CREED AND CULT IN THE *

Even more striking evidence for this interpretation is found in the following passages taken from Vatican II:

"Historical studies make a signal contribution to bringing men to see things in their changeable and evolutionary aspects... (25) Man's social nature make it evident that the progress of the human person and the advance or society itself hinge on each other...(25) Citizens have the right and duty..to contribute according to their ability to the true progress of their community...(65) Developing nations should strongly desire to seek the complete human fulfillment of their Citizens as the explicit and fixed goal or progress... (86) “ (“The Church in the Modern World”)

"May the faithful, therefore, live in very close union with the men of their time. Let them strive to understand perfectly their way or thinking and feeling, as expressed in their culture. Let them blend modern science and its theories and the understanding of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality and doctrine. Thus their religious practice and morality can keep pace with their scientific knowledge and with an ever-advancing technology." (Pastoral Constitution on the Church, P. 62.)

We have then highlighted one of the more significant changes introduced by Vatican II. The Church of All Times" has been changed into "the Church of our times”. A "static" Church has been converted into an "evolutionary and progressivist" church committed to continual adaptation. But, it will be asked, does the post_Conciliar Church apply these dubious principles to doctrine? Despite a certain ambiguity, the majority of theologians hold that it does. The catchword is "development” which allows for various shades of meaning. It has been used by the Fathers of the Church to describe the legitimate expression of principles in new ways, analogous to the growth and flowering of a tree. But it has also been used by modern man as applied to the development of man from apes.

Consider the new doctrine on Religious Liberty, a doctrine clearly condemned by Encyclicals Quanta Cura (Pius IX), Mirari Vos (Gregory XVI), Immortale Dei (Leo XIII), Libertas (Pius XII) and the Syllabus of Errors _ Pope Leo XIII explained why: "Since the Catholic religion is the only true religion, to put the other religions on the same level with it is to treat it with the gravest injustice and offer it the worst form of insult” (Humanum Genus). Yet this is precisely what Vatican II's doctrinal “development” on Religious Liberty does. As Father John Courtney Murray, one of the more important Periti (experts) of the Council tells us, “the course of the development between the Syllabus of Errors (1864) and Dignitatis Humanae Personae (1965) still remains to be explained by theologians. But the Council formally sanctioned the validity of the development itself; and this was a doctrinal event of high importance." Another Jesuit Peritus, Father Campion, has no doubts. For him the Document Lumen Gentium "makes a precious contribution to the work or doctrinal development”. Similarly, Father Avery Dulles, S.J., yet another of those Periti who really ran the Council, tells us:

"While stressing that God's self_revelation reached its insurpasable fullness in Crist, the Council left ample room for development in the Church's assimilation of that fullness in new and unpredictable ways. Without using the term 'continuing revelation', Vatican II allowed for something or the kind. Echoing a favorite term of John XXIII, it spoke repeatedly of the need to discern the 'signs of the times' through which God continues to address his people."

The proof however lies, not in the statements of these Perici, but in the fact that from this doctrine flows the Council's advocacy or ecumenism, communicatio in sacris, the idea Catholic states should not restrict the activities of heretics, the idea that unity only "subsists” in the Catholic Church and that the actions of “communities" which do not even believe in God "can truly engender a life of graces”, the idea that it is the “internal mission” of the Church to foster the unity of all men regardless of their beliefs and to foster the development of a new “humanism”, and the idea that the Church should Dialogue" with heretics and atheists "on an equal footing”. My God, how can those entrusted with teaching Christ's doctrines, those who speak with the words of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Joan Chrysostom, ever Dialogue with liberal Protestants, Humanists, Socialists, Atheists and village idiots “on an equal footing”

And so we see that under the smokescreen of “development,” we have a change. Acorns are growing into pine trees. Doctrine has indeed "evolved' and “ongoing revelation” is allowed for. Such was never the case within the traditional Church, which eschewed all innovation and firmly held that truth by its very nature could not evolve. The Oath against Modernism, once required of every cleric at every stage of his advancement in Holy Orders, says “we must entirely reject the heretical theory of the evolution of dogmas, viz. that they change from one meaning to another, different from the one which the Church previously held”. Pius IX is even more specific. He tells us that in the Church founded by Christ, “truth must always remain stable and impervious to all change; for the purpose of preserving absolutely intact the deposit which has been confided to her, and for the protection of which the presence and help of the Holy Ghost has been promised to her for all time." (Jam Vos Omnes)

*****

There are still other doctrinal "developments” to consider. I would ask you to remember that Paul VI told us the Council was “not so much a destination as a point of departure towards new goals...”, and that John-Paul II has repeatedly stated his intention to "develop the inheritance which he receives from John XXIII and above all from his ‘spiritual father’, Paul VI. I would also ask you to remember that John Paul II was one of the principal contributors to the Document entitled "The Church in the Modern World”, and that he considers that "the principle task or his pontificate" is "a coherent realization of the teachings and directives of Vatican II.... Obedience to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council is obedience to the Holy Spirit" (Sacred College of Cardinals, 1979). Because it is possible that I am guilty of less than perfect objectivity; and because John Paul II has recently informed us that he intends to interpret these documents "according to tradition”; and because it is claimed that he intends to bring the Church back to her traditional roots, I shall in what follows try to quote the Conciliar documents and then give you his interpretations of them.

MAN'S "DIGNITY" RESULTS FROM THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST

The Council says a great deal about the "dignity" of man which is said to originate in "man's call to communion with God” The Council also tells us that "Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed, in him, has been raised in us to dignity beyond compare. For, by His Incarnation... the Son of God, in a certain way united Himself with each man"(Gaudium et Spes). John Paul discusses this in his encyclical Redemptor Hominis. "we are dealing", he says, "with 'each' man, for each one is included in the mystery or Redemption, and with each one Christ has united Himself forever through this mystery." Again, in a speech given in 1981 he states that "from now on and always, without regret and without turning back, God shall be with all mankind, becoming one with it, to save it and to give it His Son, the Redeemer... For all time, the Incarnation bestows upon man his unique, extraordinary and ineffable dignity... Man redeemed by Christ, and... to each man without any exception whatever _ Christ is in a way united, even when man is unaware of it.” He repeats this in his Christmas message for 1980: “Man was taken up by God as son in this Son of God becoming man... in this Son we are all made new to ourselves.” He repeated the same message in a General Audience in 1981: “From now on, and always... God shall be with all mankind, becoming one with it to save it... for all time the Incarnation bestows upon man his unique, extraordinary and ineffable dignity” (General Audience March 25, 1981).

Now the traditional Church teaches that man, despite the fact that he is made in the image of God, is in a fallen state. Hence it follows that his true dignity lies in his conforming to that image. Man, being free is capable of cooperating with grace or rejecting it; capable of being raised to the dignity of the sons of God or remaining in his fallen state destined to perdition. Sin is never dignified. It also teaches that Christ is primarily and principally the head of those who are united to him in act, whether by glory in heaven, or by charity, or at least by faith, on earth. Christ is also the Head of those who are united to Him potentially _that is, who have the real possibility of converting to Him. In this latter category fall the infidels, who, as long as they are alive, are able to acquiesce freely to the grace received from Christ. I quote St. Thomas Aquinas who continues, with regard to those who do not convert to Christ during their lives: “as soon as they leave this world, they cease totally to be members or Christ”. So it is not the sole fact of the Incarnation that unites all mankind to Christ _ rather, each man must freely adhere to the Grace of Christ. To the best of my knowledge neither Vatican II nor John Paul II make any mention of the need for personal conversion as the sine qua non for this claim to dignity.

Admittedly John Paul II often speaks in a circuitous and ambiguous manner. We must however take him at his word, and presumably post_Conciliar Catholics consider this as "authoritative" and binding. But if it is the Incarnation that redeems us, and indeed, all men, and this regardless of whether they conform to it or not, what becomes the purpose or the Cross and Passion? John Paul II gives the answer in his Encyclical Dives et Misericordia. the Passion is only a "witness” to man's supernatural dignity, “it demonstrates,” he tells us, the solidarity of Christ with human destiny... a disinterested dedication to the cause of man”.

"It is precisely beside the path to man's eternal election to the dignity of being an adopted child of Goa that there stands in history the Cross of Christ, the only_begotten Son... who has come to give the final witness to this wonderful Covenent of God with humanity, of God with man _ every human being" 19).

Now, it we accept John Paul's doctrine, it follows that all men (or all "people" in current non_sexist language) are saved. He tells us as much in Dives et Misericordia, for he states The mystery or election concerns all men, all the great human family" He is even more specific in a sermon given at Santa Maria in Travestere in 1980:

"(Christ) obtained, once and for all, the salvation of man _ of each man and of all men, of those whom no one shall snatch from H1" hand... Who can change the fact that we are redeemed _ a fact that is as powerful and fundamental as creation itself... the Church announces today the paschal certitude or the Resurrection, the certitude of salvation."

Certainly God desires that all be saved, and certainly the Passion of Christ is sufficient to redeem all men. But not all men are saved, but only those who believe in His redeeming power and conform their lives to it. Perhaps this is what the Pontiff meant, but it is not what he said, and what he said, as we shall see, is consistent with other “developments" offered to us by the post_Conciliar Church.

ECUMENISM AND UNITY

It all men are saved because of the Incarnation and if the Incarnation automatically provides them with their "human dignity" regardless of whether they conform themselves to Christ or not, then two further consequences follow: 1) there in no longer any need for us to be in the One True Church”; and 2) every man's beliefs are capable of gaining him access to the "community of salvation. Even atheists can be saved. Let us see whether such opinions have the support of Vatican II:

"The Church (i.e., the Church which Christ founded), constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church which is governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces compelling towards Catholic unity.”

“Religious freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the human person. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognizes in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus is to become a civil right... The right of religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature.”

“The brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion. Undoubtedly, in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community, these actions can truly engender a life of grace and can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the life of grace and can be rightly describes an capable of providing access to the community of salvation.”

"Nor does divine providence deny the help necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God.”

Traditional doctrine affirms that only those are to be accounted really members of the Church who have been regenerated in the waters of Baptism and profess the true faith and have not cut themselves off from the structure of the Body by their own unhappy act or been severed therefrom for very grave crime, by the legitimate authority”“ (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis & Denz. 2286). At the same time the Church teaches that a person who, suffering from an invincible and non-imputable ignorance, may be saved extra-sacramentally by a “baptism of desire” which supernaturally gives them charity (St. Thomas, Summa III, Q68, Art 2). But the sine qua non for this is that, as St. Paul says in his Letter to the Hebrews, “they must believe that God exists and is rewarder to those that seek him” (xi:6). But now we are told that there are numerous elements of sanctification and truth that are outside the Church; that the Church which Christ founded only “subsists” in the Catholic Church, and that other “ecclesiastical communities” have access to the community of salvation.” We are further told that “religious freedom has its foundation in the dignity of man... The right of religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature." If Christ is in a certain way united to each man, and each man is redeemed, then each, man's religious views must also be true. How can a person who is united to Christ and whose salvation is guaranteed have false opinions? And are we not back to the masonic_Roussouist concept of man with a religious, almost pantheistic, twist?

What then is the purpose of the Church? If all men are saved as the result of the Incarnation, even if they are unaware of the fact, what need do we have for the priesthood and the sacraments? The answer is to be found in the Conciliar Document entitled Lumen Gentium, Here we are told that "it pleased God to make men holy and save them not merely as individuals...but making them into a single people... all men are called to be part of this catholic unity or the People of God, a unity which is harbinger of the universal peace it promotes. And there belong to it or are related to it in various ways, the Catholic faithful as well as all who believe in Christ, and indeed the whole of mankind... the Church is a kind or sacrament of intimate union with God and of the unity of all mankind, that is, she is a sign and an instrument of such union and unity..." As to the priesthood, according to Vatican II, among other things, "it is necessary that priests, united in concern and effort under the leadership or the bishops and the Supreme Pontiff, wipe out every ground of division, so that the whole human race may be brought into the unity of the Family of God”. Whatever their other functions may be, the priests are to foster this unity or the People of God and the Church is to become the "sacrament" of this unity. Extraordinary!

Let us back track for a moment to John XXIII's vision. According to Giancarlo Zizola, John XXIII believed there was “a real progress of humankind’s collective moral awareness through always deeper discovery of its dignity... the revelation of God's design for man strongly helps the believer discover what man is; and at the same time the advancement of the collective conscience...”[2] He had a vision in which all men and all nations would eventually be united, and this in turn would lead to universal peace and perpetual progress. Mariol Kaizer tells us he saw Christian unity as but the first step in the direction of world unity. This was to be followed by the unity of all religions, and then of all mankind.[3]

Now for John Paul II: In a discourse given after his return from Africa in 1980, he explicitly referred to the teaching of Lumen Gentium and to its enumeration of "the different categories which form the People of Gcd”. He then proceed to tell us that each of these was Full of the particular hope of salvations and that this can be "accomplished equally outside the visible church”. In a discourse given to the Roman Curia in 1981 he states that "in these truly plenary gatherings, the ecclesial communities of different countries make real the fundamental second chapter of Lumen Gentium which treats of the numerous 'spheres' of belonging to the church as People of God and of the bond which exists with it, even on the part of those who do not yet form a part of it. He further said that the objective of pastors is to "call together the people of God according to different senses and different dimensions. In this calling together, the Church recognizes herself and realizes herself.”

And so we have a consistency of outlook and intent that is shared both by Vatican II and the popes of the “Contemporary Church”. According to Vatican II the absence of “unity” is a scandal which must be repaired, and moreover, it is a scandal which the Catholic Church is primarily responsible for. Unity no longer is a mark of the new Church, but only "subsists” within her. It also “subsists" in other "ecclesial communities" which are "full of the particular hope of salvation" and which can be "accomplished equally outside the visible Church”. And so the “Internal mission" or the Church and the “startling vision of Vatican II" is not to draw mankind back to the Catholic faith, but to unite all people in a new kind of unity _ a unity in which Catholics are also privileged to participate _ a unity in which all men will recognize their brotherhood under the fatherhood of God and which “is the harbinger of universal peace”. "It is in this calling together that the Church recognizes herself and realizes herself”. Extraordinary!

It is this then that explains the Ecumenical thrust of the post Conciliar Church. As John Paul II said to the non Catholic delegates at his inauguration, "tell those whom you represent that the involvement of the Catholic Church in the Ecumenical movement, as solemnly expressed by the Second Vatican Council, is irreversible.. It is this that led him to tell the Protestants that "in our respective Churches we progress in deepening our understandings of the Holy Scriptures, in the fidelity to the ancient tradition of the Christian Church.” No wonder then that he feels free to come to the Lutherans as a “pilgrim" and to join with them in their services. No wonder that he tells the Catholic faithful of Germany "to encourage your evangelical brothers, in a friendly and opportune manner, to bear witness to their faith, to strengthen and deepen their form of the religious life in Christ”. No wonder that he can join with the Jews in praying for the coming of the Messiah. No wonder that he can arrange for the Buddhists to place their statues on top of a tabernacle. Need one go on and on?

But John Paul II “startling vision of Vatican II" is as unpalatable to traditional Catholics as is his participation in Lutheran services. They hold, and correctly so, that "unity" doesn't "subsists, but actually "exists" in the Catholic Church and only in her. It exists in her, like "apostolicity", by definition, and once she loses it, she is no longer the Church established by Christ. As the Holy Office said in a de fide statement in 1865: “the unity of the church is absolute and indivisible, and that the church had never lost its unity, nor for so much as a time, ever can.”[4] To deny this is to deny the faith itself, for traditional Catholics believe in "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”. They also reject the idea that the Church "realizes" herself "in calling together the people of God according to different senses and different dimensions”, and that the fostering of ecumenism is "the internal mission of the Church”.

SALVATION HISTORY AND THE COMMUNITARIAN NATURE OF GOD'S PLAN

Vatican II taught that the Church “his bound to no particulars form or Human culture, nor to any political economic or social system." Indeed, the Council goes further and teaches us that "a more universal form of human culture is develcping, one which will promote and express the unity of the human race... It has pleased God to make men holy and save them not merely as individuals without any mutual bonds, but by making them into a single people, a people which acknowledges Him in truth and serves Him in holiness. So from the beginning of salvation history He has chosen man not just as individuals, but as members of a certain community. This communitarian character is developed and consummated in the work of Jesus Christ... The Church further recognizes that worthy elements are found in today s social movements, especially in an evolution towards unity, a process of wholesome socialization and of association in civic and economic realms. For the promotion of unity belongs to the innermost nature of the Church, since she is, by her relationship with Christ, both a sacramental sign and an instrument of intimate union with God and the unity or all manikind... Every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural , whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or RELIGION, is to be overcame and eradicated as contrary to God's intent. (29).

These passages are most revealing. Not only do they reaffirm much that I have said above s they also tell us a great deal about the nature oft the “new humanism" which the “new People of God” will share when the Church finally realizes herself. First, let us consider the concept or Salvation history _ the idea that salvation is part of a historical process and that God wishes to save us as a community rather than as individuals. Does this mean that on the Day or Judgement I wil1 not have to answer for my individual sins, but only have to show my "party cards?” And are not those who refuse to become united with the “new people of God” also guaranteed their salvation because of the Incarnation? How can all this be consistent with the Scriptural prediction of a great apostasy and that on the Last Day Christ will find but few _ a Remnant who invoke the name or God _ Who remain faithful?

Next, let us consider how the "new People of God” are to be organized. In his encyclical Pacem in Terris John XXIII advocates that this one world community be under "a public authority, having world_wide power and endowed with proper means for the attainment of its objective, which is the universal Common Good..." And what organization is to achieve this? According to all the post_Conciliar “popes," it is the United Nations. Listen to the accolades Paul Vl gives this organization which all the world knows is heavily infiltrated with Communist ideologues and whose meditation room is for all the world like a Freemasonic temple:

"It is your task here to proclaim the basic rights and duties of man, hls dignity and liberty, and above all his religious liberty. We are conscious that you are the interpreters of all that is paramount in human wisdom. We would almost say: of its sacred character. The people turn to the United Nations as their last hope for peace and Concord... The goals or the United Nations are the ideals that mankind has dreamed of in its journey through history. We would venture to call it the world's greatest hope _ for it is the reflection of God's design _ a design transcendent and full or love _ for the progress of human society on earth; a reflection in which we can see the gospel message, something from heaven come down to earth.”

The third point to draw from these quotations is that all cultures are to be blended _ including Communist cultures. T.S. Eliot pointed out that there has never been a culture without a cult. One cannot divorce Hindu culture from the Vedas and the Upanishads; one cannot conceive of Islamic culture apart from the Qoran. But now we are to have a new kind or culture, a "universal Cultures” And how is this culture to be created? Vatican II assures us there is no problem. "In every group or nation, there is an ever increasing number of men and women who are conscious that they themselves are the artisans and the authors of the culture of their community. Thus we are witnesses to the birth of a new humanism, one in watch man is defined first of all by his responsibility towards his brother and towards history (55)”.

The fourth point is that there is nothing wrong with Communism,. As John XXIII said, “all men are equal in their natural dignity. Consequently there are no political communities that are superior by nature and none that are inferior by nature. All political Communities are of equal dignity since they are bodies whose membership is made of these same human beings." Indeed, there is a "wholesome socialization" that is constantly advocated both by Vatican II and the post_Conciliar Encyclicals.

This explains why John XXIII made a “secret" agreement with the Russians prior to the Council and why the Council failed, nay, refused, to condemn Communism. Listen to the words of Paul VI addressed to Communist China during the time of Mao Tse Tung:

"The Church recognizes and favors the just expression on the present historical Phase of China and the transformation of ancient forms of aesthetic culture into the inevitable new forms that rise out of the social and industrial structure of the modern world... We would like to enter into contact once again with China in order to show with how much interest and sympathy we look on their present and enthusiastic efforts for the ideals of a diligent, full and peaceful life.”

Not one of the post_Conciliar popes has ever spoken out against Communist principles. When a Czech newspaper recently criticized John Paul II for being an anti_communist and a reactionary, the L'Osservatoro Romano expressed strong indignation and stated that the pope found the accusation “grossly offensive” and "absurd”. In a similar manner be told Archbishop Oscar Romero shortly before the latter’s death that "the Church _ his Church _ Was not anti_Communist..” Presumably then, what Paul Vl calls "the new economy of the Gospel" will have some sort of Marxist socio_economic structure. Let me not fail in justice. The new Church conceives of a Christian Marxism divorced of violence and its atheistic principles, or to use the words of Teilhard de Chardin, a combination of the rational force of Marxists with the human warmth of Christianity. But is not this to forget that the traditional Churcn has repeatedly condemned Communism; that Pius XI called it “a pseudo_ideal of justice, of equality and of fraternity... intrinsically evil”, and further stated that No one who would save Cnristian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever.

So much then for what John XXIII called his “new Pentecost”and for what John Paul II has termed “the church of the New Advent..” Perhaps after all, those of us who were never dissatisfied with the old Pentecost and the old Advent, and who increasingly see ourselves as a “remnant”, have reason for not being enamoured with it.

******

I have presented to you a brief and incomplete spectrum of post_Conciliar teachings which traditional Catholics refuse to accept. I would summarize these as the acceptance of Evolution and Progress in biological, social and doctrinal realms, and consequently or the need for the Church to continually adapt itself. What John Paul II calls The startling vision of Vatican II” also includes the acceptance of the idea that Christ is "in a certain way" united to all men for all time , and that, thanks to the Incarnation, al1 men are saved. If such is so it follows that salvation itself has a communitarian character and that the Sacrifice of the Cross loses its redemptive power _ it becomes but a witness to the wonderful dignity of man. If all men are saved by the fact of the Incarnation, what becomes the function of the Church? She "realizes" herself, not in saving souls _ that is already achieved _ but by fostering the unity on the people of God and the creation of a "new humanism" in which, all men are united as brothers under the fatherhood of God. Indeed, the Church is a sign and a sacrament of this unity which only “subsists" in the Visible Catholic Church. And how does the Church Envision this "new humanism”? I think it fair to say, as some sort of perfect society, a society in which man is the creator of his own culture, and in which a "wholesome socialization. _ some sort of Marxist economic and social structure _ will inevitably develop. Indeed Jonn Paul II was right when he said that “The Second Vatican Council has laid the foundations of a substantially new relationship between the Church and the world, between the Church and modern cultures.”

I would ask you to pause and consider these ideas. Are they not in fact the ideas that pervade the modern world? Do we not repeatedly hear of the coming age of Aquarius in which all men will be united in peace, harmony and a common culture, in which "every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or RELIGION" will be eliminated? And cannot all this be achieved without the help ot the Church? Remove from the preceding paragraph all mention of God and do we not have secular humanism? No wonder Cardinal Suenens said Vatican II was "a French Revolution in the Church” Extraordinary!

But a religion consists of more than Creed. It also expresses itself by means of a Cult. As John Paul II said, "the liturgical renewal is... the measure and the condition for putting into effect the teaching of the Council" (Dominicae Cenae). Let us next turn to the Novus Ordo Missae and see whether:

THE LEX ORANDI REFLECTS THE LEX CREDENDI

(It is a principle of the Church that the lex orandi or rule of prayer must reflect the lex credendi or the rule of belief.)

It the Novus Ordo Missae was to reflect the beliefs of the post_Conciliar Church and at the same time remain acceptable to Catholics brought up in the ancient faith, it had to 1) avoid openly promulgating it's new doctrines while removing from its content anything that contradicted them. At the same time it could not openly deny a Catholic principle, it could only expurgate it. 2) It had to introduce changes slowly and retain enough of the outer trappings of a true sacrifice so as to give the impression that nothing significant was changed; and 3) for ecumenical reasons, in had to create a rite that was acceptable to Protestants of every shade of persuasion, but who all consistently denied that the Mass was a true immolation and a propitiatory sacrifice. The only way it could achieve all this was by the use of equivocation. As the Anglican theologian T. M. Parker said, it is "an ingenious essay in ambiguity, purposely worded in such a manner that the more conservative could place their own construction on it, while Reformers would interpret it in their own sense and would recognize it as an instrument for furthering the next stage of the religious revolution.”

There was nothing ambiguous about the traditional rites of the Church, and indeed, they are, as the theologians any, a primary locus of her teachings. Despite the laxity of modern language, we should not forget that the ambiguous statement is fundamentally dishonest. Every father knows that when his child resorts to this method he is attempting to hide something. Ana every priest is familiar with the use of this technique in the confessional. It is even more dishonest when a person has once clearly spoken on an issue and then equivocates to disguise his change of mind. Add to this the numerous "deletions" from the traditional rite from which, depending upon which Eucharistic Prayer is used, between 60 to 80 percent has been "liquidated”. It is of interest that the very first item to be deleted was the Last Gospel with its clear_cut statement "all things were made By Him, and without Him was made nothing that was made...” and “He came unto His own [the Jews] and His own received Him not.”

The second requirement was the need for the Novus Ordo Missae to retain the outer trappings of a Catholic rite. One is reminded of Luther's service. As the Jesuit Hartmann Grisar tells us:

"One who entered the parish church at Wittenberg after Luther's victory, discovered that the same vestments were used for divine service as of yore, and heard the same old Latin hymns. The Host was elevated and exhibited at the Consecration. In the eyes of the people it was the same Mass as before, despite the fact that Luther omitted all prayers which represented the sacred function of the Sacrifice. The people were intentionally kept in the dark on this point. ‘We cannot draw the common people away from the Sacrament, and it will probably be thus until the gospel is well understood', said Luther. The rite of celebration of the Mass he explained as a 'purely external thing', and said further that 'the damnable words referring to the Sacrifice could be omitted al1 the more readily, since the ordinary Christian would not notice the omission and hence there was no danger of scandals.”

The so_called "Ottaviani Intervention” _ the study of the Novus Ordo Missae by a group of Rcman theologians and 1iturgists under the leadership or Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci _ made the following comment with regard to the new rite: "Having removed the keystone, the reformers had to put up a scaffolding.”

And in a similar manner, the changes were introduced slowly. Those who look back on the early days of Aggiorniamento will remember the almost weekly changes mandated. Cardinal Heenan bears witness to this feature, telling us we would have been "shocked it all the changes had been introduced at once. Changes came however, and one on top of another, and if we are to believe the hierarchy, still more are in the offing. (There is much talk today or "Institutional Violence”. I can think of no better example of this than the manner in which the new “mass” was forced down the throats of the laity.) Not everything went smoothly however. Paul VI bears witness to this. While on the one hand telling us that the New Order of the Mass was changed in “an amazing and extraordinary way”; that it was “singularly new”, and that the greatest innovation _ he used the theological term “mutation” _ was in the Eucharistic Prayer, he at one and the same time found it necessary to repeatedly assure us that "nothing had changed in the essence of the traditional Mass”. Others witnesses are more sanguine. Father Ga1ineau, another of the Conciliar Periti bluntly stated that the result was “a different liturgy of the Mass.. Cardinal Benelli stated that it reflected a “new ecclesiology”, and Father Bouyer stated that “The Catholic liturgy has been overthrown under the pretext of rendering it more compatible with the contemporary outlook”. Finally, Archbishop Bugnini, Paul VI’s executive officer and known Freemason, describes the result as “a new song”and as “la conquista della Chiesa”.

PICTURE of the changes taken from an old Roman Missal

(Note the different nature of the inscriptions reflecting the sequential changes)

WHO WROTE THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE ?

We knew that ultimately the Holy Ghost is the author of the traditional Mans; “The most beautiful thing this side of heaven” as St. Alphonsus Liguori called it. According to the Council of Trent, the central part or Canon was composed out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the Apostles and the pious institutions of the holy pontiffs.” Its current form, apart from two minor additions, dates back at least to the middle of the fourth century. Before that time historical records are sparse, for the Church was under persecution. However, as the Anglican historian Sir William Palmer states, “there are good reasons for referring its original composition to the Apostolic age”. It was considered so sacred that early sacramentaries printed it in gold ink; mediaeval theologians referred to it as the "Holy or Holies.. No wonder that Louis Bouyer once said that "to jettison it would be a rejection of any claim on the part of the Roman Church to represent the true Catholic Church".

When we came to the Novus Ordo Missae, we also know its authors. Whole Paul VI was formally responsible, it was a Concilium of some two hundred individuals mostly drawn from the conciliar periti (or the periti were drawn from members of the Concilium which predated the Council) and headed by Archbishop Bugnini. And he was helped by six Protestant "observers”whom Paul VI publicly thanked for their assistance in "re_editing in a new manner liturgical texts... so that the lex orandi conformed better with the lex credendi.. “ Are we to understand that in the old mass the lex orandi did not adequately conform to the lex credendi, or that the latter has been changed? Since when did the Church need the help or Protestants in formulating its rites? Considering the nature of those responsible, and despite its use of bland Scriptural phraseology, one can certainly question whether the Holy Ghost had anything to do with it.

WHY WAS IT WRITTEN?

According to the statements of Paul VI, it was created 1) to bring the Church's liturgy into line with the modern mentality; 2) in obedience to the mandate of Vatican II; 3) to take cognizance of progress in 1iturgical studies; and 4) for "Pastoral” reasons. 1 and 2 are essentially the same. They are but ways of expressing the principle of "Aggornaniamento”, of bringing into the bosom of the Church the false and pseudo-intellectual concepts of Progress and Evolution and the Modern Scientist Outlook. As Paul VI said, "if the world changes, should not religion also change... it is for this very reason that the Church has, especially after the Council, undertaken so many reforms... (Gen. Audience July 2,1969). John Paul II also admits that the new rite “is different from the one known before the Council" (D.C.). S w h statements alone would make the Novus Ordo Missae suspect for traditional Catholics.

As to "progress" in liturgicu1 studies, this is nothing but pure hypocrisy. The only liturgical document that has come to light since the time of Pius V is the Apostolic Traditions or Hippolytus. Now apart from the fact that we only have a reconstructed and partial version of the original document, this man was both a schismatic and an anti_Pcpe at the time he wrote. At the suggestion of Hans Kung, the Second Eucharistic Prayer was taken from this source, but it was rephrased to bring it into 1lne with Protestant theology, and to such a degree that Father John Barry Ryan calls the result a "new creation”. The only other ancient prayer incorporated into the Novus Ordo Missae is what Father Jungmann calls a "reconstruction... probably the very words used at the blessing of bread and wine in a Jewish meal at the time of Christ.. It is indeed such, for anyone who has had the privilege of attending a Jewish Banquet is familiar with the phrase "Blessed art thou O Lord, God of all creation...

Paul VI's fourth reason for its introduction was “Pastoral”. As far as I know, he never personally defined this term. In the “double_speak" of the post_Conciliar Church just what does "pastoral" mean? The answer can be found in a “Letter to the Presidents of National Councils or Bishops concerning Eucharistic Prayers” sent out by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship: "The reason why such a variety of texts has been offered (in the Novus Ordo), and the end result such new formularies were meant to achieve, are PASTORAL in nature: namely to reflect the unity and diversity of liturgical prayer. By using the various texts contained in the new Roman Missal, various Christian communities, as they gather together to celebrate the Eucharist, are able to sense that they themselves form the one Church, praying with the same faith, using the same prayer." In other words, the "pastoral intent” was and is to create a service that any Christian body can use _ to foster that "ecumenism” and “unity” which it is the “Internal Mission” of the new Church to foster.

Now the real issue is not whether the Novus Ordo Missae retained enough of its Catholic character to be acceptable to the faithful, but whether or not it satisfied its ecumenical intent _ was it acceptable to the Protestants? Here the answer must be a resounding yes! Let us listen to the Superior Consistory of the Church of the Augsburg Confession of Alsace and Loraine, a major Lutheran authority. On December 8, 1973 they publicly acknowledged their willingness to take part ”in the Catholic Eucharistic celebration" because it allowed them to "use these new Eucharistic prayers with which they felt at home”. And why did they feel at home with them? Because they had "the advantage of giving a DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION to the theology of the sacrifice than they were accustomed to attribute to Catholicism." In a similar manner, to mention but some, the Anglicans, the community at Taize, and the united Protestants of South India all find the new rite acceptable. As a French Protestant Theologian wrote:

“If one takes account of the decisive evolution in the Eucharistic liturgy or the Catholic Church, of the option or substituting other Eucharistic prayers for the Canon of the Mass, of the expunging of the idea that the Mass is a sacrifice and or the possibility of receiving Communion under both kinds, then there is no further justification for the Reformed Churches forbidding their members to assist at the Eucharist in a Catholic Church.”(Le Monde Sept.. 1970, quoted by Michael Davies in “Liturgical Revolution”)

Now there is something a little surprising in all this. Let us recall that the Anglicans officially consider the Catholic teaching on the Mass a “blasphemous fable”, and that the Lutherans clearly hold it as a point of doctrine that “the Mass is not a Sacrifice" and that “it is not the act of a Sacrificng priest." Indeed Luther went so far as to say that “all brothels, murders, robberies, crimes, adulteries are less wicked than this abomination of the Popish Mass” and that the Canon which many conservative Novus Ordo Catholics falsely believe to have been kept intact was "a confluence of puddles of slimy water”.. Even more to the point, Luther said of his Novus Ordo “call it benediction, Eucharist, the Lord's table, the Lord's supper, memory of the Lord, or whatever you like, just so long as you do not dirty it with the name of a sacrifice or an action." How acceptable these alternative names for the Mass have become.

The “Ottaviani Intervention” explains just why the new Mass is so acceptable to those who reject all belief in an immolative Sacrifices

“The position of both priest and people is falsified and the celebrant appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister... By a series of equivocations the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the "supper" and the "memorial" instead of on the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Cavary... The Real Presence of Christ is never alluded to and belief in it is implicitly repudiated... It has every possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants."

And so we are led to the most critical question:

IS THE N0VUS ORDO MISSAE A SACRIFICE?

Traditionally, the Sacrifice of the Mass is divided into the Offertory, the Consecration (which occurs during the Canon) and Communion. The new “mass” has only two parts: The Liturgy of the word by which scripture and not the Logos -the Word made Flesh - is meant, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, a word acceptable to Protestant theology because its translation is “thanksgiving”.

Let us consider but one of the deleted prayers from the Offertory:

“Accept Holy Father, Almighty eternal God, this unspotted host which I, thy unworthy servant, offer Thee, my 1iving and true God, for my innumerable sins, offenses and negligences and for all here present; as also for all faithful Christians, both living and dead, that it may avail both me and them for salvation unto life everlasting."

What a marvel or doctrinal precision. Along with the actions of the priest it makes it clear that what is offered is the "spotless host” or victim. Second, the propitiatory nature of the Mass is explicit _ it is offered for our sins. Third, it reminds us that the Mass is offered for the living and the dead; and fourth, that it is the priest who offers the sacrifice as a mediator between man and Gcd.

It will be argued that one of the Offertory Prayers was retained in the Novus Ordo Missae _ the “Prayer of Humble Petition” as it is called in the Anglican service which also found no objection to its retention. But this changes nothing. In the Novus Ordo Missae, interpreted literally, all that is offered is the bread and wine. Moreover the prayers used are in the plural indicating that not the priest, but “the People of God” who are making the offering. It will also be argued that in the offering of the Host the priest says "It will become for us the bread of life”:, but as Father Burns, one of America's most conservative Novus Ordo priests, pointed out this can as well be understood as referring to the bread we eat each day, often called "the staff of life”. It also includes the phrase "for us” which Crammer insisted denied the sacramental principle ex opere operato _ that the Consecration occurs regardless of the disposition of the participants. The same comment can be made with regard to the phrase "it will become our spiritual drink" Once again, as the Ottaviani Intervention put it:

"The three ends of the Mass are altered; no distinction is allowed to remain between Divine and human sacrifice; bread and wine are only "spiritually" (not substantially) changed... Not a word do we find as to the priest's power to sacrifice, or about his act of consecration, the bringing about through him of the Eucharistic Presence. He now appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister.”

When we come to the Canon, the absence of any offertory allows it to be understood in an entirely Protestant sense. This is true even when Eucharistic Prayer No 1 is used _ more so in the others. Moreover, as in the Lutheran service, the words of consecration are said as part of a historical narrative _ the Institutio Narrationis _ and nowhere is the priest instructed that he must say them in persona Christi. Thus a serious doubt arises as to whether any Sacrifice occurs at all. Let us again 1lsten to the words of the 0ttaviani Intervention:

“The words of consecration, as they appear in the context of the Novus Ordo (in Latin) may be valid according to the intention of the ministering priest. But they may not be, for they are so no longer ex vi verborum (by the force of the words used), or more precisely, in virtue of the modus significandi (way of signifying) which they have had ti11 now in the Mass. Will priests who, in the future, have not had the traditional training and who rely on the Novus Ordo to ‘do what the Church does’, make a valid consecration? One may be permitted to doubt it..”

We have already seen how the post_Conciliar Church has obfuscated the need or efficacy of Christ's Passion for salvation. It is only logical that in creating a new rite, the Sacrifice _ the unbloody Passion or our Lord _ should also be obfuscated. And so it is that immediately after the presumed Consecration the faithful proclaim, not that Christ is on the altar _ excuse me, "table” _ but rather that Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again." This is the Mystery of the post_Conciliar faith. As the Ottaviani Intervention notes, "the Real Presence of Christ is never alluded to, and belief in it is implicitly repudiated”.

Many however argue that Paul VI made the sacrificial nature of the Novus Ordo Missae clear in the General Instruction which accompanied its promulgation. Let us turn to his words and see how he defines his Mass:

"The Lord's Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the People of God, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of a local congregation of the Church: Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst”.

An extraordinary statement. Note first of all that the priest's role is one of presiding. What does a "president” do? He sits at the head of an assembly and helps them to perform their duties. And who is it that celebrates the rite? It is the "People of God”. And what do they do? They celebrate the memorial or the Lord. And what is achieved? Nothing more than is achieved when I gather my family together for family prayers. Paul VI modified his “General Instruction to the Roman Missal” after the Ottaviani Intervention. He said that he did so to make things more clear, but at the same time he stressed that the original contained no doctrinal errors and that the modified form implied no change in doctrine. He made absolutely no changes in the rite itself. In essence, he resorted to still more equivocation in an attempt to make things sound more orthodox. This is illustrated by the following passage which was appended to the one I just quoted:

"For in the celebration of the Mass which perpetuates the sacrifice of the cross, Christ is really present to the assembly gathered in his name; he is present in the person of the minister; in his own word, and indeed substantially and permanently under the Eucharistic elements”.

The new phraseology changed nothing, for, in the plain understanding of the words, Christ is no more present in the eucharistic elements than he is in the congregation or the minister. Searching the rest of the document provides little clarification. One does come across occasional references to "Sacrifice”, but always 1n an ambiguous context such as the "sacrifice or praise and thanksgiving”. made central, and indeed infamous by Cranmer and Luther. To again quote the Ottiaviani Intervention:

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

And so we are brought to the words of consecration which Paul VI] described as "singularly new”, as the "greatest innovation" he had made, as a change that was "amazing and extraordinary" and as a "mutation" (Documents on the Liturgy). This last word “mutation" is most significant. In biological terms it implies a genetic change and hence something fundamental. In theological terminology with reference to sacramental forms, as for example, in, the works of Father Capello, it implies a substantial change of meaning. (A mutation which changes the meaning of the sacramental form would render it invalid. In case of doubt, the form becomes doubtful.) Remember, the words used in the traditional rite, and indeed, in all the 76+ forms (in innumerable rites and languages such as Aramaic, Arabic, Greek, etc.) of the rite that the Church recognizes as valid, with the exception of the phrase "Mysterium fidei”, are ascribed to Christ Himself and are said to have been given us, unlike most of the other Sacraments, "in specie” or in the precise form in which they were to be used. To change them implies an audacity and presumption almost beyond belief. I have placed the two consecratory forms side by side for your consideration. I would call your attention to some of the changes:

And all this Spiritual nourishments is effected, not on an altar, but on a table. (An Altar stones is no longer required.) As Cranmer said, “an altar is for sacrifice, and a table is for a meal.. And all this is done with the priest facing the congregation _ no longer an intermediary between God and man, but the president of an assembly _ presiding at the table around which the faithful are to gather to partake of the Memorial supper.. I would ask you to think about the significance of this innovation. How can a priest perform a Sacrifice to God in which he is both an alter Christus and an intermediary between man and God, when he is facing the “People of God”? Many religions beside Catholicism have Sacrificial rites, but in none of them is this inversion seen. Can you imagine the High Priest of the Jews acting this way before the Holy of Holies? Can you imagine a child asking his father's forgiveness while facing his school_friends? Be this as it may, it is this simple inversion which once again makes the non_sacrificial nature of the Novus Ordo strikingly clear. The priest is presiding, not over a sacrifice performed upon an altar by him alone, but over a communitarian meal introduced by a Jewish grace _ in fact, a Freemasonic meal, where little more than good fellowship in inculcated. As the Ottaviani Intervention states, the whole thing "comes to resemble a philanthropic meeting, or a charity banquet..”

You will perhaps argue at this point that I have been unfair. After all, the Novus Ordo MlSsse is an ambiguous document and as such is capable of a more Catholic interpretation. I am sure that none of the older clergy who use the Novus Ordo, interpret it as the Ottaviani Interventlon does. But what of the seminarians _ the future priests that will serve the faithful? What are they being taught. Let me give you two different statements taken from seminary text books used in English Speaking countries with regard to how the Novus Ordo is to be understood.

"The (new) mass is not an act of the priest with whom the people unite themselves, as it used to be explained. The Eucharist is, rather, an act of the people, whom the ministers serve by making the Savior present sacramentally... This (former) formulation, which corresponded to the classical theology or recent centuries, was rejected because it placed what was relative and ministerial (the hierarchy) above the ontological and absolute (the People of God).(The New Order of Mass, Official Text of Instruction, English version and Commentarv published by the Liturgical Press.)

And again:

"The priest also sees his relation to the laity in a new perspective. The priest is no longer the one “officially delegated to perform a clerical action in which the people are invited to participate. For example, the second edition or the General Instruction on the Roman Missal systematically refuses to speak or the priest as "the celebrant” as though the priest alone celebrates. It is the community who celebrates the liturgy. The priest celebrating has different responsibilities than the laity, but it is not the priest alone who celebrates. The priest sees his role more as a leadership role within an action which belongs to the community” (Father Richstatter's “Liturgical Law Today”)

This is way the Ottaviani Intervention said:

”The position of both priest and people is falsified and the celebrant appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister, while the true nature of the Church is intolerably misrepresented... The Real Presence of Christ is never alluded to and belief in it is implicitly repudiated... It, (the New "Mass”) has every possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants”.

ONE LAST PIECE OF AMBIGUITY

There are some who claim that the president makes the Sacrificial nature of the Novus Ordo clear when he says at the time of communion “The Body of Christ”. Not so. Let us listen to the instruction of the Bishop's Committee on the Liturgy, which laid down the rule that the priest was to use this new expression:

“We use of the phrase ‘The Body of Christ, Amen' in the communion rite asserts in a very forceful way the presence and role of the community. The minister (sic) acknowledges who the person is by reason of baptism and confirmation and what the community is and does in the liturgical action... the change to the use of the phrase 'The Body of Christ' rather than the long formula which was previously said by the priest has several repercussions in the liturgical renewal. First, it seeks to highlight the important concept of the community as the body of Christ; secondly, it brings into focus the assent of the individual in the worshiping community, and finally, it demonstrates the importance of Christ's presence in liturgical celebrations.”

And indeed, in line with this "new gospel”, the Bishop's Committee strictly forbade the priest to say "THIS is the Body of Christ”!

PICTURE OF MASS

Let us before closing consider once again the traditional Mass. In this picture drawn from an old text_book we see illustrated the perpetual sacrifice of the Lamb as it occurs in heaven, and we see how, not even the “new people of God”,but the priest, acting alone in persona Christi, makes present this Sacrifice upon the altar. As Father Olier put it: “one must know that this sacrifice is the Sacrifice of Heaven... a sacrifice is offered up in Paradise which, at the same time, is offered up here on earth, and they differ only in that here on earth the sacrifice occurs unseen." What power! What a sacred action! The Divine made present on our altars”. St. Alphonsus Liguori tells us that “The entire Church cannot give to God as much honor, nor obtain so many graces, as a single priest by celebrating a single Mass.” Indeed as he also says, “the sacerdotal dignity surpasses the dignity of the angels.”

CONCLUSION

Enough has been said to show that the Novus Ordo Missae is capable of being interpreted in a variety or ways. It resembles the First (Anglican_Protestant) Prayer Book of Edward VI which Bishop Richard Cheyney described as "expressly designed to suit persons of various and even contradictory religious views: Catholic; not_so_very Catholic; ex_Catholic; non-Catholic; and anti_Catholic”. It is understandable why in almost every major City of North America and Europe there are priests who refuse to have anything to do with it, and who continue to pay the ancient Mass at great personal sacrifice. It should not be forgotten that the Apostolic Bull Quo Primum guarantees their right to do so just as it guarantees the laity the right to attend.

It must also be admitted that the majority or Catholics have accepted the Novus Ordo Missse. _those who are inclined to orthodoxy look at it through Traditional eyes and continue to understand it as a true Sacrifice. For them every ambiguity is seen in the light of pure faith and sound doctrine. (Pope Leo XIII taught that in a rite created by Protestants, every ambiguity should be given a Protestant interpretation.) Despite the fact that between 60 to 80% of the so_called Tridentine Mass has been deleted and despite the fact that the very words of Christ _ given us. "in specie" (exactly) have been altered, they accept the assurances of Paul VI that “nothing has been changed in the essence of the Mass" and that it is in fact “a step forward in the Church's authentic tradition”. Others _ both Catholic and non_Catholic _ see it through the eyes of modern man and welcome the fact that it is both progressive and evolutionist, that it is centered on man rather than Goo, and that it has _to use the current phraseology _ Gotten rid of all the mystery" and brought the world into the sanctuary”. Still others, perhaps the majority, attend it out of habit and without thought being given to any of the above considerations.

Does a true immolative sacrifice occur in the Novus Ordo Missae ? If one accepts Paul VI's definition and accepts the wording of the rite in its lateral meaning, and the interpretation that the General Instruction forces upon them, one cannot see how such is possible. Add to these factors the the training offered to modern seminarians as illustrated by the authoritative commentaries given and doubt becomes an impossibility. This was clearly seen by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci who asked: “will priests who, in the near future, have not had the traditional training and who rely on the Novus Ordo in order to 'do what the Church does' make a valid consecration?" The answer that they give is: “one may be permitted to doubt it..”

The fact remains that, as Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci have stated, “The Novus Ordo teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the purity of the Catholic religion and dismantles all defenses of the deposit of Faith”. Even if parents are unaffected, it is bound to produce a generation of Catholics that are totally modernist in outlook. Even more important is the obfuscation of the sacrificial nature of the Mass. The fact that “by a Series of equivocation it obsessively places its emphasis upon the 'supper' and 'memorial' instead of on the Sacrifice of Calvary”, and that The Real Presence of Christ is never alluded to and belief in it is “implicitly repudiated" will inevitably result in the development of a clergy who increasingly see their function only in terms of presiding over a community celebration and a laity who have no understanding of its purpose. This is to say nothing of the psychological and spiritual effects on a clergy that will be inevitable effect of participating in a false rite. As Luther predicted: "Tolle Misuse, tolle Ecclesiam ( destroy the Mass and you destroy the Church”).

Those who argue that obedience requires acceptance of this modernist and man created rite should further reflect on the fact that obedience also requires that the rite be accepted in its literal meaning and interpreted in accord with the introductory instructions. This means that they must accept _ if obedience is their argument _ the definition of the Mass as given by Paul VI in Paragraph seven and eight. Obedience does not allow for private interpretations of ambiguous phrases along traditional lines. One further point on obedience: Obedience is a moral virtue. Faith, Hope and Charity are theological virtues and as such of a higher order. Common logic makes it clear that obedience to a false faith, hope or charity can never lead heavenwards.

And so as St. Ambrose tells us: "He is unworthy who celebrates the mystery otherwise than Christ delivered it” Every Catholic who still retains a love of Holy Mother Church must ask 1) is the Novus Ordo an example of legitimate development, the growth of an acorn into an oak, or is it the product of change such as attempts to alter an oak into a fig_tree barren of fruit? 2) Will the new orientations of Vatican II and their reflection in the Novus Ordo bring mankind back to any kind of Catholic unity, or will it - may God forbid - bring about the reign of the Anti-Christ?

ã R Coomaraswamy, 2001

[1] Subsequent statistics have shown a rise in communions and a precipitous fall in confessions.

[2]The Utopia of Pope John XXIII., Orbis, N.Y., 1978

[3]Pope, Council and World, Macmillan, N.Y., 1963

[4]Quoted in The Reunion of Christendom, A Pastoral Letter to the Clergy, Archbishop Henry Manning, Appleton: N.Y., 1866. To quote Manning further: “We believe union to be a very precious gift, and only less precious than truth...There can be no unity possible except by the way of truth. Truth first, unity afterwards; truth, the cause, unity, the effect. To invert this order is to overthrow the Divine procedure. The unity of Babel ended in confusion.... Bishop John Milner put it clearly. With regard to the Anglo-Catholic Ecumenical movement of the 19^th. Century (which was quite limited in extent i.e., did not include Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Hottentots), “if we should unite ourselves with it, the Universal Church would disunite itself from us.”

[5] They are indicated in darker print in the New St. Joseph. Weekday Missal