Religious Liberty, Pro Vobis et Pro Multis
Thomas A. Droleskey
New Yorkers love irony. They use it a lot in their verbal and written communications. Indeed, New Yorkers seem to have an inherent capacity to detect irony and to relish it. While I am a displaced New Yorker, I am nevertheless a New Yorker. And while I do not claim to have as much of an inherent ability to detect irony as many of my fellow New Yorkers, I cannot deny that I do relish it when my rather dim senses come across it.
A whole host of ironies presents itself in the case of Francis Cardinal Arinze's letter to the presidents of the conciliar episcopal conferences in which the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship said that the words "for many" (pro multis) should replace the words "for all" (pro omnibus) in the words of consecration of the wine in the various and sundry "Eucharistic Prayers" in use in the Novus Ordo Missae. So many ironies are present here that it is difficult to know where to begin. However, I will give it the old college try.
First, Cardinal Arinze's letter contradicts almost entirely a January, 1970, instruction from the previously named Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, issued in response to a query made by of it by a Catholic. Here is the text of the 1970 instruction, which was contained in a Zenit report of September 7, 2004, wherein Father Edward McNamara sought to defend the use of "for all" as opposed "for many":
In some vernacular versions the words of the formula for the consecration of the wine 'pro multis' are translated in the following way: in English 'for all men'; in Spanish 'por todos' and in Italian 'per tutti.'
"The following is asked:
"a) Is there a good reason, and if there is, what is it, for deciding on such a variation?
"b) Whether the doctrine regarding this matter handed down through the 'Roman Catechism ordered by Decree of the Council of Trent and edited by St. Pius V' is to be held outdated?
"c) Whether the versions of the above-mentioned biblical text are to be held less appropriate?
"d) Whether in the approval given to this vernacular variation in the liturgical text something less correct crept in, and which now requires correction or amending?
"Response: The above variation is fully justified:
"a) According to exegetes, the Aramaic word which in Latin is translated 'pro multis,' means 'pro omnibus': the multitude for whom Christ died is unbounded, which is the same as saying: Christ died for all. St. Augustine will help recall this: 'You see what He hath given; find out then what He bought. The Blood of Christ was the price. What is equal to this? What, but the whole world? What, but all nations? They are very ungrateful for their price, or very proud, who say that the price is so small that it bought the Africans only; or that they are so great, as that it was given for them alone.' (Enarr. In Ps. 95, n. 5)
"b) In no way is the doctrine of the 'Roman Catechism' to be held outdated: the distinction that the death of Christ was sufficient for all, efficacious only for many, still holds its value.
"c) In the approval given to this vernacular variation in the liturgical text, nothing less than correct has crept in, which would require correction or amendment."
Since the debate continued unabated, the Vatican congregation weighed in with Father Zerwick's May article entitled "Pro vobis et pro multis effundetur" which expounded the biblical justifications for the change from "many" to "all." The following text, while sometimes a trifle technical, is sufficiently clear:
"A response was already given in Notitiae, n. 50 (January 1970), pp. 39-40, to the difficulty that in the vernacular interpretations of the words of the consecration of the wine 'pro omnibus' was used in place of 'pro multis.' Since, however, some uneasiness seems to persist, it seemed that the matter should be addressed again a little more extensively from an exegetical point of view.
"In that response, one reads: 'According to exegetes the Aramaic word, which in Latin is translated "pro multis," means "pro omnibus."' This assertion should be expressed a little more cautiously. To be exact: In the Hebrew (Aramaic) language there is one word for 'omnes' and another for 'multi.' The word 'multi' then, strictly speaking, does not mean 'omnes.'
"But because the word 'multi' in different ways in our Western languages does not exclude the whole, it can and does in fact connote it, where the context or subject matter suggests or requires it. It is not easy to offer clear examples of this phenomenon. Here are some:
"In 3 Esdras [Ezra] 8:3 we read: 'Many have been created, but only a few shall be saved.' It is clear that all have been created. But here the interest is not in the whole, but in the opposite of 'few.' Hence, 'many' is used, when it truth it means 'all.'
"In the Qumram text Hodayot IV, 28, 29, both words 'many' and 'all' are found in a synonymous parallel (two parallel verses in which the same thing is said twice): 'You have worked wonders among the many on account of your glory that you might make known to all your great works.'
"Moreover, in Qumram 'many' (with or without the article) came to be a technical term (almost a name) for the community of all the full-fledged members, and thus just in the 'rule' of the sect it occurs in around 30 places.
"We come now to the texts of the New Testament with which we are particularly concerned: Romans 5:12,15. Here the comparative argumentation from the minor premise to the major is set up between the universality of Adam's sin and the universality of Christ's grace: 'Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned (after the insertion of verses 13 and 14, the comparison continues) 'But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man's trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many.' Let us note: 'all' those of the first part become the 'many' (with an article) of the second part. Just as sin affects all, or rather much more, so also grace is destined for all.
"Mark 10:45 = Matthew 20:28 has Jesus' words: 'the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.' That 'for many' ambiguous in itself, in fact is to be understood as 'for all,' proven by what we read in 1 Timothy 2:6: 'Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all.'
"But even if we didn't have this authoritative interpretation, that 'for many' nonetheless should certainly be understood as 'for all' because the coming of Jesus ('he came in order to give ...') is explicitly carried out for the purpose which can abundantly be shown to have as its object the whole world, i.e. the human race as a whole.
"John 1:29: 'Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin (singular!) of the world!'
"John 3:16,17: 'For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him ... may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.'
"1 John 2:2: 'he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.'
"1 John 4:14: 'And we have seen and do testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world.'
"1 Timothy 4:10: '... we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.'"
"These texts, however, have the Eucharist itself in view:
"John 6:33: 'For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.'
"John 6:51: 'the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.'
"Given all this, it can indeed rightly be asked, not so much what the words 'pro multis' in the consecration mean, but rather given all this evidence, why 'pro omnibus' is not explicitly said.
"In response, it seems that
"1) in the primitive Palestinian Church, considering both their soteriology and their Semitic mind-set, there was no misunderstanding that had to be avoided by employing the formula 'pro omnibus.' They could freely keep the traditional 'pro multis' because those Christians sensed and marveled at the beauty of that original formula 'pro multis.'
"2) 'pro multis' seems to have been used by Jesus himself, because evoking the memory of Chapter 53 of Isaiah about the Servant of Yahweh who sacrifices himself, it is suggested that Jesus would fulfill what was predicted about the Servant of Yahweh. The main text is Isaiah 53:11b-12: 'The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out himself to death ...; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.'
"Therefore the formula 'pro multis' instead of 'pro omnibus' in our texts (Mark 10:45 = Matthew 20:28; Mark 14:24 = Matthew 26:28) seems to be due to the desired allusion to the Servant of Yahweh whose work Jesus carried out by his death.
"This brings us now to another question: Why therefore in our liturgical version this venerable original 'pro multis' should yield to the phrase 'pro omnibus'? I respond: because of a certain accidental but true inconvenience: the phrase 'for many' -- as it is said -- in our minds (not forewarned) excludes that universality of the redemptive work which for the Semitic mind could be and certainly was connoted in that phrase because of the theological context. However, the allusion to the theology of the Servant of Yahweh, however eloquent for the ancients, among us is clear only to the experts.
"But if on the other hand it is said that the phrase 'for all' also has its own inconvenience, because for some it might suggest that all will actually be saved, the danger of such an erroneous understanding is estimated to hardly exist among Catholics.
"Besides, the change which the words of the consecration underwent was not unique nor the first. For the traditional Latin text already combines the Lucan text 'pro vobis' with the phrase of Mark and Matthew 'pro multis.' And that is not the first change. For already the liturgy of the early Church (Mark-Matthew) seems to have adjusted the saying over the chalice to the formula pronounced over the bread. For originally that formula of the chalice according to Paul (1 Corinthians 11:25) and Luke (22:20) was: 'This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.' -- a formula which was excellent perhaps in depth, but not really in clarity.
"It is clear how the Church of the Apostles was not interested in preserving the very voice of the Lord even in the words of the consecration, certainly cited for the first time as such by Jesus himself."
In sum and substance, you see, this general explanation was offered by apologists for the Novus Ordo Missae from that time to the present day. This is what Father Edward McNamara relied upon in the Zenit report of September 7, 2004, to justify the mistranslation of "pro multis" to the vernacular equivalents of "pro omnibus" in the world's various languages. The explanation, which is really a rationalization of a theological error offered by the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship and the Sacraments in 1970, is quite similar to those used by other defenders of the Novus Ordo Missae, including James Likoudis (who took G.I.R.M. Warfare to task in Lay Witness earlier this year) and Kenneth Whitehead in The Pope, the Council and the Mass.
Cardinal Arinze's letter is a complete contradiction of the 1970 instruction issued by the curial congregation he now heads, proving once again that conciliarism isn't even bound by its own novelties, that "truth" is anchored in one place for a while before moving on to another place. Anchors aweigh, my friends, anchors aweigh!
Here is the report of Cardinal Arinze's letter to the presidents of the conciliar episcopal conferences as published on the Catholic World News.com website:
Vatican, Nov. 18 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican has ruled that the phrase pro multis should be rendered as "for many" in all new translations of the Eucharistic Prayer, CWN has learned.
Although "for many" is the literal translation of the Latin phrase, the translations currently in use render the phrase as "for all." Equivalent translations (für alle; por todos; per tutti) are in use in several other languages.
Cardinal Francis Arinze (bio - news), the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, has written to the heads of world's episcopal conferences, informing them of the Vatican decision. For the countries where a change in translation will be required, the cardinal's letter directs the bishops to prepare for the introduction of a new translation of the phrase in approved liturgical texts "in the next one or two years."
The translation of pro multis has been the subject of considerable debate because of the serious theological issues involved. The phrase occurs when the priest consecrates the wine, saying (in the current translation):
...It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.
The Latin version of the Missal, which sets the norm for the Roman liturgy, says
: ...qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.
Critics of the current translation have argued, since it first appeared, that rendering pro multis as "for all" not only distorts the meaning of the Latin original, but also conveys the impression that all men are saved, regardless of their relationship with Christ and his Church. The more natural translation, "for many," more accurately suggests that while Christ's redemptive suffering makes salvation available to all, it does not follow that all men are saved. Cardinal Arinze, in his letter to the presidents of episcopal conferences, explains the reasons for the Vatican's decision to require
- The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26,28; Mk 14,24) make specific reference to “many” for whom the Lord is offering the Sacrifice, and this wording has been emphasized by some biblical scholars in connection with the words of the prophet Isaiah (53, 11-12). It would have been entirely possible in the Gospel texts to have said “for all” (for example, cf. Luke 12,41); instead, the formula given in the institution narrative is “for many”, and the words have been faithfully translated thus in most modern biblical versions.
- The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.
- The anaphoras of the various Oriental Rites, whether in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, the Slavic languages, etc., contain the verbal equivalent of the Latin pro multis in their respective languages.
- “For many” is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas “for all” is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.
- The expression “for many”, while remaining open to the inclusion of each human person, is reflective also of the fact that this salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one’s willing or participation; rather, the believer is invited to accept in faith the gift that is being offered and to receive the supernatural life that is given to those who participate in this mystery, living it out in their lives as well so as to be numbered among the “many” to whom the text refers.
One can expect much blood to be shed on this issue in the months and years ahead. The hard-core liturgical revolutionaries, such as Roger Cardinal Mahony, the conciliar Archbishop of Los Angeles, and Robert N. Lynch, the conciliar Bishop of Saint Petersburg, will work as hard as they can to exempt their dioceses from implementing this "reform" of the "revolution," pitting hard-core Bolsheviks in this country and elsewhere against the more "moderate" Menshevik revolutionaries in the Vatican that is now under conciliar captivity. Bishop Lynch gave an address a few years ago to the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions annual meeting in which he boasted of the "holy war" that the American bishops had waged against Rome concerning the "proper" implementation of the "liturgical reforms." They are not going to let the issue of "for all" and "for many" die without a real fight.
This brings us to the second irony, that is, that the liturgical revolution has created a veritable cottage industry involving controversies about translations and the proper "implementation" of various liturgical novelties, most of which stem from Protestantism. There would be no need for a conciliar pope to appear as a "knight in shining armor" to "bring back tradition" to one part of a synthetic concoction that is offensive to God and harmful to souls of its very nature if the conciliar revolutionaries had not been intent on abolishing the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and creating a vehicle to enshrine the errors of ecumenism and religious liberty. How much time and effort has been expended by "conservative" Catholics (and I used to be one of them) who were caught up in the "fight" to end the "abuses" in what I myself came to recognize later was the liturgical abuse par excellence, the Novus Ordo Missae itself)? Is this how God wants us to spend our days, arguing about liturgical translations and rubrics? Isn't the Mass supposed to be the means of our sanctification, not a cause of endless conflict and controversy? Thus it is that the liturgical revolution instituted an entire structure to deal with problems that never existed before. The document Litugicam Authentiam, issued in 2001, was just the latest of attempts to "standardize" the Babel caused by the novelties associated with the Novus Ordo Missae (Comme le prevoit, 1973, was an earlier effort, serving as source of a great deal of debate at the 1993 annual meeting of the then named National Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington, D.C.).
That the mistranslation of "pro multis" into the phrase "for all men" was part and parcel of the work of the International Commission for English in the Liturgy, which is supervised, at least nominally, by the various bishops' committees on the liturgy of the national episcopal conferences of most, although not all, of the English-speaking countries of the world. The translations of ICEL had to be approved by each of the bishops' committees on the liturgy before being submitted to the entire body of a country's conciliar episcopal conference. The decisions of the episcopal conferences to adopt ICEL's translations are then reviewed in Rome, sometimes by the Congregation of Divine Worship and sometimes, especially since 1996, of that congregation and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In other words, Roman authorities have approved each of the ICEL translations that made their way into the official English texts of the Sacramentaries and Lectionaries in use for the Novus Ordo Missae in English-speaking countries. Some of the proposed translations and/or recommendations for major changes, including the use of "gender-inclusive" language, were rejected over the year while others were accepted. Once again, major battles were fought, especially when Jose Cardinal Estevez Medina wrote a rather strong letter to Cleveland Bishop Anthony Pilla, then the President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1997 that severely criticized the ideological work of ICEL. (Cardinal Estevez-Medina's letter dealt with proposed changes to the translations of the rite of episcopal consecration and of priestly ordination, changes that caused Cardinal Estevez-Medina to state that the rites themselves might be deficient as translated by ICEL. There is no irony here, is there? See Letter from CDW to NCCB on Ordination Rite)
That ICEL and other such commissions for the various language groups existed at all was a product of the devolution of liturgical decision-making from Rome to the level of the local bishops and the national episcopal conferences as foreseen in Paragraph 22 of Sacrosanctum Concilium, December 1, 1963. The bishops and the ideologues they chose to run the translation commissions such as ICEL were quite literally hell bent on implementing "changes" with lightning speed, as happened with the Ordo Missae of 1965 went into use as the precursor of the Novus Ordo Missae. Dr John Page, for many years the Executive Director of ICEL, told me in an extensive interview I conducted with him for The Wanderer in Washington, D.C. in 1993, that he believed it was the job of ICEL to "push the liturgy into the Twenty-first Century." He did not give me a direct answer when I asked him if there were "scholars," many of whom were arch-feminists, male and female alike, in the employ of ICEL who supported contraception or surgical abortion or who believed in women's ordination as part of "pushing the liturgy" into the then upcoming century. John Page had the full support of the then episcopal head of ICEL, Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk of Cincinnati, and of many other leading American bishops.
One of the major victories won by the American bishops and ICEL came in November of 198l. I remember it well, having taken a leave of absence from teaching at Nassau Community College on Long Island to attempt studies for the priesthood at Mount Saint Mary's Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland. The whooping and hollering was noticeable in the hallways of that venerable institution when word arrived that Rome had approved the use of the formula "for all" in the consecration of the wine, dropping the phrase "all men," which, of course, was deemed to be gender-exclusive. Other ICEL-proposed changes were rejected at the same time. The elimination of the word "man," however, in the various "Eucharistic Prayers" was deemed to be a major victory. Such are the problems created by living languages and by the heightened sensitivities of those who are concerned about their own feelings and sense of earthly empowerment. It was not too long thereafter, however, that the word "man" was blacked out in the missalettes in the chapel at Mount Saint Mary's, reminiscent of how a Ruthenian Rite Catholic Church, Saint Andrew's in Westbury, Long Island, had blacked out the words "and the Son" in the Filioque of the Nicene Creed (a phenomenon in Uniat Rite churches that had the full approval of John Paul II).
Yet another irony of the hubbub about Cardinal Arinze's letter to the heads of the conciliar episcopal conferences around the world is that it pits conciliar pope against conciliar pope. Some might protest by claiming that no pope ever approved the use of "for all men" or "for all." Well, the men appointed by Paul VI and John Paul II did so. They were not contradicted. Indeed, John Paul used the "for all men" formula in his extravaganza Masses in Boston Commons, at Yankee Stadium in The Bronx, at Logan Circle in Philadelphia, at the Living History farms outside of Des Moines, Iowa, at Grant Park in Chicago, and on the Capitol Mall in Washington, D.C., during his first visit to the United States, which took place from October 1-7, 1979. (I was an eyewitness to the Masses in Philadelphia and Washington). John Paul II used the "for all" formula in his extravaganza Masses in Miami, New Orleans (at the Lakefront), San Antonio, Phoenix (actually, Tempe), Los Angeles (the Los Angeles Coliseum and Dodger Stadium), Monterey (Laguna Seca Raceway), San Francisco (Candlestick Park), and Detroit in 1987. Yes, once again, the formula "for all" was used by John Paul II in Denver at World Youth Day in August of 1993, at Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey, at Aqueduct Race Track in Ozone Park,, Queens, at Central Park in Manhattan, and at Oriole Park at Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1995. A reprise use of the formula came in January of 1999 when John Paul II offered Mass at the then-named TWA Dome in Saint Louis, Missouri. Oh, sure. John Paul II never approved the formula. He just had to use it when he was in the United States. He just "forgot" to correct it.
Leaving aside minor little inconveniences such as the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration and the new rite of priestly ordination, the problem here is not just the constituent elements of the Novus Ordo Missae. The Novus Ordo Missae itself is the problem. Christendom, no less the Catholic Church, cannot be restored on the foundation of Protestant and Modernist falsehoods. The Immemorial Mass of Tradition is the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, not a synthetic novelty concocted by men who had defected from the Catholic Faith and who were advised by liberal Protestant theologians (see a review of some salient points about the beauty of the Mass of Tradition and the harm of the Novus Ordo Missae below the longer version of the Saint Michael the Archangel Prayer.)
The news of the pending "battle" over "for all" and "for many" will doubtless be seen as quite a positive and encouraging move by many, although certainly not all, of those who believe that Benedict is a true pope and that he is intent on "restoring" the Church "one step" at a time. Some might even see this as a sign of his being fully Catholic, that no one possessed of a heretical mind would ever be moved to "reverse course" and authorize the prefect of a curial congregation to mandate the proper translation of "pro multis" in the vernacular in the context of the Novus Ordo Missae. Such unjustified euphoria, which is akin to a political conservative's going ga-ga over some phony "pro-life" initiative of the George W. Bush administration, flies in the face of the fact that the former Joseph Ratzinger continues to be committed to the doctrinal novelties of conciliarism, including religious liberty and ecumenism, both of which embrace errors condemned repeatedly by pope after pope prior to 1958. The move to restore "pro multis" in the Novus Ordo Missae is an effort to deceive traditional Catholics into thinking that Benedict XVI is on their side when the truth is that he remains a Modernist to the core of his being,.
Pope Saint Pius X anticipated the deceptions used by Modernists. He explained that some Modernists would show a somewhat indulgent attitude concerning the liturgy as they embraced other Modernist proportions, such as the separation of the Church and State and the rejection of Scholastic philosophy and theology, thereby appearing, perhaps even to themselves in all sincerity in their own consciences, fully Catholic. This is what Pope Saint Pius X wrote in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:
It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?
Yes, almost all of this applies to Benedict XVI. It is a perfect description of who he has been and what he has believed from his earliest days in the seminary, influenced as he was by the "new thinkers," men such as Father Hans Urs von Balthasar and Henri de Lubac. A Modernist is thoroughly capable of exhibiting many characteristics of Catholicism. Unfortunately for them, however, one must adhere to the totality of Catholicism. A Catholic must adhere to the totality of the Faith. He is not free to utter one word in contradiction of anything contained in the Deposit of Faith.
Pope Leo XIII made this point in Satis Cognitum, drawing upon the Fathers of the Church, men who understood that one must believe in the entirety of the Faith, not just in some ill-defined formula that reduces to the "necessity" of the truths of the Faith to but a few:
The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).
Support for the error of "religious liberty" is one of those drops of poison that "infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition." Benedict is unrepentant. A note of his fervent support for this pernicious error was on fully display just two days after the Catholic World News.com report about "pro multis" appeared. Here is the story from the November 20, 2006, edition of Zenit:
VATICAN CITY, NOV. 20, 2006 (Zenit.org).- During Italian President Giorgio Napolitano's first official visit to the Vatican, Benedict XVI stressed that authentic religious freedom is not simply the absence of violence against believers.
The Pope explained to his guest, who arrived to the Vatican accompanied by his wife and a group of high-level governmental officials, that the religious dimension also has a public dimension which must be guaranteed.
"The Church and the state, though fully different, are both called, according to their respective missions and with their own ends and means, to serve man who is at once the end and participant of the salvific mission of the Church and citizen of the state, and they collaborate in promoting his integral good," the Holy Father said.
At the same time, "man appears before the state with his religious dimension, which consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God," the Pontiff said, quoting from the Second Vatican Council declaration "Dignitatis Humanae," No. 3.
"No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind," Benedict XVI added.
The Pope said it is an error "to consider that the right to religious freedom is sufficiently guaranteed when personal convictions suffer no violence or interference, or when we limit ourselves to respecting the expression of faith within the confines of a place of worship."
"It cannot, in fact, be forgotten that the social nature of man itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion; that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community," the Holy Father stated.
"Religious freedom is, then, not just of individuals, but also of families, of religious groups and of the Church herself," he indicated, in an address that was broadcast on public television channel RAI 1.
Benedict XVI continued: "An adequate respect of the right to religious freedom implies, then, the commitment of civil authorities in helping to create conditions favorable to the fostering of religious life, in order that the people may be truly enabled to exercise their religious rights and to fulfill their religious duties, and also in order that society itself may profit by the moral qualities of justice and peace which have their origin in men's faithfulness to God and to his holy will.
"The freedom that the Church and Christians claim does not prejudice the interests of the state or of other social groups, and does not seek an authoritative supremacy over them. Rather, it is a condition enabling the fulfillment of the vital service that the Church offers to Italy, and to all other countries in which she is present."
A Roman Catholic who is faithful to the Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church does not speak in these terms. He does not think in these terms. No Roman Catholic, that is, a member of Catholic Church in actual good standing, believes privately or supports publicly things that have been condemned by the Catholic Church from time immemorial. Anyone who thinks that Benedict XVI believes in the following reiterations of the consistent, perennial teaching of the Catholic Church prefers to ignore the plain truth rather than to recognize that the words of Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum apply directly to the mind and hence the person of Joseph Ratzinger.
Once again, to Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906:
That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. "Between them," he says, "there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul.-"Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur." He proceeds: "Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them.... As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error. -- "Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilque profuturam abjicere.... Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error."
Admitting, as Pope Leo XIII did in Libertas, June 20, 1888, that the Church, as good mother who does not expect the impossible, has to make accommodations now and again to the realities of particular governmental arrangements that have arisen as a result of the ethos of Modernity, no pope prior to John XXIII denied this teaching as serving as the ideal which we must strive to restore as normative in the life of all men and all states. Pope Saint Pius X explained this in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 12, 1910:
No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo.
Benedict does not believe in the restoration of the Catholic City. He does not even want the establishment of a generically "Christian" city. He is content to let the Catholic Church, the true Church established by God Himself, be one voice out of many as she contends with the "views" of the adherents of false religions, which are said to have the "right" to propagate these views publicly alongside the truths entrusted to her exclusively to protect and to proclaim. This is why the retention of the Novus Ordo Missae is vital to Benedict. The Immemorial Mass of Tradition, which communicates the glory of Christ the King in all of its constituent elements, cannot be restored as normative. And its "liberalization," when and if it comes about, must be premised upon an acceptance of essential doctrinal soundness of the Novus Ordo Missae and upon an acceptance of the novelties and errors of the Second Vatican Council, including ecumenism and religious liberty. Also on the horizon is the possible grant of "limited" permission for the use of a certain contraceptive device by people afflicted with HIV/AIDS. There is one way to prevent the spread of diseases of this kind: convert men and nations to the Catholic Church and the Social Reign of Christ the King. Period. That is not on the horizon of Benedict or the conciliar church he heads.
"Dressing up" the Novus Ordo Missae, no matter the motives and intentions that Benedict may have in his mind filled with contradiction and paradox, is ultimately a trap to convince traditional Catholics that "things" are going to get better as the novelties propagated by the conciliar church in the past forty-eight years continue to be propagated in the name of the true God, Who has consistently condemned these novelties and errors through His true pontiffs over the centuries. Benedict has nothing but contempt for the Syllabus of Errors, one of those "anchorages" that has been lifted up of the sediments of the past by the Second Vatican Council and now placed in the "vital streams" where "modern" man lives. Thus, the following condemnations of the propositions advanced most fervently by Benedict and his fellow conciliarists mean nothing. The counterfeit church has "moved on:" It is, for the moment, at least, religious liberty, pro vobis et pro multis.
77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.
78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.
79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.
80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.
No change of the words of the consecration of the wine in the many and varied "Eucharistic prayers" of the Novus Ordo Missae, which is offered in many cases in older church buildings that have been "wreckovated" to suit the "new theology" of a new religion (and offered in newer church buildings designed specifically to enshrine the ethos of the new, counterfeit religion), is going to change the reality that the conciliar religion is false and that the men who promote its false tenets are wolves' in shepherds clothing. Saint Paul himself pointed this out in the Acts of the Apostles:
Wherefore I take you to witness this day, that I am clear from the blood of all men; For I have not spared to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20: 26-30)
We have been given true shepherds in the midst of the crisis caused by conciliarism and the conciliar church. Shepherds such as His Excellency Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas and His Excellency Bishop Daniel Dolan, among several others here and around the world, and the priests who serve under them are simply teaching the Catholic Faith as it has been handed down to us from Apostles themselves, simply offering God in the very manner He Himself taught the Apostles before He Ascended to the Father's right hand in glory. Although there will be differences on this point or that in a period when the Chief Shepherd has been struck and the other shepherds and the sheep themselves have been scattered, these good, holy shepherds, men who dissent from not one whit of anything contained in the Deposit of Faith, are helping their flocks get home to Heaven. There is no need to fight "battles" over the words of consecration. There is only the peace and surety that comes from being nourished in the catacombs by the fullness of the Catholic Faith without compromise.
May we pray to Our Lady, the Queen of All Angels and Saints, as her consecrated slaves so that we will cooperate with the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, on the wood of the Holy Cross--and that flow into our souls through her loving hands--so as to plant a few seeds in this mortal vale of tears for the restoration of Tradition in the Catholic Church and the restoration of Christendom in the world. We may not see this with our own eyes in this life. We may, please God and by His ineffable grace we die in a state of Sanctifying Grace, see the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary from eternity, where we can rest in peace after having lifted high the Cross at a time when the errors of Modernity in the world and Modernism in the Church seemed so invincible. These errors will perish one day. May it be our privilege to form ourselves and our families in the crucible of love that is the Holy Cross, pledging ourselves to give all to God through the Immaculate Heart of Mary as we enthrone our homes to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.
There will come the day when all men will exclaim the words uttered by Father Miguel Augustin Pro on November 23, 1927:
Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady, August Queen of Heaven, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Cecilia, pray for us.
Pope Saint Clement I, pray for us.
Saint John of the Cross, pray for us.
Saint John Mary Vianney, pray for us.
Saint Vincent de Paul, pray for us.
Saint Therese Lisieux, pray for us.
Saint Martin of Tours, pray for us.
Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, pray for us.
Saint Isaac Jogues, pray for us.
Saint Rene Goupil, pray for us.
Saint John Lalonde, pray for us.
Saint Gregory Lalamont, pray for us.
Saint Noel Chabanel, pray for us.
Saint Charles Garnier, pray for us.
Saint Anthony Daniel, pray for us.
Saint John DeBrebeuf, pray for us.
Saint Athanasius, pray for us.
Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, pray for us.
Saint Gerard Majella, pray for us.
Saint Dominic, pray for us.
Saint Basil, pray for us.
Saint Augustine, pray for us.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.
Saint Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.
Saint Sebastian, pray for us.
Saint Tarcisius, pray for us.
Saint Lucy, pray for us.
Saint Agnes, pray for us.
Saint Agatha, pray for us.
Saint Bridget of Sweden, pray for us.
Saint Philomena, pray for us.
Saint John of the Cross, pray for us.
Saint John Bosco, pray for us.
Saint Teresa of Avila, pray for us.
Saint Bernadette Soubirous, pray for us.
Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, pray for us.
Venerable Pauline Jaricot, pray for us.
Father Miguel Augustin Pro, pray for us.
Francisco Marto, pray for us.
Jacinta Marto, pray for us.
The Longer Version of the Saint Michael the Archangel Prayer, composed by Pope Leo XIII, 1888
O glorious Archangel Saint Michael, Prince of the heavenly host, be our defense in the terrible warfare which we carry on against principalities and powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, spirits of evil. Come to the aid of man, whom God created immortal, made in His own image and likeness, and redeemed at a great price from the tyranny of the devil. Fight this day the battle of our Lord, together with the holy angels, as already thou hast fought the leader of the proud angels, Lucifer, and his apostate host, who were powerless to resist thee, nor was there place for them any longer in heaven. That cruel, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with his angels. Behold this primeval enemy and slayer of men has taken courage. Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the Name of God and of His Christ, to seize upon, slay, and cast into eternal perdition, souls destined for the crown of eternal glory. That wicked dragon pours out. as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity. These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on Her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck the sheep may be scattered. Arise then, O invincible Prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and give them the victory. They venerate thee as their protector and patron; in thee holy Church glories as her defense against the malicious powers of hell; to thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly beatitude. Oh, pray to the God of peace that He may put Satan under our feet, so far conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in captivity and harm the Church. Offer our prayers in the sight of the Most High, so that they may quickly conciliate the mercies of the Lord; and beating down the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, do thou again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce the nations. Amen.
Verse: Behold the Cross of the Lord; be scattered ye hostile powers.
Response: The Lion of the Tribe of Juda has conquered the root of David.
Verse: Let Thy mercies be upon us, O Lord.
Response: As we have hoped in Thee.
Verse: O Lord hear my prayer.
Response: And let my cry come unto Thee.
Verse: Let us pray. O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we call upon Thy holy Name, and as suppliants, we implore Thy clemency, that by the intercession of Mary, ever Virgin, immaculate and our Mother, and of the glorious Archangel Saint Michael, Thou wouldst deign to help us against Satan and all other unclean spirits, who wander about the world for the injury of the human race and the ruin of our souls.
A Brief Review of the Beauty of the Mass of Tradition and the Horrors of the Novus Ordo Missae:
1) The Traditional Latin Mass clearly communicates that it is a propitiatory offering for human sins, the perpetuation in an unbloody manner of the Sacrifice of the Chief Priest and Victim of every Mass, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, on an altar of sacrifice by a sacerdos acting in persona Christi.
2) The Traditional Latin Mass is oriented completely to God, starting from the first moment a priest makes the Sign of the Cross and prays Psalm 42, the Judica me, at the foot of the steps to the altar. The first thing the priest does in the Traditional Latin Mass is to address God and to prepare himself to ascend the "holy mountain" symbolized by the three steps leading to the altar (also signifying Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). The first thing a priest does in the Novus Ordo Missae after making the Sign of the Cross is to address the people, at which time he is permitted by the rubrics of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal to improvise with a few words of his own to "introduce" the Mass.
3) The Traditional Latin Mass reflects the permanence and stability of God Himself and of our need for Him. Although there are differences in the genres of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition (Pontifical High Mass, Solemn High Mass, Missa Cantata, Low Mass), the rubrics are fixed within each of the genres and are beyond the ability of the celebrant to licitly alter. The Novus Ordo Missae admits of so many legitimate changes and adaptations for a whole variety of reasons that to speak of it as a "fixed rite" is an absolute absurdity. It is not. It produces of its very fungible nature uncertainty and instability, the very opposite of what the worship of God is supposed to produce.
4) The Traditional Latin Mass contains prayers that remind men of their sinfulness and of the necessity of the possibility of losing their souls for all eternity. Cardinal Arinze wants to know why people think their souls are immaculate and are thus not going to confession? The Novus Ordo Missae reaffirms people in their essential "goodness." It is a rejection of the Church's centuries-old wisdom in mandating the faithful to perform outward acts of penance in order to discipline their souls. Doubt that this is the case? Doubt no more. Here is passage from G.I.R.M. Warfare dealing with Paragraph 15 of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal:
Paragraph 15 of GIRM reads:
"Thus the Church remains faithful in its responsibility as a teacher of truth to guard 'things old,' that is, the deposit of tradition; at the same time it fulfills another duty, that of examining and prudently bringing forth 'things new.'
"Accordingly, a part of the new Roman Missal directs the prayer of the Church expressly to the needs of our times. This is above all true of the ritual Masses and the Masses for various needs and occasions, which happily combine the traditional and the contemporary. Thus many expressions, drawn from the Church's most ancient tradition and familiar through the many editions of the Roman Missal, have remained unchanged. Other expressions, however, have been adapted to today's needs and circumstances and still others-for example, the prayers for the Church, the laity, the sanctification of human work, the community of all peoples, certain needs proper to our era-are completely new compositions, drawing on the thoughts and even the very language of the recent conciliar documents.
"The same awareness of the present state of the world also influenced the use of texts from very ancient tradition. It seemed that this cherished treasure would not be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the style of language would be more in accord with the language of modern theology and would faithfully reflect the actual state of the Church's discipline. Thus there have been changes of some expressions bearing on the evaluation and use of the good things of the earth and of allusions to a particular form of outward penance belonging to another age in the history of the Church.
"In short, the liturgical norms of the Council of Trent have been completed and improved in many respects by those of the Second Vatican Council. The Council has brought to realization the efforts of the last four hundred years to move the faithful closer to the sacred liturgy, especially the efforts of recent times and above all the zeal for the liturgy promoted by Saint Pius X and his successors."
Comment and Analysis:
Holy Mass is supposed to be suited to the needs of all times, not just our times. Herein, therefore, lies the real nub of the problem with the General Instruction to the Roman Missal and thus the Novus Ordo itself: a reliance upon the spirit of one particular time in history results in the glorification of the human spirit and not that of the Blessed Trinity. It is really that simple. God exists outside of time and space. The worship of God must convey, as noted earlier, the timelessness of God and the immortality of our own souls, which will live forever either in Heaven or in Hell once the Last Judgment has taken place. Again, as noted earlier, the Mass is supposed to be a refuge from the world, not a glorification of it.
"It seemed that this cherished treasure [ancient tradition] would not be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the style of language would be more in accord with the language of modern theology and would faithfully reflect the actual state of the Church's discipline."
Well, our ancient tradition is not the only casualty wrought by the changing of phrases of the Mass texts (Introits, Collects, Secrets, Prayer after Communion, the very Offertory Prayers themselves, the addition of first three and then five more new "Eucharistic prayers"). The very faith life of many Catholics has been harmed.
One of the reasons that the Sacrament of Penance fell into disuse is that the faithful are no longer reminded of their sinfulness in the prayers of the Mass. The faithful thus believe there is no need to reconcile themselves to the Father through the Son in Spirit in and in Truth in the hospital of Divine Mercy which is the confessional. No, one cannot sin as long as one's "fundamental option" is for God.
Indeed, as is noted in the rest of this book, a priest has many legitimate options by which to invite the people to express themselves in what is now called the Penitential Rite. A growing number of priests believe that "modern theology" requires them not to stress the sinfulness of the period and their need for God's forgiveness but to celebrate human goodness and to give thanks to God for all that He has given us. However, man's need to recognize himself as a sinner and to do penance for his sins is unchanging. The harm done to souls by the changing of the "style of language" in the new Mass is incalculable.
The concluding part of Paragraph 15 is a little bit akin to the old phrase, "The lady doth protest too much." All of the repeated attempts to state that the new Mass is a continuation of our liturgical tradition (which GIRM itself contradicts in the body of Paragraph 15, as noted in my discussion about the changes in the texts of the prayers of the Mass) are efforts to try to convince readers that the new Mass really, really, really, really, really is what GIRM says it is
The trouble with gratuitous statements is that they are made without foundation, sinking into the quicksand upon which they are made. They are efforts to justify a revolution which has undermined the faith and profaned the honor and glory due God in the Sacrifice of the Mass. GIRM is revisionist history writ large.
5) The Traditional Latin Mass contains the Offertory that clearly communicates the theology of the sacrificial, propitiatory nature of the Mass. The Novus Ordo Missae uses Jewish "table prayers" from the Talmud for what is called the "Preparation of the Gifts."
6) The Traditional Latin Mass conveys the dignity of the priesthood and its sacerdotal, hierarchical nature by the very structure of the Church. The sanctuary, reflecting the timeless of God and the fact that the Mass is the unbloody re-presentation of Calvary, is the "holy of holies" into only those males who are seen as the extension of the hands of the priest (who is a male because Our Lord came as a male) are permitted to enter and assist during the offering of Holy Mass. The faithful in the nave of the Church are thus set apart from the sanctuary, which is cordoned off, if you will, by the altar rail, signifying the distinction between time and eternity and the distinction between the sacerdotal priesthood of the ordained priest and the common priesthood the lay faithful by means of Baptism. There is no confusion as to the roles of the priest and the laity, clearly reflecting the hierarchy of God Himself and the sacrificial nature of the Mass.
7) The Traditional Latin Mass conveys stability in yet another sense: the same readings are read year in and year out. Repetition is the mother of learning. Knowing us to be such stupid and distracted creatures, God wants us immersed in the repetition of the same readings year in and year out, thus exposing us to the possibility of "getting it," say, after sixty or seventy years of hearing the same readings read year in and year out.
8) Finally, and please understand that this list is not exhaustive at all (I go into much greater detail in G.I.R.M. Warfare), that Catholics are less inclined to see the necessity of praying and working for the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King when the Mass at which they assist has dethroned His Kingly Dignity by instituting profane novelties (please see the horrors appended below) that actually enshrine the false values of the world. The Traditional Latin Mass conveys in all of its component parts, woven together so perfectly that it could not have been constructed by man synthetically, the Universal Kingship of Christ, Our High Priest and King. Make a mess of the Mass, make a mess of the Church and the world.
Cardinal Arinze, however, is caught up in the throes of a Revolution against the Faith, not realizing that he is involved in a revolution at all. He believes that there is some other cause for the decline in attendance at Holy Mass and the use of the Sacrament of Penance other than the warfare made against the perennial Tradition of the Catholic Church, expressed so perfectly and beautifully in the very Mass that Our Lord Himself taught the Apostles to say. He will search in vain for some other cause. Caught up in the Lockean trap of seeking structural solutions where none are to be found because none exist, Cardinal Arinze and his brother cardinals and bishops must convince themselves that have to "reform" a "reform" that was no reform at all but an attack on all that was authentically Catholic in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Doubt my word once again? Consider the words of Archbishop (then Monsignor) Annibale Bugnini, found in L'Osservatore Romano in March of 1965:
"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."
This "Humpty Dumpty" has fallen apart because it has been a bad egg from the very beginning, part of the adversary's efforts to undermine the Faith and to get believing Catholics to battle with each other, sometimes fiercely, almost all of the time as the revolutionaries progress with their agenda that blasphemes God and harms souls.