Thomas A. Droleskey
Submission to the dictates of the One World Church has been one of the consistent demands made of traditionally-minded Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism by the conciliar "pontiffs" since the issuance of Quattuor abhinc annos, October 3, 1984, and
Ecclesia Dei adflicta, July 2, 1988, by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. Here are the terms of the first document,Quattuor abhinc annos, which controlled the implementation of the second, Ecclesia Dei adflicta, prior to the issuance of Summorum Pontificum by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, July 7, 2007.
Most Rev. Excellency:
Four years ago, by order of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, the bishops of the whole Church were invited to present a report:
- concerning the way in which the priests and faithful of their dioceses had received the Missal promulgated in 1970 by authority of Pope Paul VI in accordance with the decisions of the Second Vatican Council;
- concerning the difficulties arising in the implementation of the liturgical reform;
- concerning possible resistance that may have arisen.
The result of the consultation was sent to all bishops (cf. Notitiae, n. 185, December 1981). On the basis of their replies it appeared that the problem of priests and faithful holding to the so-called "Tridentine" rite was almost completely solved.
Since, however, the same problem continues, the Supreme Pontiff, in a desire to meet the wishes of these groups, grants to diocesan bishops the possibility of using an indult whereby priests and faithful, who shall be expressly indicated in the letter of request to be presented to their own bishop, may be able to celebrate Mass by using the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition, but under the following conditions:
a) That it be made publically clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.
b) Such celebration must be made only for the benefit of those groups that request it; in churches and oratories indicated by the bishop (not, however, in parish churches, unless the bishop permits it in extraordinary cases); and on the days and under the conditions fixed by the bishop either habitually or in individual cases.
c) These celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin.
d) There must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals.
e) Each bishop must inform this Congregation of the concessions granted by him, and at the end of a year from the granting of this indult, he must report on the result of its application.
This concession, indicative of the common Father's solicitude for all his children, must be used in such a way as not to prejudice the faithful observance of the liturgical reform in the life of the respective ecclesial communities.
I am pleased to avail myself of this occasion to express to Your Excellency my sentiments of deep esteem.(Quattuor abhinc annos)
The terms of Quattuor abhinc annos became the basis by which Ecclesia Dei adflicta was implemented under the direction of "Pontifical" Commission Ecclesia Dei:
c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.
To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition, I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their aspirations. In this matter I ask for the support of the bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church.
6. Taking account of the importance and complexity of the problems referred to in this document, by virtue of my Apostolic Authority I decree the following:
a) a Commission is instituted whose task it will be to collaborate with the bishops, with the Departments of the Roman Curia and with the circles concerned, for the purpose of facilitating full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities, or individuals until now linked in various ways to the Fraternity founded by Archbishop Lefebvre, who may wish to remain united to the Successor of Peter in the Catholic Church while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions, in light of the Protocol signed on 5 May last by Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre;
b) this Commission is composed of a Cardinal President and other members of the Roman Curia, in a number that will be deemed opportune according to circumstances;
c) moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See, for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962.
7. As this year specially dedicated to the Blessed Virgin is now drawing to a close, I wish to exhort all to join in the unceasing prayer which the Vicar of Christ, through the intercession of the Mother of the Church, addresses to the Father in the very words of the Son: "That they all may be one!" (Ecclesia Dei adflicta.)
Members of the Society of Saint Pius X and of various sedevacantist chapels asked me during my indulterer years whether I assented to the terms of Quattuor abhinc annos and Ecclesia Dei adflicta, whether I adhered to the "Second" Vatican Council and to the doctrinal "exactitude" of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service. I had to admit that I ignored those terms, pretending as though they did not exist or that they did not have any power to bind my conscience even though they had been promulgated by the one I recognized--and for a very long time admired--as the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, "Pope" John Paul II. Those who asked me these questions did not mince any words with me, explaining as charitably as they could that I was "picking and choosing" which papal decrees and terms to obey.
Although Summorum Pontificum superseded Quattuor abhinc annos and Ecclesia Dei adflicta, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's accompanying letter,
Letter to the Bishops that accompanies the Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio data" Summorum Pontificum on the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970 (July 7, 2007), made it abundantly clear that the liturgical revolution of conciliarism would control the future "development" of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, issued by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII in 1961 (and revised in 1962 with the insertion of the name of Saint Joseph in the Roman Canon), meaning that those adhering to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism must indeed accept the "liturgical renewal" as legitimate no matter the "deviations" that had occurred in the name of "creativity." And Dario Castrillon "Cardinal" Hoyos, the President of "Pontifical" Commission Ecclesia Dei, has made it clear in his "negotiations" with the bishops and theologians of the Society of Saint Pius X that their understanding of the "Second" Vatican Council is wrong. Although the old conditions of Quattuor abhinc annos and Ecclesia Dei adflicta no longer are to be found in Summorum Pontificum, there is nevertheless the expectation on the part of the leaders of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that there will be strict adherence to the "Second" Vatican Council and participation, at least on one occasion each year (at the Novus Ordo Chrism Mass), of priests attached to the conciliar structures in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service.
Father Basilio Meramo, the Prior of the Society of Saint Pius X, explained the true intentions of Summorum Pontificum very well in a letter he wrote in December of 2007:
Sacred Scripture warns us that Satan often transforms himself into an Angel of Light (2 Corinthians 11:14), that is, as an apparent good, to seduce the faithful. "For the Devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour" (2 Peter 5:8). For this reason, St. Peter exhorts us to be sober and watchful.
Many, if not the great majority, of the defenders of the Traditional Mass and doctrine have seen the Motu Proprio of Benedict XVI as a great good, in that it recognized that the Traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated. This "recognition" is seen by those holding this "optimistic" view as something like a piece of parched land that would welcome a gently-falling rain after a long drought. And, even more, we see how they are so overcome with gratitude that they are forecasting the most promising vistas for a happy future, of verdant greenery and bright and beautiful blossoms.
But if we analyze the facts dispassionately and in the steady, clear light of the Faith, we see that the beautiful scenery vanishes before our eyes, like the vain and dangerous mirage-like illusion that it is. Nothing could be better or more perspicacious than to recognize as true that the Traditional Mass was never legally abrogated, although it was suppressed in a manner that was an abuse of power, as Archbishop Lefebvre and traditional Catholics have always maintained.
Therefore, the declaration by Benedict XVI affirming that the true Mass was never abolished appears, at first sight, to be a victory. However, after closer examination of the declaration, one perceives both the subtlety and the intelligence of this action. Benedict XVI is attempting by an audacious and effective way to accomplish his most profound and desired goal according to his Modernistic mindset, so that many critics of Modernism have not been able to appreciate fully the vastness of his aims or the subtlety of his strategy.
Benedict XVI, who has a keen and penetrating intellect, intends to legitimize the New Mass by attempting to portray it as a legitimate and faithful development of the ancient Roman rite. To be successful, he had to heal the rupture created by the attempted suppression of the Traditional Mass, first by denying that the Traditional Mass had been abolished. For the Traditional Mass was the faithful expression of the ancient Roman Mass, both in its historical development and in its dogmatic content, promulgated in perpetuity.
Historically, it could not be affirmed that a schismatic break had taken place in the development of the rite, as Joseph Ratzinger declared in his autobiography:
"But this is in fact what had been declared had happened when the New Mass was introduced, so it was necessary to repair the breach. The second great event that occurred at the beginning of my years at Ratisbon was the publication of the Missal of Paul VI, with the almost total prohibition of the Traditional Missal. But I was perplexed by the prohibition of the Traditional Missal, for nothing similar had ever occurred in the history of the liturgy. One cannot speak of a prohibition of the older and, until then, legitimately valid Missal, whose development through the centuries can be traced back all the way to the Sacramentaries of the early Church. This brought about a break in the history of the liturgy, whose consequences could be only tragic (Joseph Ratzinger, Mi Vida, ed. Encuentro, Madrid, 2005, pp. 148-149)."
We can see then that, for Cardinal Ratzinger, the historical break cannot be legitimately defended, and this rupture had to be healed, especially given his plan to portray the New Mass as a legitimate continuation and development of the Traditional Missal and as an authentic expression of the Roman Rite of the Mass. With his dialectic, oecumenist mind, he could perceive that it could not be affirmed that the New Missal was a legitimate development of the Roman Rite, if on the other hand it was affirmed that the Traditional Missal was not.
Therefore, if both Missals are legitimate developments of the ancient Roman Rite, then it is incoherent to affirm that the Traditional Missal is prohibited or has been abolished, especially if one wants to pass off the New Mass, described by Archbishop Lefebvre as a Protestantized and bastard rite, as an equally legitimate development and expression of the ancient Roman Rite, as the Traditional Rite indeed was. Which brings us to the ultimate aim of Benedict XVI.
The attempt to reconcile the New Mass with the Traditional Mass is the first step in his plan to bring about a reconciliation between the teachings of Vatican II and the True Faith. He cannot permit a rupture or separation to remain, which would impede his dialectic synthesis, for, as he declared when he was Cardinal Ratzinger: "For the life of the Church, it is dramatically urgent that a renewal of the liturgical conscience take place that will recognize once again the unity of the history of the liturgy and will understand Vatican II not as a rupture, but as a moment of development" (ibidem). It now becomes clearly manifested what was the real motivation behind the recognition of the fact that the Traditional Missal was never abrogated. It is s the well-known one step backward/two steps forward strategy.
It would be naïve to think that Benedict XVI has taken these measures because he is moving closer to the Traditional Mass and the True Faith. For according to his own words, the aim of these measures is the consolidation and legitimization of the New Mass and of Vatican II. He is attempting this not through brutal and dramatic measures that break with the past, but by using the method of a subtle and gradual evolution [as "Fr." Ratzinger did at Vatican II], he hopes to reconcile and convince all of the opponents of Vatican II and of the New Mass of their legitimacy.
Benedict XVI is proceeding gently, yet firmly, to establish that the New Mass and Vatican II do not constitute a break with the past, either liturgically or doctrinally, but rather that they are the fruit of an organic growth and development within the Church and must be accepted by all of the faithful. Therefore, the Traditional Mass is the expression of an historical past, and the New Mass is the faithful expression of the vital present and the promise of an even more glorious future.
One cannot conceive of a more subtle, clever, and intelligent maneuver that clearly intends to eliminate the forces that compose the Catholic resistance to the innovations and that defend the Traditional Mass and doctrines of the Catholic Church. This elimination is to take place without any dramatic clashes or brutal confrontations, as was attempted in the past, but rather with a warm oecumenical embrace, which will not leave behind any rotting corpses that could mar the irenic and bucolic scenery. This is not how one proceeds in our democratic age, for now we destroy by dialectic substitution. (February 2008 Commentaries on Traditio)
The accuracy of Father Meramo's analysis is incontestable. Any dispassionate reading of Summorum Pontificum and Joseph Ratzinger's/Benedict XVI's accompanying letter to it would lead one to understand the use of the Hegelian dialectic to make it appear as though the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service, which was designed by its creators to destroy the Roman Rite, and the Immemorial Mass of Tradition were just two different "expressions" of the "one" Roman Rite, that both were doctrinally sound, that both gave the same honor and glory to God. To accept these assertions, however, is to ignore the plain words of the liturgical revolutionaries who hated the Mass of the ages and the Faith that is protected and expressed therein:
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, 1965.)
Let it be candidly said: the Roman Rite which we have known hitherto no longer exists. It is destroyed. (Father Joseph Gelineau, an adviser to Annibale Bugnini's Consilium, quoted and footnoted in the work of a Father John Mole, who believed that the Mass of the Roman Rite had been "truncated," not destroyed. Assault on the Roman Rite)
Certainly we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local tradition: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense. (Archbishop Karol Wojtyla, 1965, quoted and footnoted in Assault on the Roman Rite. This quote has also been noted on this site in the past, having been provided me by a reader who had access to the 1980 French book in which the quote is found.)
Moreover, the expressed desire of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to "move" the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, if ever so slowly and by gentle but nevertheless firm prodding now and again, in the direction of the Novus Ordo service has been reiterated in recent weeks by "Cardinal" Hoyos, as was pointed out in
A Trap Goes Snap ten days ago:
3. This brings me to my third point. You are rightly convinced that the usus antiquior is not a museum piece, but a living expression of Catholic worship. If it is living, we must also expect it to develop. Our Holy Father is also of this conviction. As you know, he chose motu proprio – that is on his own initiative – to alter the text of the prayer pro Iudæis in the Good Friday liturgy. The intention of the prayer was in no way weakened, but a formulation was provided which respected sensitivities.
Likewise, as you also know, Summorum Pontificum has also provided for the Liturgy of the Word to be proclaimed in the vernacular without being first read by the celebrant in Latin. Today’s Pontifical Mass, of course, will have the readings solemnly chanted in Latin, but for less solemn celebrations the Liturgy of the Word may be proclaimed directly in the language of the people. This is already a concrete instance of what our Holy Father wrote in his letter accompanying the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum:
"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."
Naturally we will be happy for your input in this important matter. I simply ask you not to be opposed in principle to the necessary adaptation which our Holy Father has called for.
This brings me to another important point. I am aware that the response of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” with regard to the observance of Holy Days of obligation has caused a certain amount of disturbance in some circles. It should be noted that the dates of these Holy Days remain the same in both the Missal of 1962 and the Missal of 1970. When the Holy See has given the Episcopal Conference of a given country permission to move certain Holy Days to the following Sunday, this should be observed by all Catholics in that country. Nothing prevents the celebration of the Feast of the Ascension, for example, on the prior Thursday, but it should be clear that this is not a Mass of obligation and that the Mass of the Ascension should also be celebrated on the following Sunday. This is a sacrifice which I ask you to make with joy as a sign of your unity with the Catholic Church in your country. (http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com.)
A little poison here, a little poison there. What's the big deal, huh? At least "the Mass" has been "liberated," right? What can it matter that more and more elements from the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service get integrated now and again, here and there, right? Well, it matters to God. It should therefore matter to us.
Latter day apologists in behalf of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service who see no harm in integrating some of its insidious elements into the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition would do well to recognize that courageous apostles of truth understood the harm to the Faith represented by the Novus Ordo and expressed their objections in clear, precise language that only a fool can dismiss or fail to take seriously:
Most Holy Father,
After a close examination of the Novus Ordo Missae, which will enter into use on November 30 next, and after having prayed and reflected a great deal, I consider that it is my duty, as a Catholic priest and bishop, to lay before Your Holiness my anguish of conscience, and to formulate, with the piety and confidence that a son owes to the Vicar of Christ, the following request.
The Novus Ordo Missae shows, by its omissions, and by the changes that it has brought to the Ordinary of the Mass, as well as by a good number of the general rules that describe the understanding and nature of the new Missal in its essential points, that it does not express, as it ought to do the theology of the Holy Sacrifice as established by the Holy Council of Trent in its XXII session. The teaching of the simple catechism cannot overcome this fact. I attach below the reasons that, in my opinion, justify this conclusion.
The pastoral reasons that could, perhaps, be invoked, initially, in favor of the new structure of the Mass, cannot make us forget the doctrinal arguments that point in the opposite direction. Furthermore, they do not seem to be reasonable. The changes that prepared the Novus Ordo have not helped to bring about an increase in the Faith and the piety of the faithful. To the contrary, they remain very disturbed, with a confusion that the Novus Ordo has increased, for it has encouraged the idea that nothing is unchangeable in the Holy Church, not even the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Moreover, as I indicate in the attached reasons, the Novus Ordo not only fails to inspire fervor, but to the contrary, diminishes the Faith in central truths of the Catholic life, such as the Real Presence of Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament, the reality of the propitiatory Sacrifice, the hierarchical Priesthood.
I hereby accomplish an imperious duty in conscience by demanding, humbly and respectfully, that Your Holiness might deign, by a positive act that eliminates every doubt, to authorize us to continue using the Ordo Missae of Saint Pius V, whose effectiveness in bringing about the spread of Holy Church and an increase in the fervor of priests and faithful has been proven, as Your Holiness reminded us with so much unction.
I am convinced that Your Holiness’s fatherly kindness will bring to an end the perplexities that have risen in my heart of a priest and bishop.
Prostrate at Your Holiness’ feet, in humble obedience and filial piety, I implore you Apostolic Benediction.
+ Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop of Campos, Brazil
COMMENTS ON THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE
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 Saint 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 Saint 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 Saint 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 New Ordo Missae. However, the New 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 genjflexions, 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 Saint 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 (Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, Letter to Giovanni Montini/Paul VI Regarding the Promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae, September 12, 1969.)
No reasonable objections to the doctrinal soundness of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service? Why do only thirty percent of those Catholics who are attached to the conciliar structures believe in the doctrine of the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament? No cause and effect here? Were the many courageous priests (Father Robert F. McKenna, O.P., Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D., Father Harry Marchosky, Father John Roach, Father Thomas Ross, O.F.M., Father Frederick Schell, S.J., Father Gommar DePauw, Father Paul Wickens, Father Francis LeBlanc, Father Graham Walters, Father Moises Carmona, Father Hugh Wish, Father Lawrence Brey, Monsignor Raymond Ruscitto, et al.) who broke from the Novus Ordo (or who never offered it all!) wrong to have taken the stand that they did? They would have had to have been wrong for the conciliarists to be correct then and now concerning the doctrinal "soundness" of the Novus Ordo service. Were they? These priests--and many consecrated religious women who refused to go along with the changes--suffered at the hands of the conciliar revolutionaries for their refusal to participate at all in the Novus Ordo service. Were their persecutors correct? Indeed, although the subject of an upcoming article, some of these religious Sisters were sent to psychiatric hospitals in the late-1960s and early-1970s, where they were drugged after having been falsely diagnosed with "mental illnesses" of one sort or another. Were they wrong to have stood fast against the evil that is the Novus Ordo service? Were they in fact mentally ill?
There are men, some truly ordained and some not, in Motu communities who know that the Novus Ordo is evil but who have had their voices muted, first by the 1984 and 1988 indults, and now by Summorum Pontificum, exhibiting a desire to violate their consciences ever more by acceding to the "wishes" of the man, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who esteems the symbols of false religions, treats mosques and synagogues as places worthy of respect and reverence, refers to the Orthodox as a "sister church" of the Catholic Church, endorses religious liberty and the separation of Church and State to participate in the abomination that they know offends God and is harmful to souls.
Really, what choice do they have? They recognize Ratzinger/Benedict as a true "pope." They must submit to his authority or admit that he is not the Vicar of Christ by virtue of his multiple defections from the Catholic Faith. They must, therefore, accept with equanimity the following reminder, given ever so gently, you understand, by "Cardinal" Hoyos to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter on the occasion of priestly "ordinations" at Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary on May 30 2008:
On June 8, Fr. Joseph Kramer, of the Society of Saint Peter, officially took office as parish priest of Santa Trinita dei Pellegrini. Indeed, in accordance with article 10 of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum and after receiving the proposal from Cardinal Camillo Ruini, the pope’s vicar for the diocese of Rome, Benedict XVI decided that in downtown Roma, the church of Santa Trinita dei Pellegrini was to be erected into a personal parish, “so as to answer the pastoral needs of the whole community of traditional faithful residing in the said diocese.”
A press release from the Society of Saint Peter, dated May 7, said: “It is hoped that this particular parish will serve not only the local parishioners, but that it will also provide a fine example of the beauty and solemnity of the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite to the many pilgrims and students in Rome.”
In his Letter to Friends of the Society of Saint Peter of May 2008, Fr. John Berg, the superior general, rejoiced that Rome, “the heart of the Church”, was the first diocese in Europe to entrust a personal parish to the Society of Saint Peter.
But the Motu Proprio must be read at the light of the letter to bishops which accompanied it and stated that “in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books.” Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos reminded them of this, on May 30, 2008, during the ordination ceremony of four priests of the Society of St. Peter in Lincoln (Nebraska, USA) in the presence of Fr. John Berg.
In his homily he said: “As President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei I have particular interest in these young men who will celebrate the Holy sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments primarily according to the liturgical books of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite which is a treasure for the entire Church. This obviously meets a desire on the part of a good number of the faithful. While I am pleased to promote our Holy Father’s will expressed in his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum and invite in implementing this important document I also invite my dear sons and brothers to strive to be an integral part of the dioceses in which you will serve; brothers of your brother priests showing deep respect for the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, concelebrating with your bishops at the Chrismal Mass and when this sign of priestly communion is specially appropriate.” (Sources: Zenit/Apic) (Roman Parish of the Society of Saint Peter and Cardinal Castrillon’s Invitation to Concelebrate)
Want to be part of the One World Church? You must participate in its hideous rites. The examples of the brave priests and religious Sisters noted above do not have any meaning for us any longer as the man who hates the official philosophy of the Catholic Church, Scholasticism,.and who is using his condemned New Theology to make the Fathers of the Church "witnesses" in behalf of conciliarism provides one blandishment after another to "prove" how "traditional" he is, including requiring kneeling at "papal" "Masses" for the reception of what purports to be Holy Communion.
Those who want to be part of all this must submit to and obey the leaders of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Those who want to adhere to the Catholic Faith, however, will continue to recognize that the Catholic Church cannot give us deficient doctrines or evil liturgies. Those who want to adhere to the Catholic Church will not do what Bishop Bernard Fellay has been attempting--and evidently desires to continue to attempt in spite of his non-response response to the ultimatum given him by "Cardinal" Hoyos--in engaging in the insane exercise of "negotiating" with conciliar authorities to see if they, the conciliar officials, will "tolerate" the Society of Saint Pius X's adherence to the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church in exchange for what is called in the new ecclesiology "a more perfect communion" within those conciliar structures. Catholics do not want to be part of a conciliar version of the Anglican "Communion," where a multiplicity of interpretations on doctrinal matters is tolerated. The Catholic Church is not structured in this way at all, as Pope Leo XIII noted in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896:
Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment" (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ.
How can one "negotiate" points of the Catholic Faith with apostates, no less reserve the right to judge for yourself what constitutes definitive teaching from the magisterium headed by a man one accepts to be a legitimate Successor of Saint Peter? There must be "agreement and union of minds" in the Catholic Church. This is indeed "the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results." No such similarity of action and concord of minds can exist between Catholics and apostates. Pope Pius XI noted this in Mortalium Animos, June 6, 1928:
So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly." The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills." For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.
Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, "the Mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful"? Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind
Obstinate wrangling is the foundation of conciliarism's false ecumenism. It cannot be the foundation of a Catholic's ecclesiology. One does not "negotiate" matters of Faith and Morals with the Vicar of Christ on earth. If a putative "pontiff" deviates from the Faith, you see, that same Faith teaches us that he cannot be the Vicar of Christ as he has expelled himself from the Church by virtue of violating the Divine Positive Law:
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).
The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: "Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: "One Lord, one faith," and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: "that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only - "but until we all meet in the unity of faith...unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ"). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that - "He gave some Apostles - and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ"." (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)
Even the conciliarists themselves will admit now and again that the canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church is that a heretic cannot occupy the See of Peter, although they do not admit that such a condition exists at this time:
"It is true that the canonical doctrine states that the see would be vacant in the case of heresy." (Cardinal Says Pope Could Govern Even If Unable to Speak, Zenit, February 8, 2005.)
Don't believe that the conciliar "pontiffs" have defected from the Catholic Faith? Fine and dandy. Submit to and obey the One World Church without complaint.
Those who do understand that the conciliar "pontiffs" have defected from the Catholic Faith are not interested in making compromises in matters of the Faith of any sort, including any concessions in the direction of the evil that is the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service. Those who do understand that the conciliar "pontiffs" have defied the anathemas of the past and have attacked the very nature of God Himself by attacking the nature of His dogmatic truth--and who have blasphemed Him repeatedly by showing esteem and respect to the symbols of false religions--must come to the logical conclusion that I took so very long to reach, namely, that the conciliar "pontiffs" are imposters who are enemies of God and threats to the salvation of our immortal souls. We submit and are obedient to the Catholic Church, which never can be contaminated by any kind of error. And that Catholic Church is being kept alive today in the catacombs by true bishops and true priests who make no concessions to conciliarism or to its false shepherds.
Saint Irenaeus, whom we commemorate today, June 28, 2008, made no concessions at hall to the heretics of his own day, the gnostics. While he urged the Vicar of Christ to be gentle with those who returned to the Faith after being involved in heresy, he was firm in his denunciation of heresy as he sought the conversion of those steeped within its grip. We can no do no less in our own day as we rely upon the intercessory help of the Mother of God and of the Apostles Saints Peter and Paul, who gave up their lives rather than to compromise the integrity of the Faith.
Praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, making sure to give all of our prayers and actions and sufferings to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, may we give thanks to God for true Successors of the Apostles in the Catholic catacombs during this time of apostasy and betrayal, seeking to following them as they follow the perennial truths of the Catholic Faith without any corruption caused by Modernism's progeny, conciliarism and its Novus Ordo service, both of which have helped to dethrone Christ the King in the minds and hearts of most Catholics and has brought to realization this prophetic insight of Pope Saint Pius X:
We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the "Kingdom of God". - "We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind."
And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of the Rosary, 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 Irenaeus, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints