liturgy of John XXIII” was in vigor for all of three years, until it came to its logical conclusion with the promulgation of the Conciliar Decree on the Liturgy — also the work of Bugnini. (See His Excellency Bishop Daniel L. Dolan, Pre-Vatican II Liturgical Changes: Road to the New Mass and The Pius X and John XXIII Missals Compared.)


Father Francisco Ricossa described what he called the "anti-liturgical heresies" extant in Roncalli/John XXIII's liturgical changes:


Pius XII succeeded by John XXIII. Angelo Roncalli. Throughout his ecclesiastical career, Roncalli was involved in affairs that place his orthodoxy under a cloud. Here are a few facts:

As professor at the seminary of Bergamo, Roncalli was investigated for following the theories of Msgr. Duchesne, which were forbidden under Saint Pius X in all Italian seminaries. Msgr Duchesne's work, Histoire Ancienne de l'Eglise, ended up on the Index.

While papal nuncio to Paris, Roncalli revealed his adhesion to the teachings of Sillon, a movement condemned by St. Pius X. In a letter to the widow of Marc Sagnier, the founder of the condemned movement, he wrote: The powerful fascination of his [Sagnier's] words, his spirit, had enchanted me; and from my early years as a priest, I maintained a vivid memory of his personality, his political and social activity."

Named as Patriarch of Venice, Msgr.Roncalli gave a public blessing to the socialists meeting there for their party convention. As John XXIII, he made Msgr. Montini a cardinal and called the Second Vatican Council. He also wrote the Encyclical Pacem in Terris. The Encyclical uses a deliberately ambiguous phrase, which foreshadows the same false religious liberty the Council would later proclaim.

The Revolution Advances

John XXIII's attitude in matters liturgical, then, comes as no surprise. Dom Lambert Beauduin, quasi-founder of the modernist Liturgical Movement, was a friend of Roncalli from 1924 onwards. At the death of Pius XII, Beauduin remarked: "If they elect Roncalli, everything will be saved; he would be capable of calling a council and consecrating ecumenism..."'

On July 25, 1960, John XXIII published the Motu Proprio Rubricarum Instructum. He had already decided to call Vatican II and to proceed with changing Canon Law. John XXIII incorporates the rubrical innovations of 1955–1956 into this Motu Proprio and makes them still worse. "We have reached the decision," he writes, "that the fundamental principles concerning the liturgical reform must be presented to the Fathers of the future Council, but that the reform of the rubrics of the Breviary and Roman Missal must not be delayed any longer."

In this framework, so far from being orthodox, with such dubious authors, in a climate which was already "Conciliar," the Breviary and Missal of John XXIII were born. They formed a "Liturgy of transition" destined to last — as it in fact did last — for three or four years. It is a transition between the Catholic liturgy consecrated at the Council of Trent and that heterodox liturgy begun at Vatican II. 

The "Antiliturgical Heresy" in the John XXIII Reform

We have already seen how the great Dom Guéranger defined as "liturgical heresy" the collection of false liturgical principles of the 18th century inspired by Illuminism and Jansenism. I should like to demonstrate in this section the resemblance between these innovations and those of John XXIII.

Since John XXIII's innovations touched the Breviary as well as the Missal, I will provide some information on his changes in the Breviary also. Lay readers may be unfamiliar with some of the terms concerning the Breviary, but I have included as much as possible to provide the "flavor" and scope of the innovations.


1.   Reduction of Matins to three lessons. Archbishop Vintimille of Paris, a Jansenist sympathizer, in his reform of the Breviary in 1736, "reduced the Office for most days to three lessons, to make it shorter." In 1960 John XXIII also reduced the Office of Matins to only three lessons on most days. This meant the suppression of a third of Holy Scripture, two-thirds of the lives of the saints, and the whole of the commentaries of the Church Fathers on Holy Scripture. Matins, of course, forms a considerable part of the Breviary.

2.   Replacing ecclesiastical formulas style with Scripture. "The second principle of the anti-liturgical sect," said Dom Guéranger, "is to replace the formulae in ecclesiastical style with readings from Holy Scripture." While the Breviary of St. Pius X had the commentaries on Holy Scripture by the Fathers of the Church, John XXIII's Breviary suppressed most commentaries written by the Fathers of the Church. On Sundays, only five or six lines from the Fathers remains.

3.   Removal of saints' feasts from Sunday.Dom Gueranger gives the Jansenists' position: "It is their [the Jansenists'] great principle of the sanctity of Sunday which will not permit this day to be 'degraded' by consecrating it to the veneration of a saint, not even the Blessed Virgin Mary. A fortiori, the feasts with a rank of double or double major which make such an agreeable change for the faithful from the monotony of the Sundays, reminding them of the friends of God, their virtues and their protection — shouldn't they be deferred always to weekdays, when their feasts would pass by silently and unnoticed?"

John XXIII, going well beyond the well-balanced reform of St. Pius X, fulfills almost to the letter the ideal of the Janenist heretics: only nine feasts of the saints can take precedence over the Sunday (two feasts of St. Joseph, three feasts of Our Lady, St. John the Baptist, Saints Peter and Paul, St. Michael, and All Saints). By contrast, the calendar of St. Pius X included 32 feasts which took precedence, many of which were former holy days of obligation. What is worse, John XXIII abolished even the commemoration of the saints on Sunday.

4.   Preferring the ferial office over the saint’s feast. Dom Guéranger goes on to describe the moves of the Jansenists as follows: "The calendar would then be purged, and the aim, acknowledged by Grancolas (1727) and his accomplices, would be to make the clergy prefer the ferial office to that of the saints. What a pitiful spectacle! To see the putrid principles of Calvinism, so vulgarly opposed to those of the Holy See, which for two centuries has not ceased fortifying the Church's calendar with the inclusion' of new protectors, penetrate into our churches!"

John XXIII totally suppressed ten feasts from the calendar (eleven in Italy with the feast of Our Lady of Loreto), reduced 29 feasts of simple rank and nine of more elevated rank to mere commemorations, thus causing the ferial office to take precedence. He suppressed almost all the octaves and vigils, and replaced another 24 saints' days with the ferial office. Finally, with the new rules for Lent, the feasts of another nine saints, officially in the calendar, are never celebrated. In sum, the reform of John XXIII purged about 81 or 82 feasts of saints, sacrificing them to "Calvinist principles."

Dom Gueranger also notes that the Jansenists suppressed the feasts of the saints in Lent. John XXIII did the same, keeping only the feasts of first and second class. Since they always fall during Lent, the feasts of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Gregory the Great. St. Benedict, St. Patrick, and St. Gabriel the Archangel would never be celebrated. (Liturgical Revolution)


Appendix B

The Novus Ordo Service as a Rejection of Catholic Tradition and an Effort of "Conformism" to Protestantism

"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.)

"[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. The words were spoken by 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.)

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)

Appendix C

Rupture in the Liturgy as Found in the Words of Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger

What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it--as in a manufacturing process--with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, opposed this falsification, and thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a true liturgy. As a man who knew and loved history, he showed us the multiple forms and paths of liturgical development; as a man who looked at history form the inside, he saw in this development and its fruit the intangible reflection of the eternal liturgy, that which is not the object of our action but which can continue marvelously to mature and blossom if we unite ourselves intimately with its mystery. (Joseph "Cardinal: Ratzinger, Preface to the French language edition of Monsignor Klaus Gamber's The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.)

The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic. It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.

But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth. thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer living development but the produce of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused an enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something "made", not something given in advance but something lying without our own power of decision. (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, Milestones.)


Appendix D

Letter of the late +Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer to Giovanni Montini/Paul VI  Concerning the Novus Ordo Service


The Novus Ordo Missae consists in general norms for the text of the Ordinary of the Mass. Both the text and the norms propose a new Mass that does not consider sufficiently the definitions of the Council of Trent concerning this matter, and constitutes, for this reason, a grave danger for the integrity and purity of the Catholic Faith. We have only examined here a few points, that, we believe, establish that which I have affirmed.

I.  Definition of the Mass

In its no.7 the new Ordo gives the follow as a definition of the Mass:  "Cena dominica seu Missa est sacra synaxis seu congregatio populi Dei in unum convenientis, sacerdote praeside, ad memoriale Domini celebrandum. Quare de sanctae ecclesiae locali congregatione eminenter valet promissio Christi: ‘Ubi sunt duo vel tres congregati in nomine meo, ibi sum in medio eorum’" (Mt. 18:10) 1.

In this definition:

  • There is insistence on the Mass understood as a meal. Moreover, this way of seeing the Mass can be found frequently, all along the general norms (cf. v.g. nos. 8, 48, 55d, 56 etc.). It seems even that the intention of the new Ordo Missae is to inculcate this aspect of the Mass, to the detriment of the other, which is essential, namely that the Mass is a sacrifice.

  • In fact, in the quasi-definition of the Mass given in article 7, the character of the sacrifice of the Mass is not signified.

  • Likewise, it attenuates the sacramental character of the priest, that distinguishes him from the faithful.

  • Furthermore, nothing is said of the intrinsic value of the Mass, independently of the presence of the assembly. Much to the contrary, it is supposed that there is no Mass without the "congregatio populi", for it is the "congregatio" that defines the Mass.

  • Finally, the text allows a confusion to exist between the Real Presence and the spiritual presence, for it applies to the Mass the text from St. Matthew which only concerns the spiritual presence.

The confusion between the Real Presence and the spiritual presence, already seen in article 7, is confirmed in article 8, which divides the Mass into a "table of the word" and a "table of the Lord’s body". But it also hides the aspect of sacrifice in the Mass, which is the principal of all, since the aspect of a meal is only a consequence, as can be deduced from Canon 31 of the XXII session of the Council of Trent.

We observe that the two texts from Vatican II, quoted in the notes, do not justify the concept of the Mass proposed in the text. We also note that the few expressions, that are more or less passing references, in which are found expressions such as this, at the altar: "sacrificium crucis sub signis sacramentalibus praesens efficitur" (no. 259) are not sufficient to undo the ambiguous concept, already inculcated in the definition of the Mass (no. 7), and in many other passages in the general norms.

II.  The Purpose of the Mass

The Mass is a sacrifice of praise to the Most Holy Trinity. Such a purpose does not appear explicitly in the new Ordo. To the contrary, that which, in the Mass of St. Pius V, shows clearly this sacrificial end is suppressed in the new Ordo. Examples include the prayers "Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas" from the Offertory and the final prayer "Placeat, tibi, Sancta Trinitas". Likewise the Preface of the Most Holy Trinity has ceased to be the Preface for Sunday, the Lord’s Day.

As well as being the "sacrificium laudis Sanctissimae Trinitatis" 2, the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice. The Council of Trent insists greatly on this aspect, against the errors of the Protestants (Chapter 1 & Canon 3). Such a purpose does not appear explicitly in the new Ordo. Here and there can be found a reminder of one or other expression that could be understand as implying this concept. But it never appears without the shadow of a doubt. Also, it is absent when the norms declare the purpose of the Mass (no. 54). In fact, it is insufficient to express the theology of the Mass established by the Council of Trent to simply affirm that it brings about "sanctification". It is not clear that this concept necessarily implies that of propitiation. Moreover the propitiatory intention, so clearly visible in the Mass of St. Pius V, disappears in the New Mass. In fact the Offertory prayers Suscipe Sancte Pater and Offerimus tibi and that for the blessing of the water Deus qui humanae substantiae… reformasti have been replaced by other that make no reference to propitiation at all. It is rather the sense of a spiritual banquet that they impress.

III.  The Essence of the Sacrifice

The essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass lies in repeating what Jesus did at the Last Supper, and this not as a simple recitation, but accompanied by the gestures. Thus, as the moral theologians have said, it is not enough to simply say again historically what Jesus did. The words of consecration must be pronounced with the intention of repeating what Jesus accomplished, for when the priest celebrates, he represents Jesus Christ, and acts "in persona Christi".3  In the new Ordo there is no such precise statement, although it is essential. To the contrary, in the passage that speaks of the narrative part, nothing is said of the properly sacrificial part. Thus, when it explains the Eucharistic Prayer, it speaks of the "narratio institutionis" 4 (no. 54 d.) in such a way that the expressions: "Ecclesia memoriam ipsius Christi agit" 5 and another at the end of the consecration: "Hoc facite in meam commemorationem" 6 have the meaning indicated by the explanation given in the preceding general norms (no. 54 d.). We remark that the final phrase of the (traditional) consecration "Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in mei memoriam facietis"7 were much more expressive of the reality that in the Mass, it is the action of Jesus Christ which is repeated.

Furthermore, placing other expressions in the midst of the essential words of consecration, namely "Accipite et manducate omnes" 8 and "Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes" 9, introduce the narrative part into the same sacrificial act. Whereas, in the Tridentine Mass the text and movements guide the priest naturally to accomplish the propitiatory sacrificial action and almost impose this intention on the priest who celebrates. In this way the "lex supplicandi" 10 is perfectly in conformity with the "lex credendi" 11. We cannot say this for the Novus Ordo Missae. However, the Novus Ordo Missae ought to make it easier for the celebrant to have the intention necessary to accomplish validly and worthily the act of the Holy Sacrifice, especially given the importance of this action, not mentioning the instability of modern times, nor even the psychological conditions of the younger generations.

IV.  The Real Presence

The sacrifice of the Mass is bound to the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. The Real Presence is a consequence of the sacrifice. By transsubstantiation the change of the substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of the Savior is accomplished, and thus the sacrifice takes place. As a consequence the perpetual Victim is present on the altar. The Blessed Sacrament is nothing other than the Victim of the Sacrifice, who remains once the sacrificial act has been accomplished. As a consequence of the new definition of the Mass (no. 7) the new Ordo allows ambiguity to exist concerning the Real Presence, which is more or less confused with the simply spiritual presence, indicated by the phrase "where two or three are gathered in my name".

Moreover, the suppression of nearly all the genuflexions, traditional expression of adoration in the Latin church, the thanksgiving seated, the possibility of celebrating without an altar stone, on a simple table, the equating of the Eucharistic Banquet with a spiritual meal, all lead to the obscuring of the Faith in the Real Presence.

The equating of the Eucharistic Banquet to a spiritual meal leaves open the idea that Jesus’ presence in the Blessed Sacrament is bound to its use, as his presence in the word of God. From this it is not difficult to conclude with the Lutheran error, especially in a society that is little prepared to think on a higher plane. The same conclusion is favored by the function of the altar: it is only a table, on which there is not normally place for the tabernacle, in which the Victim of the sacrifice is customarily kept. The same can be said for the custom for the faithful to communicate with the same host as the celebrant. By itself, this gives the idea that once the sacrifice is completed, there is no longer any place for reserving the Blessed Sacrament. Thus none of the changes in the new Ordo Missae lead to greater fervor in the Faith towards the Real Presence, but they rather diminish it.

V.  The hierarchical priesthood

The Council of Trent defined that Jesus instituted his apostles priests, in order that they, and the other priests, their successors, might offer His Body and Blood (Session xxii, Canon 2). In this manner, the accomplishment of the Sacrifice of the Mass is an act that requires priestly consecration. On the other hand, the same Council of Trent condemned the Protestant thesis, according to which all Christians would be priests of the New Testament. Hence it is that, according to the Faith, the hierarchical priest is alone capable of accomplishing the sacrifice of the New Law. This truth is diluted in the new Ordo Missae.

In this missal, the Mass belongs more to the people than to the priest. It belongs also the priest, but as a part of the assembly. He no longer appears as the mediator "ex hominibus assumptus in iis quae sunt ad Deum" 12 inferior to Jesus Christ and superior to the faithful, as St. Robert Bellarmine says. He is not the judge who absolves. He is simply the brother who presides.

We could make other observations to confirm what we have said above. However, we feel that the points that we have raised suffice to show that the new Ordo Missae is not faithful to the theology of the Mass, as established definitively by the Council of Trent, and that consequently it constitutes a serious danger for the purity of the Faith.

+ Antonio, Bishop of Campos


  1. Translation of article 7: The Lord’s Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or meeting of the people of God, met together with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of a local congregation of the Church: "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst" (Mt. 18:20).

  2. i.e. Sacrifice of praise of the Most Holy Trinity.

  3. i.e. in the person of Christ.

  4. i.e. the narration of the institution.

  5. i.e. the Church commemorates the memory of Christ himself.


Appendix E

The Ottaviani Intervention

Letter from Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci to Paul VI
September 25th, 1969

Most Holy Father, Having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of others, the Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel it to be our bounden duty in the sight of God and towards Your Holiness, to put before you the following considerations:

1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.

2. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith.

Amongst the best of the clergy the practical result is an agonising crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come tour notice daily.

3. We are certain that these considerations, which can only reach Your Holiness by the living voice of both shepherds and flock, cannot but find an echo in Your paternal heart, always so profoundly solicitous for the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. It has always been the case that when a law meant for the good of subjects proves to be on the contrary harmful, those subjects have the right, nay the duty of asking with filial trust for the abrogation of that law.

Therefore we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness, at a time of such painful divisions and ever-increasing perils for the purity of the Faith and the unity of the church, lamented by You our common Father, not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness and so deeply loved and venerated by the whole Catholic world.

A. Card. Ottaviani
A. Card. Bacci

Brief Summary

I History of the Change
The new form of Mass was substantially rejected by the Episcopal Synod, was never submitted to the collegial judgement of the Episcopal Conferences and was never asked for by the people. It has every possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants.

II Definition of the Mass
By a series of equivocations the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the 'supper' and the 'memorial' instead of on the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary.

III Presentation of the Ends
The three ends of the Mass are altered:- no distinction is allowed to remain between Divine and human sacrifice; bread and wine are only "spiritually" (not substantially) changed.

IV The Essence
The Real Presence of Christ is never alluded to and belief in it is implicitly repudiated.

V The Elements of the Sacrifice
The position of both priest and people is falsified and the Celebrant appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister, while the true nature of the Church is intolerably misrepresented.

VI The Destruction of Unity
The abandonment of Latin sweeps away for good and all unity of worship. This may have its effect on unity of belief and the New Order has no intention of standing for the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent to which the Catholic conscience is bound.

VII: The Alienation of the Orthodox
While pleasing various dissenting groups, the New Order will alienate the East.

VIII The Abandonment of Defences
The New Order teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the purity of the Catholic religion and dismantles all defences of the deposit of Faith.

I History of the Change

In October 1967, the Episcopal Synod called in Rome was required to pass judgement on the experimental celebration of a so-called "normative Mass" (New Mass), devised by the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia. This Mass aroused the most serious misgivings. The voting showed considerable opposition (43 non placet), very many substantial reservations (62 juxta modum), and 4 abstentions out of 187 voters. The international press spoke of a "refusal" of the proposed "normative Mass" (New Mass) on the part of the Synod. Progressively-inclined papers made no mention of it. In the Novus Ordo Missae lately promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, we once again find this "normative Mass" (New Mass), identical in substance, nor does it appear that in the intervening period the Episcopal Conference, at least as such, were ever asked to give their views about it.

In the Apostolic Constitution, it is stated that the ancient Missal promulgated by St. Pius V, 13th July 1570, but going back in great part to St. Gregory the Great and still remoter antiquity, was for four centuries the norm for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice for priests of the Latin rite, and that, taken to every part of the world, "it has moreover been an abundant source of spiritual nourishment to many holy people in their devotion to God". Yet, the present reform, putting it definitely out of use, was claimed to be necessary since "from that time the study of the Sacred Liturgy has become more widespread and intensive among Christians".

This assertion seems to us to embody a serious equivocation. For the desire of the people was expressed, if at all, when - thanks to Pius X - they began to discover the true and everlasting treasures of the liturgy. The people never on any account asked for the liturgy to be changed, or mutilated so as to understand it better. They asked for a better understanding of the changeless liturgy, and one which they would never have wanted changed.

The Roman Missal of St. Pius V was religiously venerated and most dear to Catholics, both priests and laity. One fails to see how its use, together with suitable catechesis, could have hindered a fuller participation in, and great knowledge of the Sacred Liturgy, nor why, when its many outstanding virtues are recognised, this should not have been considered worthy to continue to foster the liturgical piety of Christians.

Rejected by Synod

Since the "normative" Mass (New Mass), now reintroduced and imposed as the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of the Mass), was in substance rejected by the Synod of Bishops, was never submitted to the collegial judgement of the Episcopal Conferences, nor have the people - least of all in mission lands - ever asked for any reform of Holy Mass whatsoever, one fails to comprehend the motives behind the new legislation which overthrows a tradition unchanged in the Church since the 4th and 5th centuries, as the Apostolic Constitution itself acknowledges. As no popular demand exists to support this reform, it appears devoid of any logical grounds to justify it and makes it acceptable to the Catholic people.

The Vatican Council did indeed express a desire (para. 50 Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium) for the various parts of the Mass to be reordered "ut singularum partium propria ratio nec non mutua connexio clarius pateant." We shall see how the Ordo recently promulgated corresponds with this original intention.

An attentive examination of the Novus Ordo reveals changes of such magnitude as to justify in themselves the judgement already made with regard to the "normative" Mass. Both have in many points every possibility of satisfying the most Modernists of Protestants.

II Definition of the Mass

Let us begin with the definition of the Mass given in No. 7 of the "Institutio Generalis" at the beginning of the second chapter on the Novus Ordo: "De structura Missae":


"The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Thus the promise of Christ, "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them", is eminently true of the local community in the Church (Mt. XVIII, 20)".


The definition of the Mass is thus limited to that of the "supper", and this term is found constantly repeated (nos. 8, 48, 55d, 56). This supper is further characterised as an assembly presided over by the priest and held as a memorial of the Lord, recalling what He did on the first Maundy Thursday. None of this in the very least implies either the Real Presence, or the reality of sacrifice, or the Sacramental function of the consecrating priest, or the intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independently of the people's presence. It does not, in a word, imply any of the essential dogmatic values of the Mass which together provide its true definition. Here, the deliberate omission of these dogmatic values amounts to their having been superseded and therefore, at least in practice, to their denial.

In the second part of this paragraph 7 it is asserted, aggravating the already serious equivocation, that there holds good, "eminently", for this assembly Christ's promise that "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. XVIII, 20). This promise which refers only to the spiritual presence of Christ with His grace, is thus put on the same qualitative plane, save for the greater intensity, as the substantial and physical reality of the Sacramental Eucharistic Presence.

In no. 8 a subdivision of the Mass into "liturgy of the word" and Eucharistic liturgy immediately follows, with the affirmation that in the Mass is made ready "the table of the God's word" as of "the Body of Christ", so that the faithful "may be built up and refreshed"; an altogether improper assimilation of the two parts of the liturgy, as though between two points of equal symbol value. More will be said about this point later.

This Mass is designed by a great many different expressions, all acceptable relatively, all unacceptable if employed, as they are, separately in an absolute sense.

We cite a few: The Action of the People of God; The Lord's Supper or Mass, the Pascal Banquet; The Common Participation of the Lord's Table; The Eucharistic Prayer; The Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharistic Liturgy.

As is only too evident, the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the supper and the memorial instead of upon the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary. The formula "The Memorial of the Passion and Resurrection of the Lord", besides, is inexact, the Mass being the memorial of the Sacrifice alone, in itself redemptive, while the Resurrection is the consequent fruit of it.

We shall later see how, in the very consecratory formula, and throughout the Novus Ordo, such equivocations are renewed and reiterated.

III Presentation of the Ends

We now come to the ends of the Mass.

1. Ultimate End. This is that of the Sacrifice of praise to the Most Holy Trinity according to the explicit declaration of Christ in the primary purpose of His very Incarnation: "Coming into the world he saith: 'sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst not but a body thou hast fitted me' ". (Ps. XXXIX, 7-9 in Heb. X, 5).

This end has disappeared: from the Offertory, with the disappearance of the prayer "Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas", from the end of the Mass with the omission of the "Placet tibi Sancta Trinitas", and from the Preface, which on Sunday will no longer be that of the Most Holy Trinity, as this Preface will be reserved only to the Feast of the Trinity, and so in future will be heard but once a year.

2. Ordinary End. This is the propitiatory Sacrifice. It too has been deviated from; for instead of putting the stress on the remission of sins of the living and the dead, it lays emphasis on the nourishment and sanctification of those present (No. 54). Christ certainly instituted the Sacrament of the Last Supper putting Himself in the state of Victim in order that we might be united to Him in this state but his self- immolation precedes the eating of the Victim, and has an antecedent and full redemptive value (the application of the bloody immolation). This is borne out by the fact that the faithful present are not bound to communicate, sacramentally.

3. Immanent End. Whatever the nature of the Sacrifice, it is absolutely necessary that it be pleasing and acceptable to God. After the Fall no sacrifice can claim to be acceptable in its own right other than the Sacrifice of Christ. The Novus Ordo changes the nature of the offering turning it into a sort of exchange of gifts between man and God: man brings the bread, and God turns it into the "bread of life"; man brings the wine, and God turns it into a "spiritual drink".

"Thou are blessed Lord God of the Universe because from thy generosity we have received the bread (or wine) which we offer thee, the fruit of the earth (or vine) and of man's labour. May it become for us the bread of life (or spiritual drink)".

There is no need to comment on the utter indeterminateness of the formulae "bread of life" and "spiritual drink", which might mean anything. The same capital equivocation is repeated here, as in the definition of the Mass: there, Christ is present only spiritually among His own: here, bread and wine are only "spiritually" (not substantially) changed.

Suppression of Great Prayers

In the preparation of the offering, a similar equivocation results from the suppression of two great prayers. The "Deus qui humanae substantiae dignitatem mirabiliter condidisti et mirabilius reformasti" was a reference to man's former condition of innocence and to his present one of being ransomed by the Blood of Christ: a recapitulation of the whole economy of the Sacrifice, from Adam to the present moment. The final propitiatory offering of the chalice, that it might ascend "cum adore suavitatis", into the presence of the divine majesty, whose clemency was implored, admirably reaffirmed this plan. By suppressing the continual reference of the Eucharistic prayers to God, there is no longer any clear distinction between divine and human sacrifice.

Having removed the keystone, the reformers have had to put up scaffolding; suppressing real ends, they had to substitute fictitious ends of their own; leading to gestures intended to stress to union of priest and faithful, and of the faithful among themselves; offerings for the poor and for the church superimposed upon the Offering of the Host to be immolated. There is a danger that the uniqueness of this offer will become blurred, so that participation in the immolation of the Victim comes to resemble a philanthropical meeting, or a charity banquet.

IV The Essence

We now pass on to the essence of the Sacrifice.

The mystery of the Cross is no longer explicitly expressed. It is only there obscurely, veiled, imperceptible for the people. And for these reasons:

1. The sense given in the Novus Ordo to the so-called "prex Eucharistica" is: "that the whole congregation of the faithful may be united to Christ in proclaiming the great wonders of God and in offering sacrifice" (No. 54. the end)

Which sacrifice is referred to? Who is the offerer? No answer is given to either of these questions. The initial definition of the "prex Eucharistica" is as follows: "The centre and culminating point of the whole celebration now has a beginning, namely the Eucharistic Prayer, a prayer of thanksgiving and of sanctification" (No. 54, pr.). The effects thus replace the causes, of which not one single word is said. The explicit mention of the object of the offering, which was found in the "Suscipe", has not been replaced by anything. The change in formulation reveals the change in doctrine.

2. The reason for this non-explicitness concerning the Sacrifice is quite simply that the Real Presence has been removed from the central position which it occupied so resplendently in the former Eucharistic liturgy. There is but a single reference to the Real Presence, (a quotation - a footnote - from the Council of Trent) and again the context is that of "nourishment" (no. 241, note 63)

The Real and permanent Presence of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the transubstantiated Species is never alluded to. The very word transubstantiation is totally ignored.

The suppression of the invocation to the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity ("Veni Sanctificator") that He may descend upon the oblations, as once before into the womb of the Most Blessed Virgin to accomplish the miracle of the divine Presence, is yet one more instance of the systematic and tacit negation of the Real Presence.

Note, too, the suppressions: 


  • of the genuflections (no more than three remain to the priest, and one, with certain exceptions, to the people, at the Consecration;
  • of the purification of the priest's fingers in the chalice;
  • of the preservation from all profane contact of the priest's fingers after the Consecration; of the purification of the vessels, which need not be immediate, nor made on the corporal;
  • of the pall protecting the chalice;
  • of the internal gilding of sacred vessels;
  • of the consecration of movable altars;
  • of the sacred stone and relics in the movable altar or upon the "table" - "when celebration does not occur in sacred precincts" (this distinction leads straight to "Eucharistic suppers" in private houses);
  • of the three altar-cloths, reduced to one only;
  • of thanksgiving kneeling (replaced by a thanksgiving, seated, on the part of the priest and people, a logical enough complement to Communion standing);
  • of all the former prescriptions in the case of the consecrated Host falling, which are now reduced to a single, casual direction: "reventur accipiatur" (no. 239)


All these things only serve to emphasise how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated.

3. The function assigned to the altar (no. 262). The altar is almost always called 'table', "The altar or table of the Lord, which is the centre of the whole Eucharistic liturgy" (no. 49, cf. 262). It is laid down that the altar must be detached from the walls so that it is possible to walk round it and celebration may be facing the people (no. 262); also that the altar must be the centre of the assembly of the faithful so that their attention is drawn spontaneously towards it (ibid). But a comparison of no. 262 and 276 would seem to suggest that the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament on this altar is excluded. This will mark an irreparable dichotomy between the presence, in the celebrant, of the eternal High Priest and that same presence brought about sacramentally. Before, they were 'one and the same presence'.

Separation of Altar and Tabernacle

Now it is recommended that the Blessed Sacrament be kept in a place apart for the private devotion of the people (almost as though it were a question of devotion to a relic of some kind) so that, on going into a church, attention will no longer be focused upon the Tabernacle but upon a stripped, bare table. Once again the contrast is made between 'private' piety and 'liturgical' piety: altar is set up against altar.

In the insistent recommendation to distribute in Communion the Species consecrated during the same Mass, indeed to consecrate a loaf for the priest to distribute to at least some of the faithful, we find reasserted disparaging attitude towards the Tabernacle, as towards every form of Eucharistic piety outside of the Mass. This constitutes yet another violent blow to faith in the Real Presence as long as the consecrated Species remain.

The formula of Consecration. The ancient formula of consecration was properly a sacramental not a narrative one. This was shown above all by three things:

a) The Scriptural text not taken up word for word: the Pauline insertion "mysterium fidei" was an immediate confession of the priest's faith in the mystery realised by the Church through the hierarchical priesthood.

b) The punctuation and typographical lay-out: the full stop and new paragraph marking the passage from the narrative mode to the sacramental and affirmative one, the sacramental words in larger characters at the centre of the page and often in a different colour, clearly detached from the historical context. All combined to give the formula a proper and autonomous value.


"To separate the Tabernacle from the Altar is tantamount to separating two things which, of their very nature, must remain together". (PIUS XII, Allocution to the International Liturgy Congress, Assisi-Rome, Sept. 18-23, 1956). cf. also Mediator Dei, 1.5, note 28.

c) The anamnesis ("Haec quotiescompque feceritis in mei memoriam facietis"), which in Greek is "eis emou anamnesin" (directed to my memory.) This referred to Christ operating and not to mere memory of Him, or of the event: an invitation to recall what He did ("Haec . . . in mei memoriam facietis") in the way He did it, not only His Person, or the Supper. The Pauline formula ("Hoc facite in meam commemorationem") which will now take the place of the old - proclaimed as it will be daily in vernacular languages will irremediably cause the hearers to concentrate on the memory of Christ as the 'end' of the Eucharistic action, whilst it is really the 'beginning'. The concluding idea of 'commemoration' will certainly once again take the place of the idea of sacramental action.

The narrative mode is now emphasised by the formula "narratio institutionis" (no. 55d) and repeated by the definition of the anamnesis, in which it is said that "The Church recalls the memory of Himself" (no. 556).

In short: the theory put forward by the epiclesis, the modification of the words of Consecration and of the anamnesis, have the effect of modifying the modus significandi of the words of Consecration. The consecratory formulae are here pronounced by the priest as the constituents of a historical narrative and no longer enunciated as expressing the categorical affirmation uttered by Him in whole Person the priest acts: "Hoc est Corpus meum" (not, "Hoc est Corpus Christi").

Furthermore the acclamation assigned to the people immediately after the Consecration: ("We announce thy death, O Lord, until Thou comest") introduces yet again, under cover of eschatology, the same ambiguity concerning the Real Presence. Without interval or distinction, the expectation of Christ's Second Coming at the end of time is proclaimed just at the moment when He is substantially present on the altar, almost as though the former, and not the latter, were the true Coming.

This is brought out even more strongly in the formula of optional acclamation no. 2 (Appendix): "As often as we eat of this bread and drink of this chalice we announce thy death, O Lord, until thou comest", where the juxtaposition of the different realities of immolation and eating, of the Real Presence and of Christ's Second Coming, reaches the height of ambiguity.

V The Elements of Sacrifice

We come now to the realisation of the Sacrifice, the four elements of which were: 1) Christ, 2) the priest, 3) the Church, 4) the faithful present.

In the Novus Ordo, the position attributed to the faithful is autonomous (absoluta), hence totally false - from the opening definition: "Missa est sacra synaxis seu congregatio populi" to the priest's salutation to the people which is meant to convey to the assembled community the "presence" of the Lord (no. 48). "Qua salutatione et populi responsione manifestatur ecclesiae congregatae mysterium".

A true presence, certainly of Christ but only a spiritual one, and a mystery of the Church, but solely as an assembly manifesting and soliciting such a presence.

This interpretation is constantly underlined: by the obsessive references to the communal character of the Mass (nos. 74-152); by the unheard of distinction between "Mass with congregation" and "Mass without congregation" (nos. 203-231); by the definition of the "oratio universalis seu fidelium" (no. 45) where once more we find stressed the "sacerdotal office" of the people (populus sui sacerdotii munus excercens") presented in an equivocal way because its subordination to that of the priest is not mentioned, and all the more since the priest, as consecrated mediator, makes himself the interpreter of all the intentions of the people in the Te igitur and the two Memento.

In "Eucharistic Prayer III" ("Vere sanctus", p. 123) the following words are addressed to the Lord: "from age to age you gather a people to yourself, in order that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name", the 'in order that' making it appear that the people rather than the priest are the indispensable element in the celebration; and since not even here is it made clear who the offerer is, the people themselves appear to be invested with autonomous priestly powers. From this step it would not be surprising if, before long, the people were authorised to join the priest in pronouncing the consecrating formulae (which actually seems here and there to have already occurred).

Priest as Mere President

2) The priest's position is minimised, changed and falsified. Firstly in relation to the people for whom he is, for the most part, a mere president, or brother, instead of the consecrated minister celebrating in persona Christi. Secondly in relation to the Church, as a "quidam de populo". In the definition of the epiclesis (no. 55), the invocations are attributed anonymously to the Church: the part of the priest has vanished.

In the Confiteor which has now become collective, he is no longer judge, witness and intercessor with God; so it is logical that his is no longer empowered to give the absolution, which has been suppressed. He is integrated with the fratres. Even the server address him as such in the Confiteor of the "Missa sine populo".

Already, prior to this latest reform, the significant distinction between the Communion of the priest - the moment in which the Eternal High Priest and the one acting in His Person were brought together in the closest union - and the Communion of the faithful has been suppressed.

Not a word do we now find as to the priest's power to sacrifice, or about his act of consecration, the bringing about through him of the Eucharistic Presence. He now appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister.

The disappearance, or optional use, of many sacred vestments (in certain cases the alb and stole are sufficient - no. 298) obliterate even more the original conformity with Christ: the priest is no more clothed with all His virtues, become merely a "non-commissioned officer" whom one or two signs may distinguish from the mass of the people: "a little more a man than the rest", to quite the involuntarily humorous definition of a modern preacher. Again, as with the "table" and the Altar, there is separated what God has united: the sole Priesthood and the Word of God.

3) Finally, there is the Church's position in relation to Christ. In one case only, namely the "Mass without congregation", is the Mass acknowledged to be "Actio Christi et Ecclesiae" (no. 4, cf. Presb. Ord. no. 13), whereas in the case of the "Mass with congregation" this is not referred to except for the purpose of "remembering Christ" and sanctifying those present. The words used are: "In offering the sacrifice through Christ in the Holy Ghost to God the Father, the priest associates the people with himself" (no. 60), instead one ones which would associate the people with Christ Who offers Himself "per Spiritum Sanctum Deo Patri".

In this context the follows are to be noted:

1) the very serious omission of the phrase "Through Christ Our Lord", the guarantee of being heard given to the Church in every age (John, XIV, 13-14; 15; 16; 23; 24);

2) the all pervading "paschalism", almost as though there were no other, quite different and equally important, aspects of the communication of grace;

3) the very strange and dubious eschatologism whereby the communication of supernatural grace, a reality which is permanent and eternal, is brought down to the dimensions of time: we hear of a people on the march, a pilgrim Church - no longer militant - against the Powers of Darkness - looking towards a future which having lost its line with eternity is conceived in purely temporal terms.

The Church - One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic - is diminished as such in the formula that, in the "Eucharistic Prayer No. 4", has taken the place of the prayer of the Roman Cannon "on behalf of all orthodox believers of the Catholic and apostolic faith". Now we have merely: "all who seek you with a sincere heart".

Again, in the Memento for the dead, these have no longer passed on "with the sign of faith and sleep the sleep of peace" but only "who have died in the peace of thy Christ", and to them are added, with further obvious detriment to the concept of visible unity, the host "of all the dead whose faith is known to you alone".

Furthermore, in none of three new Eucharistic prayers, is there any reference, as has already been said, to that state of suffering of those who have died, in none the possibility of a particular Memento: all of this again, must undermine faith in the propitiatory and redemptive nature of the Sacrifice.

Desacralizing the Church

Desacralising omissions everywhere debase the mystery of the Church. Above all she is not presented as a sacred hierarchy: Angels and Saints are reduced to anonymity in the second part of the collective Confiteor: they have disappeared, as witnesses and judges, in the person of St. Michael, for the first.

The various hierarchies of angels have also disappeared (and this is without precedent) from the new Preface of "Prayer II". In the Communicantes, reminder of the Pontiffs and holy martyrs on whom the Church of Rome is founded and who were, without doubt, the transmitters of the apostolic traditions, destined to be completed in what became, with St. Gregory, the Roman Mass, has been suppressed. In the Libera nos the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and all the Saints are no longer mentioned: her and their intercession is thus no longer asked, even in time of peril.

The unity of the Church is gravely compromised by the wholly intolerable omission from the entire Ordo, including the three new Prayers, of the names of the Apostles Peter and Paul, Founders of the Church of Rome, and the names of the other Apostles, foundation and mark of the one and universal Church, the only remaining mention being in the Communicantes of the Roman Canon.

A clear attack upon the dogma of the Communion of Saints is the omission, when the priest is celebrating without a server, of all the salutations, and the final Blessing, not to speak of the 'Ite, missa est' now not even said in Masses celebrated with a server.

The double Confiteor showed how the priest, in his capacity of Christ's Minister, bowing down deeply and acknowledging himself unworthy of his sublime mission, of the "tremendum mysterium", about to be accomplished by him and even (in the Aufer a nobis) entering into the Holy of Holies, invoked the intercession (in the Oramus te, Domine) of the merits of the martyrs whose relics were sealed in the altar. Both these prayers have been suppressed; what has been said previously in respect of the double Confiteor and the double Communion is equally relevant here.

The outward setting of the Sacrifice, evidence of its sacred character, has been profaned. See, for example, what is laid down for celebration outside sacred precincts, in which the altar may be replaced by a simple "table" without consecrated stone or relics, and with a single cloth (nos. 260, 265). Here too all that has been previously said with regard to the Real Presence applies, the disassociation of the "convivium" and of the sacrifice of the supper from the Real Presence Itself.

The process of desacralisation is completed thanks to the new procedures for the offering: the reference to ordinary not unleavened bread; altar-servers (and lay people at Communion sub utraque specie) being allowed to handle sacred vessels (no. 244d); the distracting atmosphere created by the ceaseless coming and going of the priest, deacon, subdeacon, psalmist, commentator (the priest becomes commentator himself from his constantly being required to 'explain' what he is about to accomplish) - of readings (men and women), of servers or laymen welcoming people at the door and escorting them to their places whilst others carry and sort offerings. And in the midst of all this prescribed activity, the 'mulier idonea' (anti-Scriptural and anti-Pauline) who for the first time in the tradition of the Church will be authorised to read the lessons and also perform other "ministeria quae extra presbyterium peraguntur" (no. 70).

Finally, there is the concelebration mania, which will end by destroying Eucharistic piety in the priest, by overshadowing the central figure of Christ, sole Priest and Victim, in a collective presence of concelebrants.

VI The Destruction of Unity

We have limited ourselves to a summary evaluation of the new Ordo where it deviates most seriously from the theology of the Catholic Mass and our observations touch only those deviations that are typical. A complete evaluation of all the pitfalls, the dangers, and spiritually and psychologically destructive elements contained in the document - whether in text, rubrics or instructions - would be a vast undertaking.

By Priest or Parson

No more than a passing glance has been taken at the three new Canons, since these have already come in for repeated and authoritative criticism, both as to form and substance. The second of them gave immediate scandal to the faithful on account of its brevity. Of Canon II it has been well said, among other things, that it could be recited with perfect tranquillity of conscience by a priest who no longer believes either in Transubstantiation or in the sacrificial character of the Mass - hence even by a Protestant minister.

The new Missal was introduced in Rome as "a text of ample pastoral matter", and "more pastoral than juridical", which the Episcopal Conferences would be able to utilise according to the varying circumstances and genius of different peoples. In the same Apostolic Constitution we read: "we have introduced into the New Missal legitimate variations and adaptations". Besides, Section I of the new Congregation for Divine Worship will be responsible "for the publication and 'constant revision' of the liturgical books". The last official bulletin of the Liturgical Institutes of Germany, Switzerland and Austria says: "The Latin texts will now have to be translated into the languages of the various peoples; the 'Roman' style will have to be adapted to the individuality of the local Churches: that which was conceived beyond time must be transposed into the changing context of concrete situations in the constant flux of the Universal Church and of its myriad congregations."

The Apostolic Constitution itself gives the coup de grace to the Church's universal language (contrary to the express will of Vatican Council II) with the bland affirmation that "in such a variety of tongues one (?) and the same prayer of all . . . may ascend more fragrant than any incense".

Council of Trent Rejected

The demise of Latin may therefore be taken for granted; that of Gregorian Chant, which even the Council recognised as "liturgiae romanae proprium" (Sacros Conc. no 116), ordering that "principem locum obtineat" (ibid.) will logically follow, with the freedom of choice, amongst other things, of the texts of the Introit and Gradual.

From the outset therefore the New Rite is launched as pluralistic and experimental, bound to time and place. Unity of worship, thus swept away for good and all, what will become of that unity of faith that went with it, and which, we were always told, was to be defended without compromise?

It is evident that the Novus Ordo has no intention of presenting the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent, to which, nonetheless, the Catholic conscience is bound forever. With the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, the loyal Catholic is thus faced with a most tragic alternative.

VII The Alienation of the Orthodox

The Apostolic Constitution makes explicit reference to a wealth of piety and teaching in the Novus Ordo borrowed from Eastern Churches. The result - utterly remote from and even opposed to the inspiration of the oriental Liturgies - can only repel the faithful of the Eastern Rites. What, in truth, do these ecumenical options amount to? Basically to the multiplicity of anaphora (but nothing approaching their beauty and complexity), to the presence of deacons, to Communion sub utraque specie.

Against this, the Novus Ordo would appear to have been deliberately shorn of everything which in the Liturgy of Rome came close to those of the East.

Moreover in abandoning its unmistakable and immemorial Roman character, the Novus Ordo lost what was spiritually precious of its own. Its place has been taken by elements which bring it closer only to certain other reformed liturgies (not even those closest to Catholicism) and which debase it at the same time. The East will be ever more alienated, as it already has been by the preceding liturgical reforms.

By the way of compensation the new Liturgy will be the delight of the various groups who, hovering on the verge of apostasy, are wreaking havoc in the Church of God, poisoning her organism and undermining her unity of doctrine, worship, morals and discipline in a spiritual crisis without precedent.

VIII The Abandonment of Defences

St. Pius V had the Roman Missal drawn up (as the present Apostolic Constitution itself recalls) so that it might be an instrument of unity among Catholics. In conformity with the injunctions of the Council of Trent it was to exclude all danger, in liturgical worship, of errors against the Faith, then threatened by the Protestant Reformation. The gravity of the situation fully justified, and even rendered prophetic, the saintly Pontiff's solemn warning given at the end of the Bull promulgating his Missal "should anyone presume to tamper with this, let him know that he shall incur the wrath of God Almighty and his blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul. (Quo Primum, July 13, 1570)

When the Novus Ordo was presented at the Vatican Press Office, it was asserted with great audacity that the reasons which prompted the Tridentine decrees are no longer valid. Not only do they still apply, but there also exist, as we do not hesitate to affirm, very much more serious ones today.

It was precisely in order to ward off the dangers which in every century threaten the purity of the deposit of faith (depositum custodi, devitans profanas vocum novitates" Tim. VI, 20) the Church has had to erect under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost the defences of her dogmatic definitions and doctrinal pronouncements.

These were immediately reflected in her worship, which became the most complete monument of her faith. To try to bring the Church's worship back at all cost to ancient practices by refashioning, artificially and with that "unhealthy archeologism" so roundly condemned by Pius XII, what in earlier times had the grace of original spontaneity means as we see today only too clearly - to dismantle all the theological ramparts erected for the protection of the Rite and to take away all the beauty by which it was enriched over the centuries.

And all this at one of the most critical moments - if not the most critical moment - of the Church's history!

Today, division and schism are officially acknowledged to exist not only outside of but within the Church. Her unity is not only threatened but already tragically compromised. Errors against the Faith are not so much insinuated but rather an inevitable consequence of liturgical abuses and aberrations which have been given equal recognition.

To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries was both the sign and pledge of unity of worship (and to replace it with another which cannot but be a sign of division by virtue of the countless liberties implicitly authorised, and which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic religion) is, we feel in conscience bound to proclaim, an incalculable error.

Appendix F

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

(Adapted from my own G.I.R.M. Warfare)

The wreckage wrought by the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical 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 convince others positivistically 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 beofre.

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 Spirit. 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 forty 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 coir 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 intellecdtually 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. Pope Pius XII noted in Mediator Dei in 1947 that the human elements (or accidentals) of the Mass are subject to change. If such change should occur, he noted, it should occur organically, slowly over the course of time. Rapid change bewilders the faithful. Constant, unremitting change (and the variations that exist within parishes, among parishes, and among priests) lead 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 by 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 forty 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 sloganisticaly 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 Montini/Paul VI demonstrates that the expression of the faith has been changed quite radically (as I noted when analyzing Paragraph 15 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal in Change for change sake). This is especially the case with feasts of the Blessed Mother, as I noted in last months' analysis of GIRM. 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 the Son to 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 of 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, quaesimus 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. Why? 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 live 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 in 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. It is in the Mass, which is the perfect prayer, that the priest prays for us to the Father through the Son in Spirit and in Truth. 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 of 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 of 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 is 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 have been the subject of extensive exegesis by sound theologians over the centuries (including entire chapters dedicated to the subject in both the Catechism of the Council of Trent and the Catechism of the Catholic Church). 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, ableit 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 of 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 of 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.

    "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 Masonic Novus Ordo service. 

Concluding Remarks

Those priests presbyters who contend while offering or simulating celebrating the Mass of our fathers that a commitment to the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is simply a matter of personal preference are either fooling themselves or engaging in a dangerous, positivistic game in order to secure their own pastoral privileges. 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 thati 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.





© Copyright 2012, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.