Agreement between the first Protestant reform of 1549 in England and the reform of Paul VI since Vatican II.

     In order to make this resemblance more striking, we present on the left-hand side of the page the reforms introduced by the new rite and the new sacraments of Anglicanism on 1549.  For this we have recourse to the "Histoire de l'Eglise" of Canon Boulenger, and to that of Dom Poulet, to the "Brief History of the Introduction of Protestantism in England", by Hugh Ross Williamson, and to the article by Francis Clark, S.J. "Les ordinations anglicanes, problème oecuménique".  Opposite, on the right-hand side of the page, we shall give the reforms introduced by the new rite and the new sacraments of Paul VI:

1.  The aim of the first "Prayer Book" of 1549 was indicated in the preface: among other reforms, the substitution of English for Latin, which the faithful did not understand.	1.  We draw attention to the substitution of the vernacular for Latin in all the liturgical books reformed by Paul VI, for the same motive of comprehensibility.
2.  The modification of the breviary by abridging it.	2.   Here, too, there has been a modification of the breviary, considerably abridging it and even, in practice, making it optional.
3.  The preface of the "Prayer Book" spoke only of changes in the breviary, but there were other changes, much graver ones, on which it remained silent, doubtless in order not to frighten clergy people. We wish to discuss the modifications which concern the sacraments and the Mass(1). ___________________     (1)The "Prayer Book" of 1552 was Protestant without ambiguity.	3.  If the Constitution "De Sacra Liturgia", from which stems the present liturgical upheaval, was less temperate than the "Prayer Book", it was nonetheless wary; let us see:     "Faithful to tradition, the Sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all legitimately recognised rites in equal right and honour, and that she wishes them to be kept and fostered unreservedly for the future. The Council desires that, where there may be need, they should be carefully and thoroughly revised in accordance with sound tradition and endowed with a new vigour to suit the needs and circumstances of the present day." (No. 4)     "In order that the Christian people may the more surely gain an abundance of graces in the sacred liturgy, the Church, their loving Mother, desires to apply herself with due care to a general reform of the liturgy, for the liturgy consists of a part that is unchangeable because it is divinely instituted and of parts that can be changed. These latter can, and indeed must, vary with the passage of time, if ever they come to contain things not altogether consonant with the real nature of the liturgy as such, or things that are no longer appropriate."  (No. 21)     (But rest assured) "The supervision and general ordering of the sacred liturgy are vested solely in the authority of the Church. This authority resides in the Apostolic See and, according to the terms of the law, in the bishop." (No. 22 §1)     "Wherefore, no one else at all, not even a priest, may, of his own authority, add to, take from, or modify anything in the liturgy." (No. 22 §3)     "... innovations should not be made unless when a real and definite advantage will accrue to the Church, and when due care has been taken to ensure that the new forms shall, as it were, grow out organically from those already existing." (No. 23)
4.   According to the Reformers the administration of Baptism comprised, outside the rite itself, a sign of the Cross on the forehead, and one on the child, an exorcism, introduction into the Church, an anointing with the oil of the catechumens, and with chrism.	4.  The new rite of Baptism established by Paul VI also contains, outside the rite itself, but one sign of the Cross on the forehead of the "baptized", in the rite there are none.     With regard to the exorcisms, the new rite contains none at all, in spite of any "doctrinal explanations" to the contrary in certain vernacular versions. For we cannot call the prayer which concludes the part entitled "celebration of the Word of God" an exorcism, since at no point is to be found the imperative form which commands Satan to leave the soul: "Leave this child, impure spirit" or "I adjure thee, impure spirit, in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to come out of this creature of God". Thus, there is no exorcism.     The introduction into the Church is retained.     If the two are compared, that of Paul VI is worse than that of the 1549 Reform.
5.  In Confirmation, the anointing with the Holy Chrism was omitted. Luther rejected this Sacrament, which he considered a purely ecclesiastical rite. Calvin called it: "A sacrilegious ceremony, invented by the pride of the bishops."	5.  The new rite of Confirmation retains anointing with the Holy Chrism; but a Holy Chrism which has been changed: it is no longer the Holy Chrism of Tradition made from olive oil and balm, solemnly blessed by the bishop on Holy Thursday. It is any sort of oil with, if desired, a perfume of one's own choice, and it can be blessed by any priest on any day.     Moreover, the sacramental formula has been changed. It is no longer that which Holy Church has always used and which should therefore be preserved (see I Timothy VI, 20), but is a new form. Finally, this anointing is no longer conferred with the triple sign of the Cross, in the name of the Most Holy Trinity. The changes are such that the validity of the rite is at the least doubtful. Indeed, we must not forget that if certain external acts seem to be those of the past, the totality of the ceremonies has been disturbed to such a degree that the intention which they express appears no longer to be that of the Church: namely, to impress an indelible character, which gives the Christian boldness to confess his Faith before the world.
6.   Auricular confession was presented as "optional".	6.  In the matter of auricular confession, universally detested by heretics, Paul VI has proceeded with greater caution.     As "Sovereign Pontiff", it was impossible for him to declare it to be optional; his design to ruin Catholicism would have been evident to all the faithful and would have failed. So, very cleverly, auricular confession was praised by him, at the same time as he "permitted" general absolutions. Little by little these will supplant auricular confession. While the servants of the Husbandman slept, the cockle was surreptitiously sown. No more is needed than to let it grow. Unless the Lord intervenes, the days of auricular confession are numbered.
7.  The Communion Service was the principal change in the "Prayer Book". The word "Mass" no longer appears, except in a subtitle.	7.  The new "Ordo Missæ" is the principal change in the reform of Paul VI. The word "Mass" is most often replaced by "celebration", "eucharist", "table of the Lord" or "Lord's Supper", etc. "Holy Mass" or "the holy Sacrifice of the Mass" are terms never now used. These two particularly Catholic expressions have been completely eliminated.
8.  The Anglican Communion service, entirely in English, suppressed the prayers at the foot of the altar,	8.  The same characteristic appear in the new "Ordo Missæ" of Paul VI: the prayers at the foot of the altar no longer exist;
9.  and gave greater prominence to Scripture readings and commentaries.	9.  the liturgy of the Word has been greatly expanded.
10.  The offertory antiphon consisting of a verse of Scripture, was retained, but,	10.  In the rite of Paul VI, the offertory antiphon no longer exists.
11.  at the offertory of the bread and wine, all the prayers which made clear at their offering that they were about to become the Body and Blood of the Lord, were suppressed.	11.  At the offertory of the bread and wine, the new reform has suppressed all the prayers and rubrics which make clear, at their offering, that they are about to become the Body and Blood of the Victim: "Suscipe Sancte Pater ...", "Offerimus tibi, Domine, calicem salutaris ..."; also suppressed is the placing of the host on the corporal (which calls to mind the reality of the Body), after making the sign of the Cross with it (a reminder of the immolation), and the supplication to the Holy Ghost to effect the renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross, "Veni Sanctificator ..."     These suppressions, without parallel, infallibly proclaim the spirit of Luther, of heresy.
12.  The Preface, Sanctus and Benedictus were preserved.	12.   They have been retained.
13.  The prayers of the Canon were drastically reduced, and it was carefully purged of all that might recall, even remotely, the sacrificial side of the "abominable Papist Mass".     The spirit of the Reformation is easily recognizable here. Luther said: "That abominable Canon is a confluence of puddles of slimy water, which have made of the Mass a sacrifice. Offertories have been added. The Mass is not a sacrifice. It is not the act of a sacrificing priest. Together with the Canon, we discard all that implies an oblation."	13.  As its name implies, the "Canon" was the "invariable" part of the Mass; it was regarded as "untouchable", much more so than the Offertory. So, the reform of Paul VI has been carried out with much more caution than that of Cranmer. The new reformers have preferred to distort the Canon: on the one hand, by the aid of "new translations" which, in many cases, are simply falsifications, and on the other, by altering the signification of the rite by apparently insignificant changes in words, or by the suppression of gestures; but, as in fact these rubrics expressed or emphasized the sacrificial character of the Mass, their suppression causes the words retained to cease to signify the sacrificial character of the Mass.     This double process has facilitated the stealthy introduction of the reform desired by the innovators, in eliminating to the greatest possible degree "everything which suggests the idea of oblation" (Luther), of the victim: that is, the renewal of the propitiatory sacrifice.     Three new eucharistic prayers, as neutral as anyone could wish, made up by specialists in heresy, to supplant the Canon known as "Roman", which is still intolerable to the Protestants, in spite of the falsifications introduced, complete the plan which, of its very nature, tends to destroy the Catholic Mass.
14.  The Blessed Virgin and the Saints were still named, but their intercession was no longer implored.	14.  The intercession of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints is not asked, either, in two of the new "eucharistic prayers"; the third speaks of intercession without asking for it; an additional piece of craftiness.
15.  The "Mementos" of the living and of the dead were fused into one, after the words of the institution.	15.  The same feature marks the three new "eucharistic prayers" of the present reform.
16.  All the words and all the gestures (rubrics) which indicated that the Mass is not simply a memorial, but is a true propitiatory Sacrifice, renewing the Sacrifice of the Cross and capable of being offered for the living and the dead, were completely suppressed.	16.  The new Ordo of Paul VI also suppresses all the words and all the gestures (rubrics) which so clearly underlined both the sacrificial side of the Mass, which truly renews upon the altar the Sacrifice of the Cross, and the reality of the corporal Presence of Our Saviour Jesus Christ, Who is there in His state as Victim, immolated and offered up.     These suppressions, effected by various artifices, and with the help of "false translations" are innumerable. Let us point out a few of them:     1) An almost entire elimination of the signs of the Cross, intended to demonstrate visibly that the Victim is the same as the Victim on Calvary:     Thus, for example, in the prayer "Unde et memores", which follows the consecration of the Chalice, when he recited the words "offerimus praeclaræ Majestatis tuæ", the priest used to make five signs of the Cross, which were not blessings but demonstrative signs. Each of them indicated, with precision, the pure+Victim, the holy+Victim, the spotless+Victim, the sacred+Bread and the Chalice of+everlasting salvation, present there upon the altar. Why have all these signs, so rich in meaning, been suppressed in the new "Ordo"? Could it be that there is no longer belief in the mysterious Reality brought about by Transubstantiation?     Of more than thirty signs of the Cross contained in the traditional rite, that of Paul VI preserves but one, and this one signifies no more than a simple blessing.     2) The same remark applies to the genuflexions (which is logical, if one wishes to promote the belief that there is only a virtual presence): two are preserved instead of ten. In this matter, the most significant suppression is of that which follows each of the two consecrations. By tolerating the suppression of the act of adoration which immediately followed each of the consecrations accomplished by the priest, the rite of paul vi gives credence to the protestant heresy which denies the efficacy of the consecration (see below, No. 37).     3) All the words which mark the sacrificial Oblation have been suppressed or falsely translated; for example, "adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem", are removed; the word "hostiam", which means "victim" and which designates precisely Our Saviour Jesus Christ sacrificed anew on the altar, is not faithfully translated. This manner of being silent on a point of faith when it should be affirmed surely conceals a denial.     Apparently, for the new reformers as for the old ones, the Mass is not the "real and true Sacrifice of the New Covenant" but a mere memorial of it. The French "New Missal for Sundays", in particular, clearly states that at Mass there "is simply a question of calling to mind the one Sacrifice already accomplished" (1972 edition, p. 332, 1973 edition, p. 383.)
17.  The Canon was followed by the Pater Noster, then by certain prayers, and the general confession,	17.  The reform of Paul VI suppresses the general confession before the communion.
18.  and by the communion in both kinds with this form of words: "The Body ... the Blood ... of our Lord Jesus Christ ..., preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life."	18.   Communion in both kinds is spreading more slowly; this appears to be a secondary consideration with the present reformers.     On the other hand, for the Communion, the words in the new rite are only: "The Body of Christ". It is briefer, and above all "the soul" and "eternal life" are thus suppressed; the new reformers thus show themselves to be more heretical than the old.
19.  By these changes, it was evident that the authors of the prayers and ceremonies of the new Anglican "eucharist" had sought to set aside, as much as possible, anything which might have suggested the doctrine of Transubstantiation.	19.  As we have already stressed, the new "reformers", by their changes and their innovations, make it clear that they, too, have wished to set aside, or at least no longer to indicate, the Catholic doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass, nor that of the real physical Presence effected by Transubstantiation.
20.   Moreover Cranmer, who was the chief inspirer of this "Prayer Book", like Calvin, did not believe in the real corporal Presence. For them there was only a virtual presence of Christ. But since there were, among the lay people who adopted the reformation, those who believed in a Presence by consubstantiation (Luther's heresy), and some who believed in Transubstantiation (who on this point retained the Catholic doctrine), Cranmer and the other authors of the "Prayer Book" took care to exercise great reserve in revealing their Lutheran or Calvinistic doctrines, in order not too much to shock clergy and people. Wherever they were able to do so without too much danger, they went as far as possible in the direction of innovation and suppression: when, however, they were afraid of rousing the opposition of Catholics, and even of some of the "reformed", they had recourse to a degree of reticence to imprecise and ambiguous formulas, which each person could interpret as he wished - knowing full well that time would do the rest. It was a piece of trickery.                         ______________________     (2) Except for a small number of places, the Latin text is not used by those who have adopted the new liturgy.	20.   Like their great predecessors, the present "reformers" have returned to Protestant doctrine, taking care, however, not to arouse Catholic resistance. To this end they, too, have adopted ambiguous terms, capable of allowing Catholics to believe that the doctrine of the Real Presence is still held, though in fact it tends to be eliminated.     Example : The falsified "translation" of the Roman Canon, instead of "we offer (Thee) ... a pure Victim, a holy Victim, a spotless Victim... hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam", makes the priest say: "We offer to you ... this holy and perfect sacrifice ..." (ICEL translation).     Thus, not only is the Latin text of the Canon betrayed by mistranslations, but a cunning ambiguity is introduced: For Catholics will think, in accordance with Catholic doctrine, that the "holy and perfect sacrifice" in question is that effected on the altar. At the same time, however, Protestants will think, in accordance with their own doctrine, that this "holy and perfect sacrifice" here referred to, is that of Calvary, made once for all in 33 A.D., which the minister is now recalling, simply making a Memorial and not a Renewal. This heretical doctrine, moreover, is that which is fully spelt out in the French "New Missal for Sundays", as noted above in paragraph 16.     We have just spoken of the betrayal of the Latin text in the translations, and in this we had in mind particularly the French translation; but the English one presents similar ambiguities, and this fact leads us to think that there is question of premeditated connivance. We will give but two proofs of this statement:     a) Though they are aware of this betrayal, the authorities accept it and shield it by their silence. Now "he who remains silent is judged to consent". Indeed, what is the reason for this silence on their part, if it be not that they recognize in such translations what it is intended, in practice, to teach?     b) In general, similar infidelities to the Latin text are to be found in various vernacular versions - English, German, Spanish, etc. How can it be claimed that this uniformity in betraying the text is not intended, even ordered? So we have here a further piece of knavery: that of having drawn up a passable Latin text, behind which, when attacked, Authority will always be able to entrench itself, to escape the accusation of heresy, allowing this to fall on the translators; whilst faithful traditional believers are soothed by the thought that, after all, the Latin text is the official one, and it is acceptable - refusing to see that by its persistent silence Authority is responsible for the circulation of faulty translations, which in practice do the work of heresy by changing the belief of the faithful on these points. In other words, the new "reformers" still give expression to doctrine, but in texts which, in practice, are hardly in use(2), whilst putting at the disposal of the faithful faulty translations which convey error and, by their use, change and consequently destroy the content of the faith.     The similarity between Cranmer's reform and that of Paul VI extends to details which clearly show that they are inspired by the same spirit, which is far from being the Holy Ghost. Like Cranmer's work, Paul VI's reform is a work of trickery, and even more hypocritical.
21.   Warwick, the second Regent for the young Edward VI, an unscrupulous, dissimulating character, was resolute and energetic, manifesting a certain attachment to Catholicism, the better to destroy it.	21.  The characteristics of Warwick, save for violence, reappear in their fullness in the authors of the present "reform".     No violence appears to be needed, however, by the "reformers" of our day, as their work goes ahead in "cope and tiara", "with Cross and Banner".
22.   Under Warwick's regency a new law ordered the destruction of all former liturgical books: Missals, Breviaries and Antiphonals,	22.   There is the same destruction in convents and monasteries, and Pontifical publishers have been indemnified for destroying their stocks of Missals, Breviaries and Antiphonals.
23.  In March of the year 1550 the Anglican Ordinal or Pontifical appeared. Under the pretence of returning to the primitive liturgy, the minor orders and the sub-diaconate were suppressed.	23.   Paul VI, on 15 August 1972, also suppressed the minor orders and the sub-diaconate.
24.  In one form or another, attacks on the Mass multiplied.	24.   Since the death of Pius XII onward, attacks on the Mass have also multiplied; such are all those more or less scandalous "celebrations", "gospel nights", or other "creative" innovations, countenanced by the Hierarchies. The Holy Mass of Tradition alone is forbidden, although St. Pius V established the rite for all time.
25.   After the suppression of the popular riots which followed the imposition of the new forms of worship, the religious revolution advanced by leaps and bounds. Altars were desecrated and destroyed, those altars which, in all the churches in the land, were eloquent, silent witnesses to immemorial belief in the Sacrifice of the Mass. They were replaced by plain tables.	25.  To avoid any upheaval among the faithful, the new reform proceeded with much more caution. "Why does the Mass keep changing?" asked Cardinal Heenan, in a pastoral letter of 12 October 1969. And he answered: "It would have been foolhardy to introduce all the changes at once. It was obviously wise to change gradually and gently. If all the changes had been introduced at once, you would have been shocked."     Despite these precautions, the heretical hatred of the altar of sacrifice appears also in the new "reformers", who have crept into the highest places in the Church. In the same way as before the altars have been replaced by tables, with the aim of destroying in the minds of Catholics the idea of sacrifice: it is a measure which squares well with the new "Ordo" which, by means of suppressions and omissions, destroys the whole doctrine of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, reducing it to a simple commemorative meal, with only a spiritual Presence, such as any meeting for prayer could have: "Where there are two or three gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them." (Math. XVIII, 20)
26.   Bishop Ridley, in London, was one of the first to make this particular innovation in his diocese. Hardly was he installed when he made an ordinance for the parish clergy, in which he exhorted them to "set up the table of the lord in the form of a common table". And, setting an example himself, on the night of 11 June 1550, he had the altar of Saint Paul's Cathedral destroyed, and replaced it by a table at the foot of the steps leading to the choir. Some months later, a royal decree charged the bishops to destroy all remaining altars and replace them by tables.     "As long as altars remain", preached Hooker, "ignorant people and illiterate priests will always dream of sacrifice."     Here it would seem to be important to recall a point clearly made by Cranmer. It will help us to understand that orthodox expressions retained by the reformers do not necessarily retain a Catholic meaning.     In his new "Prayer Book", Cranmer had in several places kept the word "altar". This is how he explained the matter: "The table at which the holy communion is given may be called an ALTAR because on it is offered OUR sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving."	26.   With the same heretical frenzy, altars have been suppressed, destroyed, or covered by hangings if public authorities in charge of the arts opposed their destruction.     Not a single cathedral (in France) has preserved the use of its altar, and most parish churches and chapels in religious houses have destroyed or relegated theirs. Everywhere, at the entrance to the choir, as in Protestant churches, a simple table banishes the idea of the Sacrifice.
27.  The Catholic-minded bishops and clergy, who came to the defence of the Mass and the ancient Faith, were deposed or replaced by zealous partisans of the new belief.     In Germany the Capuchins of Witenberg continued to celebrate the Mass, so Luther obtained from the Elector of Saxony an edict forbidding them to celebrate in public. So, if they retained the Mass, they had to say it alone, without a single person present.	27.  The same relentless zeal for the destruction of the traditional Mass exists with the neo-reformers who cannot suffer even old priests, who have obtained the right to say it, to do so in public in the presence of a congregation.     Similarly, if any priest (parish priest, curate, chaplain or preacher) ventures to retain the traditional rite, which the Fathers of Vatican II solemnly promised should "be kept and fostered unreservedly" (De Sacra Liturgia, No. 4), or if he teaches the traditional catechism, he is considered an "obstacle to the new pastoral theology", to be "replaced by a zealous partisan of the new religion" and reduced to destitution.
28.  The "Prayer Book" of 1552 brought further modifications.	28.   Paul VI, too, has reformed all the other sacraments.
29.  At baptism the exorcism, unction and anointing with the chrism disappeared.	29.  As we have seen, the new rite of baptism of Paul VI immediately suppressed all the exorcisms; the anointing may be done or omitted, at the celebrant's choice! If it is done nothing is to be said; similarly with the single sign of the Cross, made on the forehead outside the rite proper, again with nothing said.     The rubric "without saying anything", repeated again and again, is very revealing: here are signs which no longer signify anything because of the suppression of the formula on which their meaning depended. This is typical modernist guile: to preserve the outward appearance of signs, but to do away with the Catholic formula and thus to empty them of all meaning.     Did not Lenin, whom they remember in their new calendar, lay down as an effective means of fighting against religion: "Keep the shell but empty it of its substance."
30.  The anointings disappeared too, from the "Visitation of the Sick"(the new name by which the new Protestants designated Extreme Unction); consequently, the sacrament itself disappeared.	30.  The new "Reformation" has, of course, not spared Extreme Unction, which has become "the Anointing of the Sick"; as this was the name given to it in the first centuries, the change appears to be harmless. However, we must stress the fact that the Innovators prefer their name because it permits them to make the heretical Protestant doctrine prevail, which asserts that this rite is for all the sick, whether in danger of death or not, over the Catholic doctrine, which reserves this sacrament for those whom sickness or great age place in danger of death (hence the name Extreme Unction). The erroneous idea is seen in practice everywhere, above all in places of pilgrimage, with ceremonies for the collective administration of the Anointing of the Sick.     Here again, the form and above all the matter have been changed. Under the pretext that "olive oil is scarce or is very difficult to obtain in some regions" (has the Pope forgotten that we are in the era of "Concord"?), any oil, blessed by any priest on any day may, henceforth, be used, "in cases of real necessity", of course: appearances must be preserved!
31.   What remained of the old Canon of the Mass of the Catholic Rite underwent notable changes; Cramner suppressed the commemoration of the Blessed Virgin and of the Saints.	31.  It should be noted that the new Ordo still mentions the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, in a much less Catholic manner, very reservedly, but the commemoration appears still to be made.
32.  He also suppressed the prayers which preceded the Consecration, by which the priest asked God to bless, accept and sanctify the oblations that they "may become for us the Body and Blood of Thy most beloved Son Jesus Christ Our Lord", a suppression which amounted to the thrusting aside of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and of the sacrificial character of the Mass, which Protestants have always rejected.	32.  We find the same intention to suppress everything that might express, without ambiguity, the doctrine concerning the sacrificial and propitiatory character of the Mass, the efficacy of the words of Consecration, and the real corporal Presence of Christ. Here we are obliged to note that all these changes - let us not forget it - are carried out by neo- modernists who, in accordance with a just observation made by Father Calmel, O.P., are both heretics and traitors. Whilst just as profound as those made by the Protestants, the changes effected by the neo-reformers are much more carefully disguised. Applying the recommendation of Lenin, they retain the shell, but emptied of its contents. Thus we see them sometimes changing the content, or the sense of the traditional expressions which they retain, sometimes suppressing gestures with the purpose of suppressing the doctrine which these gestures expressed. The words, "that they may become for us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ", expressed in the Catholic Tradition the efficacy of the words of Consecration pronounced by the priest; they expressed the mystery of Transubstantiation and the reality of the substantial Presence of Christ Who will be there on the altar, in the state of Victim, sacrificed and offered under the sacramental forms, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. For the fabricators of the new "Ordo Missæ" these words can have a different meaning: "That they may become for us", implies by faith, and not through the ministry of the priest, and "the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ", only a virtual or spiritual Presence, for, to the new reformers, as for their predecessors, it seems plain that there is no change of substance, no miracle. The bread remains bread and the wine, wine. Only a virtual, spiritual presence is added to them, effected by the faith alone of the faithful gathered together in the name of Jesus Christ, according to His promise: "Where there are two or three gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them."     It is with this same care not to profess the traditional doctrine, that the authors of the Novus Ordo have done away with the genuflexions made by the priest immediately after he had pronounced the words of Consecration. These acts of adoration, demanded by Faith in the real corporal Presence effected by the words of Consecration, demonstrated the efficacy of the Catholic rite: its suppression affirms, in its own way (disguised but effective) that the words of Consecration have brought about no change. The bread presented by the President would appear to be no more than bread, and in the chalice which he raises, there would appear still to be nothing but wine. Thus, this new rite is indeed heretical, but in the modernist manner, hypocritically, by calculated omission. Catholics should become aware of this, and not deny the evidence.     We recall to the attention of timorous Catholics, who are paralysed by the mere thought that all these changes are promulgated by the Pope, that before seeking to safeguard the reputation of a man - even though he be Pope - we must safeguard the honour of Jesus Christ and the deposit of Faith. For this, each one in his own station in life will have to give account on the day of Judgement.
33.   Cranmer also suppressed the invocation of the Holy Ghost before the Consecration ("Veni Sanctificator ... ").	33.  By suppressing the Roman Offertory, Paul VI, too, does away with this prayer which allows of no ambiguity. Addressed directly to the Holy Ghost, it asked Him to bring about the miracle of Transubstantiation which, on every occasion, makes of the Mass a true and proper sacrifice of propitiation, since it causes Christ to be present in His state as Victim (Hostia), immolated and offered under the sacramental form. This suppression is a further manifestation of the suspect intentions of the authors of the new rite, who act as if they did not believe that the Mass is a true, propitiatory Sacrifice.     To be convinced of this, it is necessary only to read the definition of the Mass given in the famous Article 7 of the General Instruction to the new rite: which "represents, as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent". (Cardinals Bacci and Ottaviani in their letter to the Pope of 3 September 1969, accompanying the Roman Theolologians' "Brief Critical Study" of the Novus Ordo Missæ.)
34.  In a word, everything which might favour the belief that the Lord's Supper comprised a Real and Corporal Presence of Our Lord in His state of Victim immolated and offered, had been ruthlessly eliminated.	34.  The same characteristic is in the new rite: an analysis of the new "translations", the rubrics, and the new texts shows this determination to eliminate the Catholic dogmas of the Sacrifice of the Mass.     It is in order to make clear this same heretical spirit, which denies the sacrificial character of the Mass, that the authors of the new rite have introduced two further changes.     1) After the offering of the bread and wine, the priest, with the paten and the chalice, used to trace a broad sign of the Cross. This rite, this cross, which recalled so clearly the immolation of the Victim, has been suppressed.     2) Having traced the sign of the Cross with the paten, the priest did not leave the bread on the paten; he placed it upon the corporal, which symbolised the shroud in which the Body of Jesus was wrapped. Henceforth, the President is to leave the host on the paten and not place it on the corporal, for this might keep in his mind what it is desired to banish from it: the reality of the Body of the Lord. "Corporal = which receives the body."     These tactics of ambiguity and camouflage, which lull Catholics and paralyse their resistance, make the new "reforms" more perverse than those of 1549.
35.   Cranmer's intention to deny the Real Presence appears not only in the far-reaching changes in the text of the Canon of 1549, but also in the nature of the new rubrics.	35.   Today's reformers have carried out their changes in the Canon also by false translations. In this way, as we have explained above, most of the trickery and sharp practice go unnoticed by over-trusting Catholics, who can always evade their duty to react by disclaiming responsibility for any errors of which they do become aware in the false translations; on the other hand, Authority which causes these bad translations to be circulated and used becomes a real party to their dissemination. "Qui tacet consentire videtur - he who remains silent is judged to consent."
36.  The priestly vestments gave place to a simple surplice; the "Table" was covered by a single white cloth ; the bread was no longer unleavened bread, circular in shape, and it was placed in the hand, instead of in the mouth of the communicant.	36.  In the same way, in the new reform, there is no longer more than a single white cloth on the altar, instead of three.     Communion is also often received in the hand, and no longer in the mouth.     Priestly vestments have not yet entirely disappeared, but the matter is under consideration. (Letter of the Congregation of Divine Worship, 21 May 1972.) However, it must not be forgotten that heresy can adapt itself to the use of sacerdotal vestments. Elizabeth I of England, to win over Catholics to the Protestant Reformation, ordered the re-introduction of certain items.
37.   Finally, a rubric warned that "kneeling should be regarded as a mark of humble gratitude to God for the gift of (spiritual) communion, and in no way as an act of adoration towards the sacramental bread and wine". "The bearing", declared Hooker, "and the gestures of the communicant should exclude all appearance, or tendency towards idolatry. Now kneeling is a mark and external sign of honour and of worship, and, up to the present, adoration of the Sacrament has constituted a grave and damnable idolatry. I would desire, therefore, that the Authorities should order communicants to stand or to sit. To remain seated would in my opinion be best."     The struggle against the reception of Holy Communion kneeling was, as Philip Hughes said, "the last stone to be piled on to the mound beneath which lay buried the ancient belief in the Holy Eucharist."	37.   Kneeling has been very widely suppressed, even sometimes to the point of refusing communion to those faithful who still dare to kneel. All this undeniably demonstrates that the authors of the Novus Ordo are animated by the same spirit as their ancestors, who meant by their reform to suppress belief in the real substantial Presence of Our Lord in the Mass. An example: An archbishop in the south of France, giving Holy Communion, and holding in his hands the ciborium which held the Body of the Lord, kicked a kneeling old lady in the knees, in this way urging her to stand up. Clearly, it is more than probable that that archbishop no longer believed in Transubstantiation, and that for him "communion" was a mere commemorative symbol, and no longer our Holy Communion. Once again, heresy is concealed by using a word in a sense other than its true one.
38.  At the same time as these reforms there appeared a new catechism, composed by the bishop of Winchester.	38. A new catechism for adults, drawn up by Dutch theologians, appeared in the same way before the "new Mass". Though condemned by Rome, it nevertheless established itself. It has been translated into all languages, and the Italian edition has been adopted even in the diocese of Rome.     The bishops are responsible for the universal imposition of new catechisms for children, often against the wishes of parish priests, catechists and parents.
39.   These reforms met with strong resistance from several bishops, who fought against them and were imprisoned. At the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth I only one bishop apostatized.	39.   Alas, one sees no such resistance on the part of the bishops of our time. The Second Vatican Council seems to have begotten a new breed of bishops, a sort of "mitred rabbit". It is true that this is one of the chastisements foretold by the Prophet: "I will give children to be their princes, and the effeminate shall rule over them." (Is. III, 4)     Let us, then, turn to God and pray that there may quickly arise a new Saint Bruno, Saint Hugh and Saint Godfrey, who, by arising against Pope Pascal II and threatening no longer to recognise him as the legitimate Pope, compelled him to condemn the heretical doctrine which he had conceded to the Emperor in the matter of the investiture of bishops.
40.   Bishop Scott, in a searching criticism of the new liturgy, showed that the proposed form of the Communion service did away with the consecration, the Sacrifice and the Communion. There was no longer a consecration, for when the minister said the words of institution: "This is My Body...", he said them without the requisite intention, as if he were reciting a story.     No longer believing in Transubstantiation they no longer had the intention of effecting it, and therefore did not do so. They merely recited a narrative, a memorial.	40.   Since the institution of the Novus Ordo, no Prelate has had the courage to analyse it exhaustively to show how corrupt it is. Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci were alone in pointing out to Paul VI that the new rite constituted "a striking departure from Catholic theology of the Holy Mass". Their voices were smothered and they did not persist.     However, as in the case of the formula introduced by the English Protestant Reformers, the rite of Paul VI tends to do away with the consecration. It causes the words of Institution: "This is My Body ... this is the chalice of My Blood ..." to be said in a recitative tone, as if it wished the priest to do no more than read a narrative, a memorial.     This change, despite its harmless appearance, is an extremely grave matter. By replacing the tone of one performing a personal action, which made clear the priest's intention to consecrate, by a recitative manner which no longer manifests this intention, but even expresses a contrary one - that of merely recalling a fact - this change reveals the will of the neo-reformers to change the Church's intention, substituting for it one which is heretical and Protestant. This heretical will of the reformers is evident in the "new missals". In these the "new Mass" is in no sense the Mass, since it is not the renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary, but a mere Memorial of it (see paragraph 16 above). In the intention of its producers it is, thus, no more than the Protestant Communion service. It is merely a commemoration of the one Sacrifice once offered and not, as Catholic doctrine teaches, a true renewal of the Sacrifice.     Those Catholics who insist on ignoring all this and who venture to claim that the Novus Ordo Missæ is still a Catholic Mass are pitifully blind. That is their affair. But their sentimental protestations will not change the reality of things: in fact, as in the intention of its authors, the new rite is no longer the Mass, but a mere memorial which no longer accomplishes our adorable Sacrifice.
41.   Finally, there was no communion, for if there is neither consecration nor Sacrifice, there is also no real Presence of the Body and Blood of Our Lord.	41.  The same consequences issue from the new rite. Since in the intention of its producers there is merely a question of making a memorial, the new rite has been so constructed as not only to obscure the intention to consecrate, but what is more, to make it clear that only a narration is being made. But in that case, if the "president" conforms to the new rite and to the intention of its authors, there is no corporal Presence, and without this there is no Sacrifice and no sacramental communion. Of itself, the new rite thus clearly tends towards being a rite which is utterly null and void.     Here a remark is necessary, to anticipate objections: Unlike the heretics of 1549, who left the Church, those of today are resolved to remain within her. They occupy key positions "right up to the highest summit of the hierarchy", thus giving the appearance of regular authority: the wolves retain the appearance of sheep.     Hence the all too easy deception of priests and people with regard to the Mass. Unable to believe in the perfidious intentions of the destroyers, they reassure themselves that, as long as the Novus Ordo Missæ is used with the intention of doing what the traditional Church intends to do, that is, to effect a true Transubstantiation and a true propitiatory sacrifice, the Mass is valid in spite of the rite. True, their Masses may possibly be valid, for though the ambiguity of the present subversion destroys the Mass, it still gives the unwary the impression of not destroying it. We must realize that the modernist heresy is not typical of classical heresies, frankly and clearly expressed; it is a heresy which disguises itself under forms which may be understood in a heretical or in a Catholic sense. This hypocritical method gives an advantage to error (that of transforming the Mass into a Protestant communion service without arousing the definite suspicions of the faithful, and without causing too much resistance), but it also involves a risk (that of still maintaining the validity of the Mass through those who say it with Catholic intentions). This risk is inseparable from the method employed, that of ambiguity; but modernists are prepared to take it because for them, who do not believe in Transubstantiation, the question of validity does not arise; moreover, they well know that, with the traditional doctrine no longer being taught (new catechisms, new theology), the Mass will in time be destroyed.     Hence it is evident what a terrible responsibility is assumed by those who use the Novus Ordo Missæ, even though they have the intention of celebrating validly, since by doing so they play a part in the establishment of a rite which tends to replace the Catholic Mass by a Protestant communion service.
42.  The religious laws, passed by Parliament, though opposed by many of the bishops, were revolutionary, in that they aimed to impose a new form of worship.	42.  At the synod of 1967, Paul VI presented the "New Mass" to the bishops under the title "missa normativa". The bishops, by their vote (since Paul VI descended to putting the Mass to the vote!), clearly rejected it. Thus the new reform of the Mass entered, in this way, into a direct line of descent from the reformation of 1549.
43.  Of the prelates in office, later, at the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth I, ONLY ONE accepted the second Protestant reform; all the others rejected it and were deposed. Here is the official list for the period, of the "Blessed" and the "Venerables" of the Church in England: Between 1535 and 1544, fifty martyrs from 1545 to 1558, no deaths; from 1559 to 1663, one hundred and eighty eight martyrs. From 1604 to 1680, there were seventy five martyrs. There were also forty three deferred cases, in which martyrdom has not been proclaimed, for lack of evidence.     Of all these martyrs, two were canonised in 1935: Saint Thomas More (a layman) and Saint John Fisher (a bishop). Forty others were canonised in 1970. Most of these were priests, but there were also lay people, men and women.     Besides those officially recognised as martyrs and the forty three "deferred" cases, there were many others, of whom a great number died in prison.     Among these hundreds and hundreds of prisoners must be numbered most of the Catholic bishops who were in office when Elizabeth I ascended the throne; these remained in prisons of various kinds, in conditions more or less severe, until their deaths. The last of these bishops died in 1584, after twenty five years of detention. It was only under Henry VIII that the bishops - with the exception of Saint John Fisher - were cowardly; under Elizabeth I, they were courageous, and only one of them apostatized. During the reign of Elizabeth I the prisons were always full, and many new ones were built to receive those who rejected the Reformation. English Catholics have something to be proud of in the resistance of their ancestors to the Reformation, and in their courage in defending the Faith!	43.  The reform of Paul VI has produced a result differing from that of 16th century England: there are only a very few prelates who maintain their attachment to the traditional Holy Mass, and how many are there among these who have the courage openly and publicly to confess that attachment? We know of only two: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, titular Archbishop of Synnada in Phrygia, and founder of the Society of St. Pius X (at Ecône in Switzerland), and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop of Campos in Brazil. May God bless and sustain them! On the other hand, there are many priests who reject the new Mass and retain the traditional one, and some of them - they are to be found in all countries - fight against the new rite and denounce the heretical malice of the false reformers.     For the most part we must note that Catholics have adopted an attitude of resignation with regard to the whole reform undertaken by Paul VI.     At heart, many people greatly miss the age-old liturgy, which has come down to us from the Apostles, but the great majority, for a multitude of reasons - culpable ignorance, misplaced obedience, inertia, lukewarmness, love of a "quiet life" - have not the courage to resist the ruin of Catholicism, which is taking place before their very eyes.
44.   Queen Elizabeth I, in definitively establishing the Anglican religion, proceeded by stages with consummate skill.     On acceding to the crown, on the pretext of considering all shades of opinion, she introduced into her Council men already won over to the new ideas, while at the same time retaining certain Catholic members from the time of Mary Tudor.	44.   Paul VI must have studied Queen Elizabeth's strategy and drawn inspiration from it for his reform, for we find again the same consummate skill, the proceeding by stages, and the admixture, in his innumerable committees, commissions, conferences, secretariats, etc., set up all over the world (like a spider spinning its web), of persons who pass for conservatives, with others whose mission it is to propagate the reform.
45.  On the other hand, she caused to disappear from the Catholic Mass certain rites which displeased the reformers; this was the first stage.	45.  The new reform of the Mass began by the suppression of the prayers at the foot of the altar, and of the last Gospel. Then we saw, successively, the altars turned round or replaced by "tables", the Mass said in a loud voice, also the Canon aloud.     Latin was made to disappear at the same time that the new "translations" of the prayers of the Mass (new - that is to say, falsified) appeared.     The faithful, already much displeased by this massacre of their Mass, were much more so when a further innovation appeared and spread widely: Holy Communion standing. This manner of receiving Holy Communion, so contrary to the Catholic spirit, met with resistance from many of the faithful whose convictions were outraged. To succeed in doing away with this homage given to the Real, substantial Presence of Our Lord, certain brain-washed clergy were not afraid to exalt the virtues of obedience and sacrifice, in this way cunningly causing those who persisted in the act of adoration due to God to have a bad conscience about it. The ignorant, bewildered flock ended by yielding to the voices of such priests. A very small number would have none of it: public ridicule awaited them.     As the months passed, even from one week to the next, the "novelties" multiplied: one priest did away with the prayers at the foot of the altar, another suppressed the signs of the Cross in the Canon, another ceased to adore the Host after the words of Consecration, etc., etc. People were shocked and, in conversation cried shame on all these "disobedient" priests, whereas, in fact, these were obeying secret orders, designed to accustom the faithful to changes yet to come: namely, to the "New Mass", in which there appeared, as a whole and in detail, all the "disobediences" of the priests who were in the know. The deception had been complete!
46.   Then, in 1559, Elizabeth I, absolute mistress of religion in England, suppressed the laws against heretics; this could be taken as a measure of tolerance. She re-introduced the "Prayer Book" of 1552, which was clearly Protestant, and in 1563 she gave force of law to the Ordinal of 1550 - although it had been in use from the beginning of her reign.	46.   Since Vatican II free rein has been given to all heretics; everything is permitted, except to believe and practise in the age-old manner of Holy Church. Like Elizabeth I of England, Paul VI has seen to it that heretics are not condemned, by abolishing the Holy Office, which used to have the special duty of preventing them from doing damage. And he has himself been insistent that there would be no more penalties: "We are going to have a period of greater liberty in the life of the Church, and hence for each of her sons ... Formal discipline will be reduced, all arbitrary judgment will be abolished, as well as all intolerance and absolutism." (9 July 1969)
47.   Finally, in 1563, when she judged that the people had been sufficiently separated from their ancient usages, she achieved the final stage by obtaining a vote on a confession of faith.	47.   Today's innovators busy themselves in the same way to divorce Catholics from what they have always practised and believed for almost two thousand years. It certainly seems that the great Apostasy, foretold by Saint Paul (2 Thess. II, 3-13; I Tim. IV, 1-2) is being accomplished at this moment.
48.   Moreover, the religion established by the Queen comprised a queer mixture of three religions, Catholic, Lutheran and Calvinist: thus it came about that, whilst favouring the new liturgy, she kept certain Catholic usages, such as the use of the cope in great churches, and in others, the surplice, candles on the altar, etc., and she retained the hierarchical constitution.     In the mind of Elizabeth I, the Anglican religion, thus established upon a compromise, ought to have been readily accepted by all her subjects. She was mistaken. Anglicanism was far from pleasing everybody: it satisfied neither the Catholics, who retained their attachment to the teaching of Holy Church, nor the radical Calvinists, who found the reforms adopted to be insufficient.	48.  It is the dream of Paul VI to unite all men in a sort of humanitarian religion, in which there will be neither Catholics, nor Protestants, nor Muslims, etc.     In the first stage, making false use of the prayer of Our Lord "that they may be one", Catholics and Protestants were urged, in the name of a false unity, to merge. With this end in view Catholics were no longer spoken of, but only "Christians".     In the second stage the union of "Christians" with Jews, Muslims, etc., is extolled.     From this time, let us note, the use of the word "believers" has been preferred; this makes it possible to include all religions under this name, no matter whether they profess belief in Jesus Christ, Mahomet or Buddha: this is the famous unity decreed by Paul VI and his Second Vatican Council - alas, at the cost of the Truth.

     Our conclusion from this manifest similarity between the 1549 Protestant reform in England, and the present reform of Paul VI, is that whoever wishes to preserve his faith must reject the innovations.
     This duty affects all Catholics, for all will be accountable to God for what they have done to defend their Faith.
     This duty, a grave one for every Catholic,is much more so for those whom God has elected, whom He has chosen, whome He has called, whom He has made His priests.  Let them remember their priestly ordination and beware of forgetting their two-fold oath, taken with their hand upon the Holy Gospels: the anti- modernist oath and the sacerdotal oath (of the Council of Trent).
     Acceptance of the Novus Ordo Missæ, with its concealed heresy, causes them to be perjurers of this two-fold oath.
     The duty of defending the Mass is an honour, and a Grace.  Take courage!  Adjutorium nostrum in Nomine Domini!

The Feast of the Immaculate Conception, of her who will crush neo-modernism. NÖEL BARBARA, priest.

HOLY MASS and the Novus Ordo Missæ is it valid?

ORIGIN OF THIS STUDY

     The publication of the leaflet "THE NEW MASS IS AMBIGUOUS" was the occasion of an important observation made to me by certain English and North American friends.  In their view, this leaflet was good but timid, because in it I did not dare to proceed to the conclusion of the reasoning I had begun.  For these friends, a Mass celebrated in the new rite in English is not only ambiguous, it is invalid because of the change made in the form of the consecration of the wine: "This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.  It will be shed for you and FOR ALL MEN so that sins may be forgiven."
     Their arguments did not convince me at all for, as I then understood the matter, this particular change cannot invalidate the consecration of the chalice, because of the double effect of this consecration, namely THE EFFECT OF PRESENCE, "this is the cup of My blood, etc." and THE EFFECT OF APPLICATION, "it will be shed, etc."  At that time my reasoning was as follows: since the form has not been modified in its first part, the effect of Presence is realized, as the words "mysterium fidei" in the traditional form indicate, which are said before the second part of the form is even pronounced.
     At first sight and before any real study, it seemed to me that there could be no problem there.  No doubt, to have modified the finality of application constituted an important change, making it a matter of sacrilege, but it did not invalidate the consecration of the chalice.  Therefore, in a letter dated 10 April 1974, I wrote to my correspondents: "... if, in attacking the Novus Ordo, I have confined myself to its ambiguity, it is because on this point no one can make any objection.  Now, since this point alone justifies the rejection of the new rite, what is the good of embarking on a discussion which will not win the agreement of all?  You know the proverb: "HE WHO PROVES TOO MUCH PROVES NOTHING."  What is more, I do not believe, as you maintain, that one can establish the invalidity of this rite of Mass by examining it in light of "APOSTOLICÆ CURÆ."  As soon as I can find the time, I will look again at Leo XIII's letter and I will demonstrate to you that, in spite of the change which you have pointed out to me, a Mass celebrated in the new rite is valid, that is, of course, if the other conditions are fulfilled..."
     It pleased the Lord that I should find the necessary time to make this study during the nights between the Wednesday of Holy Week and Maundy Thursday and between the Thursday and Good Friday, the days, that is, of the Holy Eucharist and of the Holy Sacrifice.  And here, I must emphasize that I undertook to make this study in the light of Pope Leo XIII's letter Apostolicæ Curæ, in order to demonstrate to my correspondents that, in spite of the change introduced into the form, a Mass so celebrated (other things being equal), was valid.
     Now, after studying the question, I came to a conclusion quite opposed to the idea which I had conceived of the new rite before this study.  Our English and North American friends' views were sound: a Mass celebrated in the new rite was not ambiguous, but invalid.  Taught by the heretical form of Cranmer, which their ancestors had suffered, they felt from the time of the first reforms of Paul VI, that the new rite was leading toward Protestantism, that is, to the destruction of the Mass.  As the Very Reverend Father Guerard des Lauriers has declared: "In this matter, English Catholics have played the true role of the watch-dogs of Christianity."  They "barked" the first against the so-called "New Mass", which in point of fact destroys the Mass.  We will explain how.

*     *     *

THE APOSTOLIC LETTER ON ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS: DOCTRINAL VALUE OF THIS DOCUMENT

     Very sensitive about the new reform, which reminded them so much of what their forefathers had experienced (Cranmer's reform), my English and North American correspondents took their stand on the change made in the form for the consecration of the chalice.  Viewed in the light of Apostolicæ Curæ this change appeared to them to be a substantial one in the essential part of the Mass.  If they are right, I told myself, Masses celebrated in the new rite are invalid, but if I can prove the contrary, that will show that these Masses, although sacrilegious, are nevertheless valid.  I thus began my work by studying the pontifical document.

     The Letter Apostolicæ Curæ of Pope Leo XIII, dated 13 September 1896, passes a definitive judgement on Anglican orders.  The Pope wrote to this effect to the Cardinal Archbishop of Paris in November 1896: "It was Our intention TO DELIVER A FINAL JUDGEMENT, AND TO SETTLE ABSOLUTELY that most grave question of Anglican ordinations ...  We resolved the matter with arguments of such weight, and with words of such clarity that NO PRUDENT AND WELL-DISPOSED PERSON COULD POSSIBLY RAISE THE LEAST DOUBT ABOUT OUR JUDGEMENT; all Catholics are BOUND TO RECEIVE OUR DECISION WITH THE UTMOST RESPECT, as being FOREVER VALID, FIRM AND IRREVOCABLE (perpetuo firmam, ratam, irrevocabilem)". (A.S.S., Vol. 29, p. 664)⁽¹⁾

     From this Papal document it stands out very clearly that the cause of the invalidity of the ordinations was twofold: defect of form and defect of intention, but that either of these defects was sufficient to render them invalid.  Let is look at the text.

Defect of form, that is, defect of sacramental signification.

     "In the rite for the performance and administration of any sacrament a distinction is justly made between its "CEREMONIAL" and its "ESSENTIAL" part, the latter being usually called its "MATTER and FORM".  Moreover, it is well known that the sacraments of the New Law, being sensible signs which cause invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they cause and cause the grace which they signify.  Now this signification, though it must be found IN THE ESSENTIAL RITE AS A WHOLE, that is, in both matter and form together, belongs chiefly to the form; for the matter is by itself the indeterminate part, which becomes determinate through the form.  This is especially apparent in the sacrament or Order, the matter of which, so far as it needs to be considered here, is the imposition of hands.  This by itself does not signify anything definite, being used equally for the conferring of certain orders and for administering Confirmation.
     "Now the words which until recent times have been generally held by Anglicans to be the proper form of presbyterial ordination - "RECEIVE THE HOLY GHOST" - certainly do not signify definitely the order of priesthood or its grace and power, which is pre-eminently the power "to consecrate and offer the true body and blood of the Lord" (Council of Trent) in that sacrifice which is no "mere commemoration of the sacrifice performed on the Cross". (Ibid.)"

     (...)

     "These prayers have been deliberately stripped of everything which in the Catholic rite clearly sets forth the dignity and functions of the priesthood.  It is impossible, therefore, for a form to be suitable or sufficient for a sacrament if it suppresses that which it ought distinctively to signify."

     (...)

     "But for just and adequate appraisal of the Anglican Ordinal it is above all important, besides considering what has been said about some of its parts, rightly to appreciate the circumstances in which it originated and was publicly instituted.  It would take too long to set out a detailed account, nor is it necessary; the history of the period tells us clearly enough what were the sentiments of the authors of the Ordinal towards the Catholic Church, who were the heterodox associates whose help they invoked, to what end they directed their designs.  They knew only too well THE INTIMATE BOND WHICH UNITES FAITH AND WORSHIP, LEX CREDENDI AND LEX SUPPLICANDI; AND SO, UNDER THE PRETEXT OF THE RESTORING THE ORDER OF THE LITURGY TO ITS PRIMITIVE FORM, THEY CORRUPTED IT IN MANY RESPECTS TO BRING IT INTO ACCORD WITH THE ERRORS OF THE INNOVATORS.  As a result, not only is there in the whole Ordinal NO CLEAR MENTION of sacrifice, of consecration, of priesthood, of the power to consecrate and offer sacrifice, but, as We have already indicated, EVERY TRACE OF THESE AND SIMILAR THINGS REMAINING IN SUCH PRAYERS OF THE CATHOLIC RITE AS WERE NOT COMPLETELY REJECTED, WAS PURPOSELY REMOVED AND OBLITERATED.

     (...)

     "Even though some words in the Anglican Ordinal as it now stands may present the possibility of ambiguity, they cannot bear the same sense as they have in a Catholic rite.  For, as we have seen, WHEN ONCE A NEW RITE HAS BEEN INTRODUCED DENYING OR CORRUPTING THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER AND REPUDIATING ANY NOTION WHATSOEVER OF CONSECRATION AND SACRIFICE, THEN THE FORMULA, "Receive the Holy Ghost" (that is, the Spirit Who is infused into the soul with the grace of the sacrament), IS DEPRIVED OF ITS FORCE; nor have the words, "for the office and work of a priest" or "bishop", etc., any longer their validity, being now mere names voided of the reality which Christ instituted."

*     *     *

Defect of intention.

     "With this intrinsic DEFECT OF FORM, then, there was joined a DEFECT OF INTENTION - of that intention which is likewise necessary for the existence of a sacrament.
     Concerning the mind or intention, inasmuch as it is in itself something interior, the Church does not pass judgement: but in so far as it IS EXTERNALLY MANIFESTED, SHE IS BOUND TO JUDGE OF IT.
     Now if, in order to effect and confer a sacrament, a person has seriously and correctly used the due matter and form, he is for that very reason presumed to have intended to do what the Church does.  This principle is the basis of the doctrine that a sacrament is truly a sacrament even if it is conferred through the ministry of a heretic, or if one who is not himself baptized, provided the Catholic rite is used.
     But if, on the contrary, the rite is changed with the manifest purpose of introducing another rite which is not accepted by the Church, and of repudiating that which the Church does and which is something that by Christ's institution belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is evident, not merely that the intention necessary for a sacrament is lacking, but rather that AN INTENTION IS PRESENT WHICH IS ADVERSE TO AND INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SACRAMENT. (Leo XIII, op. cit.)

*     *     *

     Having thus recalled the doctrine set out in Apostolicæ Curæ, it is not superfluous, in order to better appreciate its importance, to see what the great theologian Franzelin wrote in 1875, when he was consultor of the Holy Office at the time of an earlier inquiry into the same subject:
     "The Catholic rite was repudiated (i.e., under Edward VI and Elizabeth) and a new one adopted in accordance with a publicly professed heresy, with the aim of deleting from the rite all that signified the priestly power, which is the power of consecrating and offering the sacrifice of the New Testament...  Since the sacraments of the New Law are visible efficacious signs, they effect what they signify; and so it is absurd to say that a visible rite in which is excluded the signification of the priestly power which ought to be conferred, can be a sacrament for the conferring of that power."⁽²⁾

*     *     *

     In light of these principles, let us now study the Novus Ordo Missæ, or the New Order of Mass, promulgated by Paul VI.  To allow readers to follow this study, however, it is indispensable to call to mind certain truths.

*     *     *

REMINDER OF CERTAIN TRUTHS.
     First truth. - We are right in the middle of a neo-modernist crisis.  By this I mean that we are living in an age when to quote the words of St. Pius X, the number of those "men speaking perverse things" (Acts XX, 30), "vain talkers and seducers" (Tit. I, 10) "erring and driving into error" (2 Tim. III, 13)⁽³⁾, has notably increased.  "By arts entirely new and full of deceit, (they) are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church and as far as in them lies the possibility utterly to subvert the Kingdom of Christ."⁽⁴⁾
     And these "partisans of error are ... lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, ... are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; but ... in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open."⁽⁵⁾
     Even at the time when St. Pius X undertook the task of denouncing these men, the danger was not only exterior but "in the very veins and heart of the Church."⁽⁶⁾
       Since that time, not only have these enemies of the faith proliferated, but they have, also, secured for themselves most of the key posts, in bishoprics, secretariats, commissions, universities and even in Roman Congregations.  A rumor has been circulating in Rome, which has not been denied, to the effect that the dismissal of Bugnini, and his sudden departure for the Middle East, was caused by the discovery that he belonged to the Freemasons, Bugnini, the principal deviser of the new liturgy.  Then, an issue of the Italian review "Chiesa Viva" carries, on the fourth side of its cover, the Masonic "pedigree" of Cardinal Lienart who, together with Cardinals Frings, Alfrink, Döpfner and Suenens, were the principal movers in the subversion of the Second Vatican Council.
     Yes, let us be quite sure about it, the enemies of the faith are everywhere, and everywhere under cover.
     Since the publication of the present study in French, now more than two years ago, I have become quite certain that most, if not all of those who do not admit my thesis, reject it because, in practice, they do not admit this basic fact about the whole problem.  For them the new liturgy is not the work of the subversion introduced into and now installed in the Church, but as rather the work of the Church itself.  So, we state plainly, that he who does not admit that "adversaries of the Catholic Faith", as St. Pius X called them, or the "wolves in sheep's clothing",⁽⁷⁾ as Our Saviour designated them, are concealed "in the very bosom and heart of the Church" is not able to understand anything about the crisis through which we are living.  It is even useless for him to read the study which we present in this number of Fortes in Fide.  But he should realize, if he is engaged in the defense of the faith, that he is like that Don Quixote of whom the Apostle spoke, who fights but "as one beating the air".⁽⁸⁾
     For myself, I am fully convinced of this truth.  The enemies of Christ are indeed inside the Church; we are betrayed by many of our religious leaders and superiors.
       Second truth - there are two characteristics peculiar to modernism:
     a)  Modernists do not assail particular doctrines, as did the enemies of the past, but direct their attacks "to the very root (of doctrine), that is, to the faith and its deepest fibres".⁽⁹⁾ A modernist cannot possess faith, for he inevitably rejects everything supernatural.
     b)  Modernists are heretics, but they are also traitors: more hypocritical than Machiavelli, they possess the cunning of the infernal serpent under an appearance of being good apostles.⁽¹⁰⁾
     Third truth. - confronted with such redoubtable enemies, we must take up again the encyclical "Pascendi" of Pope St. Pius X, study it, and make it our manual in the fight for the faith.⁽¹¹⁾ Amongst other things, we will learn from it to beware of modernists' declarations, even those which sound most orthodox.  As masters of ambiguity, they are capable of utilizing Catholic formulas, whilst giving them a sense which is not Catholic.  What is more, in spite of the ambiguous character of certain expressions used, their reformed rites, taken as a whole, are not ambiguous, but heretical.  Their works should, thus, not be judged according to their declarations, but in the light of their practical conduct.  For, like marxism, with which it has great affinities, modernism is also a "praxis", an action, a subversive manoeuvre.
     Fourth truth. - These heretics, or rather, as St. Pius X calls them, these "enemies of the faith" are benefitting, in practice, from the protection of Authority, whilst the defenders of the traditional faith are the object of all kinds of petty persecution.  Think, for example, of the difference in the treatment of Hans Kung, Schillebeckx, Koenig, Suenens, on the one hand, and that meted out to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on the other.⁽¹²⁾
     Betraying one of their most imperative duties, those in authority in the Church now no longer issue condemnations, and the wolves which have entered the sheepfold are able, at their leisure, "to kill and destroy" the flock.⁽¹³⁾

*     *     *

Reform of the Ordo Missæ: extent and depth of the Subversion; the aim of the Reformers

     God, Who directs the whole course of events, permitted the secret papers of the Alta Vendita (the highest lodge of the Italian Carbonari, a revolutionary Masonic Secret Society), to fall into the hands of Pope Leo XII (1823-1829).  At the behest, first of Gregory XVI (1831-1846), and later of Pius IX (1846-1878), a French writer, J. Cretineau-Joly, published these secret documents in his work, "L'Eglise Romaine et La Révolution".  Since that publication no doubt has been possible concerning the existence of the plot of the Secret Societies against the Roman Church.  To obtain an idea of the extent of this plot we recommend, in particular, a study of the encyclicals "Humanum Genus" of Leo XIII, and "Pascendi", of St. Pius X.
     In order to destroy the Roman Church, for nothing less than the destruction of the Holy Church of Christ is aimed at, we know from their secret documents, referred to above, that the conspirators decided:
     - as a first stage, to create a world-wide liberal climate of opinion, which would dispose men to desire the union of all in one great universal church;
     - then to cause these same ideas to penetrate Catholic lay and ecclesiastical circles, so as to raise a generation of "liberal Catholics";
     - finally, to achieve the election of a Pope, not a man of scandalous life, but a Pope accessible to outside influences, to the end that the transformation of the Catholic Church, in accordance with their own ideas, should be brought about by the hierarchy itself.  This is what the secret instructions called, "a revolution in cope and mitre".
     We cite below two quotations which confirm what we have said:
     "We desire a reform of the Church, but we wish it to be done without rebellion, brought about by lawful authority.  We desire reforms in religious instruction, reforms in worship, and reforms in clerical discipline, reforms also in the supreme government of the Church.  To do this we must create a climate of opinion which will lead the lawful authorities to act in accordance with our views, even if this should take twenty years, or thirty, or fifty."
     This declaration was made by FOGAZZARO, in his book "Il Santo", published in 1905.
     Here is the second declaration, made by an apostate priest, the ex-Canon ROCCA, who died in 1893: "I believe that divine worship, as it is regulated by the liturgy, the ceremonial, the ritual and the precepts of the Roman Church, will soon undergo a transformation in an ecumenical Council which, while restoring worship to the venerable simplicity of the golden apostolic age, will bring it into harmony with the new state of the modern conscience and civilisation."
     We intend to show that this "transformation" in "divine worship as it is regulated by the liturgy, the ceremonial, the ritual and the precepts of the Roman Church", desired to be done "without rebellion", and "brought about by lawful authority", "in an ecumenical Council", is what we are at present undergoing.  Divine worship has been transformed, by lawful authority, on the occasion of the Second Vatican Council.  As the apostate Rocca foresaw, the post-Vatican II reforms have brought Catholic worship "into harmony with the new state of the modern conscience and civilisation", under the pretext of "restoring it to the venerable simplicity of the golden apostolic age".  To this end, the new reformers have attempted to reformulate doctrine and to overthrow the liturgy.  In the present study I have only examined their work with regard to the Mass, and here I have discovered that the undermining of the rite involves a substantial modification, which tends to destroy the Mass.
     There is a certain difficulty in establishing proof of what I have to say, which arises from a peculiarity in those who have wrought this change, namely hypocrisy.
     Because of its aura of ambiguity, however, the substantial modification effected in the Mass does reveal the effects of the hypocrisy of those who brought it about; so, though it is difficult to establish proof, it is not impossible, and I enter upon the task taking as my guide the Apostolic Letter of Leo XIII.
     This great Pope tells us: "For a just and adequate appraisal of the Anglican Ordinal (substitute here, the Novus Ordo Missæ), it is above all important, besides considering what has been said about some of its parts, rightly to appreciate the circumstances in which it originated and was publicly instituted."
     In what circumstances was the Novus Ordo Missæ composed and publicly instituted?  In the climate of false ecumenism which issued from Vatican II.
     Moreover, let us observe right away, the inventors and protagonists of the Novus Ordo Missæ were notable, on the one hand, for a love of innovations and changes, and on the other, for their proclaimed contempt for ecclesiastical traditions.  It seems to us that no responsible person can contest this.  But, are not such characteristics those of the modernists?  Let us listen to St. Pius X: "Certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method."
     "They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority.  But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicaea, where it condemns those who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind ... or endeavour by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church."⁽¹⁴⁾
     This is what reveals the identity of the authors of the new rite, for without doubt they are deeply characterised by a "passion for novelty", "hatred of scholasticism", and "contempt for ecclesiastical traditions".  These are all indications - in the words of the holy Pope, Pius X, there is "no surer sign" - that the authors of this reform are, at the very least, suspect of heresy.
     Let us not forget, either, what has been made public since the appearance of the new rite, which further reveals to us the spirit which animated its authors with regard to the Catholic Church, more especially with regard to Holy Mass, namely "who were the heterodox associates whose help they invoked, (and) to what end they directed their designs".  We will thus see clearly that these reformers, like those of whom Leo XIII spoke, "knew only too well the intimate bond which unites faith and worship, LEX CREDENDI and LEX ORANDI; and so, under the pretext of restoring the order of the liturgy to its primitive form, they corrupted it in many respects to bring it into accord with the errors of the Innovators."⁽¹⁵⁾
     Is not the principal author of the whole liturgical reform Annibal BUGNINI?
     This is so; the same man that Pope John XXIII dismissed from the Pontifical Lateran University and from other colleges where he taught liturgy, because his ideas on this subject, and on many others, were scarcely Catholic.
     The heterodox sects whose assistance was invited in the fashioning of the new liturgy were all, fundamentally, enemies of Holy Mass.
     As for the end pursued by the reformers, this is obvious: to replace the traditional Catholic rite, "so pure from every error, that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savour of a certain holiness and piety" (Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, Cap. 4), with a rite in "harmony with the new state of the modern conscience and civilisation".  We must be clear, however, that by "modern conscience and civilisation", what is meant is that mentality which resulted, first from the Protestant reformation, and then from the French Revolution: a mentality which will accept no truth imposed from outside, which will only submit to "immanent" truths, resulting from the "free thought" of each individual.
     It is because of this that the ancient, traditional, unambiguously Catholic rite has been rejected, and is replaced by a vague rite, heretical by carefully calculated dissimulation, which can be used by all the Christian bodies which do not accept Catholic eucharistic doctrines.
     To achieve their end the innovators have destroyed the "insurmountable barrier" which the Fathers of the Council of Trent, in establishing definitively the Canon, had raised "against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery";⁽¹⁶⁾ the liturgy was to be delivered up to the "creative will" of each celebrant, and a while series of "canons" was to be put at their disposition, from which would be absolutely excluded the explicit affirmation of those Catholic dogmas which were rejected by the Protestant reformers: the Real corporal Presence of Christ, the propitiatory character of the Mass, the ministerial priesthood of the celebrant, the efficacy of the consecration pronounced by the priest celebrant.

Corruption of the Mass to bring it into line with the Protestant Supper

A. - Defect of Intention

     The modification of the Mass pursued by the new reformers, this "intention, adverse to and incompatible with the sacrament" of which Leo XIII spoke, we find from the beginning, in the very idea of the Mass which they proposed, an idea embodied in Article 7 of Chapter II, "The structure, component elements and part of the Mass", of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (or General Instruction of the Roman Missal), as follows: CENA DOMINICA SIVE MISSA EST SACRA SYNAXIS SEU CONGREGATIO POPULI DEI IN UNUM CONVENIENTIS, SACERDOTE PRAESIDE, AD MEMORIALE DOMINI CELEBRANDUM.  QUARE DE SANCTÆ ECCLESIÆ LOCALI CONGREGATIONE EMINENTER VALET PROMISSIO CHRISTI: "UBI SUNT DUO VEL TRES CONGREGATI IN NOMINE MEO, IBI SUM IN MEDIO EORUM".⁽¹⁷⁾
     "The Lord's Supper (or Mass)⁽¹⁸⁾, 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 together in My name, there am I in their midst."
     And here, let us not be side-tracked by the attempts at explanation furnished by the friends of the reformers, who tell us that "they did not wish to give a definition of the Mass"; or again, that "the pastoral concern of the authors of the Institutio made them leave aside doctrinal precisions in their instruction, but for all that they have not abandoned doctrine."  Let us rather recall the statement of St. Pius X, who knew their like only too well: "It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists... to present their doctrines without order or systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are quite fixed and steadfast."  Let us also again recall that other declaration of the same holy Pontiff: "There is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method."⁽¹⁹⁾

*     *     *

     As all those who have criticized Article 7 of the Institutio Generalis have made clear, the definition of the Mass there given is not in accordance with Catholic doctrine as established forever by the Holy Council of Trent, but is rather in accordance with what has prevailed in the various Protestant churches:
     - For the authors of the Novus Ordo Missæ, as is apparent from this definition, the Mass is simply reduced to the "Lord's Supper."
     - The expression, the "Lord's Supper", as adopted by the Protestants, is preferred by the new reformers to Catholic expressions, such as: "Mass", "Holy Mass", or "Holy Sacrifice of the Mass", all of which expressions Luther ended by eliminating.
     - This Supper, this meal, is characterized as being that of "the assembly ... with a priest presiding", gathered together "to celebrate the memorial of the Lord".  As Rincelet wrote, "nothing in the formula suggests a sacrificial action, nor a ministerial action reserved exclusively to the priest.  Luther would have endorsed all of this".⁽²⁰⁾
     But, the defenders of the new rite will object, you are basing your argument on the first version of Article 7, when this version has been fully rectified in "all the points to which criticism has latterly drawn attention".  (Annibale Bugnini)
     And, in fact, there was a new version of Article 7 which most defenders of the Mass have accepted as orthodox, though in reality it is no more Catholic than the first one.
     Do these defenders of the Mass, who have been so easily satisfied, not know of the declaration made by Bugnini on the subject of the new version?  They certainly take no notice of it. And yet, in the May 1970 issue of Notitiæ, the organ of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, Bugnini, the secretary of this congregation declared that after an examination of the "introduction" of the new rite, made in 1969, "the fathers and experts of the CONCILIUM found in it no doctrinal error, and no reason to make any changes," and thus without adding "anything new" all that happened was that "a new version was made in order to make clearer certain expressions".⁽²¹⁾
     This declaration is of the greatest importance.  As Rincelet very judiciously points out⁽²²⁾, it shows most particularly:
     - That the Concilium has the full approbation of Authority since, though suspect as to its orthodoxy, it did not refer its decisions to the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a body instituted for just such cases, but constituted itself judge in its own cause.
     - That if "the members of the Concilium found no doctrinal error (in Article 7)⁽²³⁾, and no reason to make any changes", this obliges us to recognize that "it is the orthodoxy of the Concilium that poses a problem, but this was already notably so, because of the scandalous presence in it of the six Protestant members".
     - That, from the moment that the "new version" was made, neither to correct "any possible doctrinal error" of the first version, nor to "make any changes in it", we must understand the new version of Article 7 in accordance with the previous text".
     Let us, therefore, read the new version and understand it in the light of the first since, we repeat, on the word of its author, the second version brings no change of a doctrinal nature to the first.
     Here is the new text:
     "IN MISSA SEU CENA DOMINICA POPULUS DEI IN UNUM CONVOCATUR, SACERDOTE PRÆSIDENTE PERSONAMQUE CHRISTI GERENTE, AD MEMORIALE DOMINI SEU SACRIFICIUM EUCHARISTICUM CELEBRANDUM.  QUARE DE HUIUS MODI SANCTÆ ECCLESIÆ COADUNATIONE LOCATI EMINENTER VALET PROMISSIO CHRISTI: "UBI SUNT DUO VEL TRES CONGREGATI IN NOMINE MEO IBI SUM IN MEDIO EORUM" (Matt. XVIII, 20).  IN MISSÆ ENIM CELEBRATIONE, IN QUA SACRIFICIUM CRUCIS PERPETUATUR, CHRISTUS REALITER PRÆSENS ADEST IN IPSO COETU, IN SUO NOMINE CONGREGATO, IN PERSONA MINISTRI, IN VERBO SUO, ET QUIDEM SUBSTANTIALITER ET CONTINENTER SUB SPECIEBUS EUCHARISTICIS."
     "In the Mass or Lord's Supper the people of God are called together into one place where the priest presides over them and acts in the person of Christ.  They assemble to celebrate the memorial of the Lord, or Eucharistic sacrifice.  Therefore, the promise of Christ: "Wherever two of three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them", applies in a special way to this gathering of the local church.  For in the celebration of the Mass, in which the sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated, Christ is really present in the assembly itself which has gathered in his name, in the person of his minister, in his word, and also substantially and continuously under the eucharistic species." (C.T.S. translation, with some amendments.)
     This second version, revised and augmented but not corrected, is no more orthodox then the first.  As Rincelet shows (Op. cit. p. 16), several ambiguities have been substantially maintained:
     1°  The two suspect ambiguities between, on the one hand, "Mass" and "Lord's Supper", and on the other hand, "Memorial of the Lord" and "Eucharistic sacrifice."
     Since the Latin conjunction "seu" denotes the choice between two equivalent things, the new wording thus re-enforces the error insinuated in the first version, by identifying the "Mass" with the "Lord's Supper", and the "Eucharistic sacrifice" with the "Memorial of the Lord": "In Missa SEU Cena Dominica" = In the Mass, OR WHAT AMOUNTS TO THE SAME THING, in the Lord's Supper; and "Ad memoriale Domini SEU sacrificium eucharisticum celebrandum" = To celebrate the Lord, OR WHAT AMOUNTS TO THE SAME THING, the Eucharistic sacrifice."
     The new version thus OBSTINATELY PERSISTS in seeing in the Mass only the Lord's meal, and in only speaking of sacrifice in the sense of a memorial.
     2°  An ambiguity on the subject of the real Presence of Christ: What real presence is in question?  Real "physical" Presence, or real "spiritual" presence?  Luther also claimed to believe in the "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist; but as he understood it, this real presence was wholly a spiritual one.  For him the bread remained bread, and the wine remained wine, to which he added a spiritual presence of Christ, "who being really present everywhere", he said, "can also be present in the Eucharist".
     Now, mark well, in the version of Article 7 done, it was said, "to make clearer certain expressions", the clarification has not been in a Catholic sense, but in a Protestant sense.  In effect, as in the first version, after applying "to the Mass or Lord's Supper", the text of Our Lord in St. Matthew XVIII, 20, which signifies only a real spiritual presence, the new version makes the confusion worse by assimilating the "real presence under the eucharistic species" to the "real presence" "in the assembly itself ... in the person of his minister", and "in his word".  How, without further explanation, would the presence "substantially and continuously under the eucharistic species" be taken to denote the Catholic doctrine since, on the one hand, the expression used is not explicitly Catholic, and on the other, there is a manifest refusal to make use of the expressions consecrated by the Church; and lastly, because of the declaration by the author himself that the new version brings nothing new to the first version?  It is, thus, in the sense of the first version that this particular expression must be understood.
     3°  An ambiguity on the subject of the sacrificial character of the Mass: "The celebration of the Mass whereby the sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated."  What perpetuation is in question in this text: one by way of memorial or one by way of renewal?
     The intention of the writer of this explanation is made manifest by the sense of the phrase which gives us his thought.  Now, the sense of this phrase depends on the two preceding phrases, since these all form a unity: the second is linked to the first by "Quare = therefore", and the third to the second by "enim = for".  The sacrifice of the Cross is thus perpetuated, not by the real physical presence produced by the transubstantiation of the oblations, but is perpetuated in the celebration of the Mass such as it has been described, that is, in the meal of the assembly presided over by the priest, and called together to celebrate the memorial of the Lord, or what amounts to the same thing, the eucharistic sacrifice.
     Thus, as it is nowhere affirmed, either in the first or the second version of Article 7, that the perpetuation of the sacrifice is brought about in a sacramental manner by the consecration-transubstantiation, it is because the authors of the new rite wished to make us understand that the perpetuation comes about by way of memorial.
     4°  Ambiguity on the subject of the truly ministerial character of the priesthood of the priest.  The new version certainly contains good words about the priest who "acts in the person of Christ", but for "presiding over" the assembly.  Regarding his sacrificial action, however, during which he truly "acts in persona Christi", the new version, like the old, obstinately makes no mention, thus allowing the ambiguity to persist about this doctrine which the Protestants in the Concilium rejected.
     So, from a study of the new version of Article 7 in the light of the declaration of its principal author, it emerges clearly that the idea which the new reformers have of the Mass, and which they teach, is heretical by a carefully calculated dissimulation.
     And here, we must not forget also, that the first version of the Institutio Generalis, and in particular its Article 7, having given rise to grave doubts, criticisms were made on precise points:
     - on the propitiatory character of the sacrifice of the Mass;
     - on the real physical presence of Christ under the consecrated species;
     - on the efficacy of the consecration- transubstantiation;
     - on the ministerial action reserved exclusively to the priest.
     These criticisms were set out in the "Brief Critical Study" (see Note 16), which was presented to the Pope by two Cardinals, one of whom, Cardinal Ottaviani, was in a sense, the very soul of the one-time Holy Office.
     Lastly, let us not forget that, when consulted about the faith, on account of THEIR ambiguous text, the authors of that text had to profess clearly the Catholic faith, even had it been at the peril of their lives.  Since proper formulas, consecrated by the usage of the Church, exist and were known to them, their obstinacy in not using these to profess the faith clearly and without ambiguity, shows that they pursue a malign purpose: the corruption of the Mass, in order to bring it into accord with the Protestant doctrine of the Lord's Supper, which denies all our eucharistic dogmas.
     Their obstinacy shows also that they harbor AN INTENTION CONTRARY AND OPPOSED TO THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS such as Christ instituted it and the Church has defined it.

DECLARATIONS WHICH CONFIRM OUR OPINION

     The existence of this intention, contrary and opposed to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, is confirmed by a number of declarations made by bishops, officially Catholic, as well as by Protestants:
     - Declaration of the Archbishop of Malines, Joseph SUENENS, Primate of Beligium, Cardinal of the holy roman Church, and personal friend of Paul VI: "One could make an impressive list of the propositions, taught as alone being valid by Rome in the past, even very recently, which were eliminated by the Conciliar Fathers of Vatican II."
     - Declaration of Cardinal WILLEBRANDS, special Envoy of the Pope to the worldwide Lutheran Congress at Evian, in January 1970: "A truer appreciation of the person and the work of Luther is imperative...  Did not the Second Vatican Council itself welcome the demands which, amongst others, were made by Luther, and through which many aspects of the Christian faith are at this present time better expressed than they were formerly?  Luther, in an extraordinary manner in his time, provided the basis of theology and the Christian life".
     - Declaration of Archbishop ETCHEGARAY, President of the French Episcopal Conference, to the XVth General Assembly of French Protestants: "You can no longer claim the monopoly of Reform, if you recognize the serious efforts at biblical, doctrinal; and pastoral renewal undertaken by the Church of the Second Vatican Council."
     - Declaration of Monsieur Roger MEHL (Protestant), after examining a book of the Swedish theologian Vajta: "If account is taken of the decisive evolution of the Catholic liturgy, of the possibility of substituting for the Canon of the Mass other liturgical prayers, of the eclipse of the idea which would make of the Mass a sacrifice, of the possibility of communicating under both kinds, then there is no longer any reason for the Reformed Churches to forbid their members to take part in the Eucharist in the Roman Church."
     - Declaration which appeared in one of the great Protestant reviews, and was reported by Jean GUITTON in the French newspaper La Croix, of December 1969: "The new Catholic eucharistic prayers have dropped the false perspective of a sacrifice offered to God."
     - Official declaration of the Superior Consistory of the Church of the Augsburg Confession of Alsace and Lorraine, dated 8 December 1973: "... Given the present forms of the eucharistic celebration in the Catholic Church, and by reason of present convergences in theology, many obstacles which might have prevented a Protestant from participating in its eucharistic celebration seem to be on the way to disappearing.  It should be possible for a Protestant today, to recognize in the Catholic eucharistic celebration the supper instituted by the Lord (i.e. the Protestant communion service) ...  We attach great importance to the use of the new prayers with which we feel at home, and which have the advantage of giving a different interpretation to the sacrifice, than we were accustomed to attribute to Catholicism.  These prayers invite us to recognize an evangelical theology of sacrifice." (Emphases ours in these extracts.)
     The reader should observe that in this last declaration, the Augsburg Protestants say publicly and officially why, in order to participate "in a Catholic eucharistic celebration", they "attach great importance to the use of the new prayers", with which they "feel at home", as Protestants.  This is because these new eucharistic prayers of what we call, the New Mass, "have the advantage of giving a DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION to the theology of sacrifice" than they "were accustomed to attribute to Catholicism".  In order better to underline the fact that they have perceived the importance of the changes made in the new rite, they emphasize in separate phrases, "the present forms of the eucharistic celebration in the Catholic Church", and the "present convergences in theology".
     Now "to converge" means "to meet": theologies which converge, are theologies which meet in becoming identical.  Unfortunately, we are obliged to declare that, as protestant theology has not become Catholic, it is the theology of the new eucharistic prayers which has become Protestant.  Moreover, this protestantization of the theology of the new eucharistic prayers is also emphasized in the clear declaration of these Protestants that they "feel at home" in their use, for these prayers have given "a different interpretation to the theology of sacrifice", - or as that other Protestant declaration cited above says more brutally: these eucharistic prayers "have dropped the false perspective of a sacrifice offered to God".
     Finally, for those who might still have some doubts on this subject, we will quote what the French bishops have included in the "New Sunday Missal" (1973 edition, pp. 382-3), as a "reminder of faith": It is not a question of adding one Mass to another" exteriorly or interiorly so well celebrated that they obtain grace from God.  IT IS SIMPLY A MATTER OF COMMEMORATING THE UNIQUE SACRIFICE ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED, the perfect Sacrifice in which Christ offered himself, and of associating ourselves with it, of communicating there together, in making ours the oblation which he made to God in his own person for our salvation." (Our emphasis.)
     Let us not be surprised at this sliding of the new "Catholic" theology into the Protestant heresy.  The former Secretary of the Holy office pointed it out to the Pope at the first appearance of the Novus Ordo Missæ, of which he said that it "represents, as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass, as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent".
     If we may repeat ourselves, we have seen in the Institutio Generalis, and especially in Article 7, the "present convergences in theology" which make it "possible for a Protestant today, to recognize in the Catholic eucharistic celebration the supper instituted by the Lord", in other words the Protestant Lord's Supper.
     In conclusion, the admissions of certain supposedly Catholic bishops, as well as the declarations of authentic Protestants, confirm our discovery, namely, that THE END PURSUED and in great part already achieved, of the authors of the Novus Ordo Missæ was indeed to REPLACE THE TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC RITE, "so pure from error, that there is nothing contained therein which does not in the highest degree savor of a certain holiness and piety" (Council of Trent), BY A RITE which "represents, as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass", a rite which can be used by all the heretical Protestant sects because it has been BROUGHT INTO LINE WITH THEIR HERESIES.
     Here we must repeat yet again once more: the heretics with whom we are confronted are double traitors, for in their treachery they take good care not to deny openly the doctrines which they reject, and so, are not to be judged by their declarations, but by their deeds, their "praxis".  To them, more than to any other heretics, the criterion of Our Lord applies, that by their works we shall know them.  Now, the works which we have discovered are:
     - the new definition, heretical by carefully calculated dissimulation, given to the Mass in Article 7 of the Institutio Generalis of the Novus Ordo Missæ;
     - the admissions of the "new theologians" and the "new style" Catholic bishops, which we have set out;
     - the declarations of genuine Protestants;
     - the elimination of the ancient traditional Ordo Missæ, which has been condemned, and which is hated and persecuted in practice, because it is in absolute opposition to the new eucharist.
     It is in accordance with this combination of "works", that we judge the new liturgy.  And because the whole shows clearly the object aimed at by the new rite, and that this new mass was conceived, worked out and produced according to the new idea which the innovators had elaborated of the Mass, and in accordance with the ends which they pursued, this new liturgy contains within itself and propagates, by the fact alone of its utilization, "an intention contrary and opposed to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, such as Christ instituted it and the Church has defined it".

B - DEFECT OF FORM

     We must now demonstrate how "the present forms of the eucharistic celebration in the Catholic Church", that is to say, "the new eucharistic prayers", or new canons, have been brought into line with the Protestant Supper by a whole collection of innovations which involve a substantial change.

*     *     *

     FIRST INNOVATION.  The new rite imposes new consecration formulae: for, in spite of appearances, there is a real question of new formulae for the consecration being imposed by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (of 3 April 1969). Certainly, the Pope does not say that he is changing the double Eucharistic form, which goes back to the origin of this Sacrament, but, in fact, he changes it in practice.  Let us read his text.
     "ATTAMEN SIVE UT PASTORALIBUS, QUAS NOMINANT, RATIONIBUS CONSULERETUR, SIVE UT CONCELEBRATIO EXPEDITIUS PROCEDERET, JUSSIMUS VERBA DOMINICA IN QUALIBET CANONIS FORMULA UNA EADEMQUE ESSE.  ITAQUE IN QUAVIS PRECATIONE EUCHARISTICA ILLA SIC PROFERRI VOLUMUS; SUPRA PANEM; ACCIPITE IT MANDUCATE EX HOC OMNES; HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, QUOD PRO VOBIS TRADETUR; ET SUPRA CALICEM; ACCIPITE ET BIBITE EX EO OMNES; HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI NOVI ET ÆTERNI TESTAMENTI, QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.  HOC FACITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIONEM."
     "For pastoral reasons, however, and to facilitate concelebration, we have directed that the words of the Lord be identical in each eucharistic prayer, we wish that the words be as follows; over the bread: ACCIPITE IT MANDUCATE, etc.; over the chalice: ACCIPITE ET BIBITE, etc. (ICEL Translation).
     Several discoveries can be made from the contents of this ordinance.
     First discovery. - Let us not forget that the Apostles celebrated the Holy Sacrifice from the beginning, before writing their epistles, or the Gospels.  Now, from the very first days, in consecrating the Eucharist a "pre- Scriptural" formula has always been used, which the Apostles received from Christ, and which they transmitted to their successors.  "CREDIMUS IGITUR, QUOD FORMAM VERBORUM, SICUT IN CANONE REPERITUR ET A CHRISTO APOSTOLI, ET AB IPSIS EORUM ACCEPERINT SUCCESSORES.  We believe, therefore, that the Apostles received from Christ and transmitted to their successors the formula of words, as it is found in the Canon."⁽²⁴⁾ Breaking with this tradition, the Constitution "Missale Romanum" substitutes a new formula, scriptural, no doubt, but which has the peculiarity of having always been preferred by the Protestants, since it underlines more the narrative of the supper than the sacrificial action of the Catholic priesthood.
     Second discovery. - The new arrangement of words given in this Constitution breaks with the immemorial practice of the Church on another point.  The Church has always separated the sacramental words, which the priest pronounces "in persona Christi", from the words preceding them, which form part of the narrative of the supper.
     Now, this joining together of the two parts, which is brought about by the new formula, obliges the celebrant to say these words in the narrative tone of a memorial and not, as our fathers have always done, in the affirmative tone of one who accomplishes a personal action.  As the "Brief Critical Study" puts it: In the Novus Ordo Missæ "the consecration formulae are now pronounced by the priest as part of a historic narrative, and no longer express a categorical affirmation on the part of Him in Whose person the priest acts: Hoc est Corpus meum, (and not: Hoc est Corpus Christi)".
     Third discovery. - This decision of the Pope changes the essential part of the Mass by introducing an innovation in the very form of the Eucharist: in the form for the consecration of the bread, "Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes", and in that for the chalice, "Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes".  These other words do not belong to the form of consecration.  As the authors of the Brief Critical Study of 1969 pointed out, in the ancient consecration formula "the punctuation and typographical layout of the formula ... and the giving of the sacramental words in larger type in the center of the page and often in a different color, clearly detached (them) from the historical context.  By such skilful means the formula was given a separate, AUTONOMOUS value.
     The constitution Missale Romanum, however, gives the preliminary words as belonging to the consecration formulae: "illa sic proferri volumus: supra panem: Accipite...supra calicem: Accipite et bibite ..."
     Henceforth, the eating and drinking (the meal aspect) is placed on an equal footing with the consecration itself (the sacrificial aspect), and this, in the present ecumenical climate, will permit the idea of a supper rapidly to supplant the reality of the Mass.
Fourth discovery. - Let us note also that the last noted innovation leans strongly towards an understanding of the words of consecration in a symbolic sense, and of blurring, nay even of suppressing, the sacrificial aspect of the Mass in favor of a simple memorial or, as the Protestants of Alsace-Lorraine said, of "giving a different interpretation to the theology of sacrifice than they were accustomed to attribute to Catholicism".
     By this unprecedented innovation, the Pope introduced "in practice" and "objectively" into the very essence of the Mass, the eating, or the meal aspect which, though it is an integral part, is not the essential part.
     Fifth discovery. - Finally, this Constitution changes even the "anamnesis" (or memorial).
     In the traditional Mass the words are: "Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in mei memoriam faceitis = As often as you do these things, you shall do them in memory of Me".
     The spirit of this formula, as the Catholic Church has always understood it, is not an invitation to us to recall to mind Christ or the Last Supper, simply to remember Him or be reminded of Him.  It is an order to do again what Christ did, and to do it again in the same manner in which He did it Himself.  (In Greek: EIS TEN EMOU ANAMNESIN, that is, "directed to My memory". [Brief Critical Study])
     Henceforth the new canons, however, will cause to be said: "Hoc facite in meam commemorationem = Do this in memory of Me."
     As the authors of the Brief Critical Study also note, this formula "proclaimed, as it will be daily, in the vernacular, will irreparably shift the emphasis in the minds of the hearers on to the "memory" of Christ as the END of the eucharistic action, while it is in fact the BEGINNING.  The ultimate idea of COMMEMORATION will very soon take the place of the idea of sacramental action".
     Here it is important for us to recall that in order to impress upon the people the idea of commemoration, or simple memorial, Luther required that the Canon, and above all the words of the Supper, should be uttered in the vernacular and aloud, for "in this way, the people will learn from the words themselves of Scripture that there is no question of making a sacrifice, but only a memorial of Christ".
     In France, moreover, it is in this way that the Mass is presented in the New Sunday Missal.  Those responsible for this book, the French bishops, are thus well in the spirit both of Luther and of the Novus Ordo Missæ when they teach, among the "indispensable reminders of faith", that:
     "There is no question of adding one Mass to another, exteriorly and interiorly so well celebrated that they will obtain grace from God.  IT IS SIMPLY A MATTER OF MAKING A COMMEMORATION OF THE UNIQUE SACRIFICE ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED, THE PERFECT SACRIFICE IN WHICH CHRIST OFFERED HIMSELF, of associating ourselves with it, and of there communicating together, by making our own the oblation which He made in His own person for our salvation."⁽²⁵⁾
     All these discoveries oblige me to state that even if these new "consecration formulae" were chosen "for pastoral reasons and to facilitate concelebration", they greatly facilitate, in actual fact, the slide from the Catholic doctrine of the Mass towards the Protestant doctrine of the Supper; or, as the Lutherans of Alsace-Lorraine put it, towards "giving a different interpretation to the theology of the sacrifice than they were accustomed to attribute to Catholicism".

     SECOND INNOVATION. - A change made in the second part of the consecration of the chalice.
     In the vernacular formulation in certain languages at least, English, German, Spanish, etc., the new form for the consecration of the wine has undergone a substantial modification.  In place of: "...My blood... which shall be shed for you, and FOR MANY, unto the remission of sins", the new formula says: "...My blood.  It will be shed for you AND FOR ALL MEN so that sins may be forgiven."
     DOES THIS SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE, OF ITSELF, RENDER INVALID A MASS CELEBRATED WITH THIS NEW FORM?
     At first sight it might be thought that it does not, and for two reasons:
     1°  Because all the manuals of theology⁽²⁶⁾ teach: "certum est ad validam consecrationem vini, requiri Christi verba: HIC EST CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, vel HIS EST SANGUINIS MEUS. (It is certain that for the valid consecration of the wine, the words of Christ are required: This is the chalice of My blood, or This is my blood.)"
     2°  Because the form must signify the effect of the Sacrament.  Now, in this sacrament the effect is two-fold: The effect of the real corporal Presence of Christ, and the effect of the application of the fruits of His passion.  This double effect is clearly expressed in the traditional form:
     a) Effect of Presence:  "This is the chalice of My blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith";
     b) Effect of Application:  "which shall be shed for you and for many, unto the remission of sins".
     In the new vernacular form, in several languages, a substantial change is introduced into the second part of it.  It is the signification of the effect of application which has been substantially changed.
     It seems, however, that the first part of the form, which still signifies the effect of the Real Presence, must be realized in spite of the change made in the second part.  And, if the Presence is realized, the Mass is thus valid.  Now, it would seem that it is realized as soon as the words of the first part are pronounced since, in the traditional form, before pronouncing the second part, the priest proclaims the realization of the mysterium fidei, namely the transubstantiation.
     What consequence, then, would the change made in the second part have?
     Even if it does not impair the validity of the consecration of the chalice, the substantial change made in the second part of the form constitutes, in itself, a grave fault; for in fact, it is in no one's power the change the finality, or end, for which Christ willed to institute the Mass.
     Is it quite certain, however, that this particular change does not impair the validity of the consecration?
     In the sacraments the form expresses the will of Christ, and it is precisely for this reason that it is in no one's power to modify the form of the sacraments because, if the form is modified, we are no longer sure of the validity of a sacrament.
     Moreover, is not the effect of the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist conditioned by the effect of application?
     The philosophy of common sense teaches us that, if in the realization of things the means employed comes first and the end, or what is sought after, follows on; in the intention of the agent, however, what is of primary importance, that which he seeks above all, the end which conditions his activity and the choice of means, is what he wishes to effect.
     In the institution of the Eucharist, what was the dominant intention of Christ?  What did He propose and wish to do?
     Here, we must remember that the will of the God-Man was twofold:
     a) Antecedent will embracing all the creatures for whom the Redemption was intended.  This is the will of the God-Man in itself, which embraces all men.  On the side of God, the Redemption brought about on the Cross is universal.  "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners"⁽²⁷⁾; "(God) Who will have all men to be saved";⁽²⁸⁾ "(God) that spared not even His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all;⁽²⁹⁾ "for (Jesus Christ) He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world".⁽³⁰⁾
     b) Consequent will.  This is the will of the God-Man, taking into account Man's consent and the pre-destination of the Father: it is the Redemption accomplished.  Now, in its accomplishment, the Redemption is not universal, because there are some who are damned.
     Certainly, the God-Man had in Himself the desire that His sacrifice should profit all men, but He knew that, in fact, His sacrifice would not benefit all.  He willed, by a consequent will, that "the fruits and advantages" of the Passion He was about to suffer, of the Blood that he was about to shed for the salvation of all mankind, should be applied to the elect who would profit by it: VOBIS ET MULTIS.  This is the traditional doctrine clearly explained by the holy Council of Trent in its Catechism⁽³¹⁾:
     "The additional words FOR YOU AND FOR MANY, ... serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion.  For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind has received from it, we shall easily find that IT PERTAINS NOT UNTO ALL, BUT TO MANY OF THE HUMAN RACE.  When therefore Our Lord said "For you", He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He spoke.  When He added "and for many", He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.
     "WITH REASON, therefore, WERE THE WORDS "FOR ALL" NOT USED, AS IN THIS PLACE THE FRUITS OF THE PASSION ARE ALONE SPOKEN OF, AND TO ELECT ONLY DID HIS PASSION BRING THE FRUIT OF SALVATION.  And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: "Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many" (Heb. IX, 28); and also of the words of our Lord in John: "I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom Thou hast given me, because they are Thine". (Jn. XVII, 9)."
     To attain this end, this object, to realize this consequent will, namely the application of the fruits of His Passion to the elect who would profit from it, Christ chose as means to make Himself really present in this Sacrament.
     To change this end, this object, is to change the primordial intention, the consequent will of Christ in instituting this sacrament and, by that very fact, to render of very doubtful validity a mass so celebrated.
     But, certain people will object, since you mentioned earlier that all serious authors teach as certain that, for a valid consecration of the wine, only the words of Christ: "This is the Chalice of My blood" or "This is My blood", are required; how can you maintain that the change in the second part of the form may render invalid the consecration of the chalice, seeing that the words recognized as essential by all theologians have been preserved?
     The answer is simple.  The consecration with the new formula is of doubtful validity, not because the essential words have not been preserved, but because they are not uttered with the same intention as Christ had in mind when instituting the Mass.  They are being uttered "pro vobis et pro omnibus", and not "pro vobis et pro multis".
     Let us not forget that the form of a sacrament being the expression of the will of Christ, it is not in anyone's power to change the form given by Him.  Thus, because the form has been changed, there is no longer the assurance of having done what Christ willed.  This change renders the consecration of the chalice very doubtful, and even that of the bread, for it is the whole Mass which was instituted "pro vobis et pro multis".
     A Query.
     The only case which the partisans of the new form could make against us would be the following.
     In uttering the new formula "for you and for all men", a celebrant could very well be thinking only of the Passion which Christ suffered for all men, and not of the application of that Passion, which is only "vobis et multis".  In such a hypothetical case, would he not have the intention of doing what the Church does?
     Reply. 1°  If, in utilizing the new form, "for you and for all men", the celebrant thinks only of the Passion which Christ suffered for all men, and utters the formula thinking that the Mass, which renews the ineluctable consequence, the suppression of the eternity of hell (an error much in vogue and very widespread in our times), then a Mass celebrated with this intention is certainly invalid, since, in fact, such a celebrant, by this intention, introduces an error into the form which completely vitiates his Mass.
     2°  If, in saying "for you and for all men", the celebrant has no particular intention, and certainly not the intention of rejecting the eternity of the pains of hell, it could be thought that he had no intention in opposition to that of Christ in instituting this sacrament.  In itself, "for all men", which refers to the antecedent will, does not exclude the effect of the consequent will, signified, according to the Catechism of the Council of Trent by "pro vobis et pro multis"; however, the fact of changing the form remains a grave matter: and in effect, in practice, since the new form does not express the primordial will of Christ, His consequent will, a doubt remains as to the validity of a Mass so celebrated.  What is more, coming from the modernists, whose aims are subversive, the change is very suspect.
     The reply of Pope Zacharias to St. Boniface, Apostle of Germany, lends support to this opinion.  The latter wondered whether he ought to repeat the baptisms administered by a priest who, little versed in the language of Cicero, had employed the following form: "Ego baptizo te in nomine Patria, Filia et Spiritus Sancti."  St. Boniface held these baptisms to be invalid.  Zacharias replied: "Sed, sanctissime frater, si ille qui baptizavit non erronem introducens aut haeresim, sed pro sola ignorantia romanae locutionis infringendo linguam, ut supra fati sumus, baptizans dixisset, non possumus consentire ut denuo baptizentur."^(*) (But, most venerable brother, if he who baptized introduced neither error nor heresy into the formula, but distorted it only through ignorance of the Latin tongue, as we have said above, we cannot allow these baptisms to be repeated.) The Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique which reports this fact explains: "The form in this case was susceptible of a double interpretation, one orthodox, the other heretical; the intention of the minister gave it its value: in acting in mere ignorance of the language, he conferred the sacrament: had he introduced an error into the form, his intention would have completely vitiated the rite, and it would have no effect.⁽³²⁾ To this explanation I will add only one important remark: in the case of the new form of consecration the plea of ignorance of the language could not be invoked, since it is certain vernacular forms which are in question.

Objection by the defenders of the new rite.
     The defenders of the new rite can object that this important change, even if found in certain vernacular versions, does not exist in the Latin text, the only official text.  In consequence, they will attempt to reject the proof which I have adduced against the Novus Ordo Missæ because of this particular innovation.
     It is to forestall this objection that I want to emphasize that in such a manner of proceeding lies a further manifestation of the hypocritical character of the modernist methods employed by the authors of the new rite.
     However, if we do not lose sight of the fact that modernism is a "praxis", a heresy in action, and that it is in action at the very time when it claims to affirm the contrary; also that, for a modernist, the most orthodox formulas do not necessarily have the Catholic meaning which we recognize in them, then we will easily discover the tactics used.  The tactics are, on the one hand, to draw up a passable Latin text which, for the mass of the faithful will, in practice, serve no purpose, or very little, but behind which, when attacked, those in authority can always retreat to dodge an accusation of heresy; on the other hand, to authorize (let us not forget that an authority which is silent is one that consents) for the general use of the faithful, erroneous translations.  In virtue of the law "lex credendi, lex orandi", and also "lex orandi, lex credendi", these translations will alter by usage, and practice, the faith of the faithful.  Is this not diabolical cunning?  But is it not just what we see happening?
     What is more, Authority, which has taken the initiative in dismantling the "insurmountable barrier", raised by the Council of Trent "against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery" of the Mass (you have doubtless recognized here the words of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, in a letter sent to the Pope with the Brief Critical Study in 1969); and which does not condemn, and thus permits, and leaves a free passage (we even know that it encourages them) to erroneous translations, is the accomplice of all the heresies which it refuses to condemn, in contempt of the "duty" which St. Pius X called "the most sacred duty of the pastoral office".
     Superior authority is, thus, really responsible for this innovation, and this innovation makes such an important change in the consecration of the chalice, that a Mass so celebrated is, at least, of very doubtful validity.

     THIRD INNOVATION. - The new rite includes an impressive combination of modifications, all calculated to bring our Mass into line with the Protestant Supper, and entailing a change in the signification of the form.

*     *     *

     Before proving this accusation, let me recall once again modernist methods.  With the aim of maintaining their position in the Church - for their aim is to corrupt her, or as they say, make her evolve from within - the modernists, far from openly denying her doctrines, often make a show of proclaiming them.  But, each time they do proclaim them, they always give them a different interpretation from that of the Catholic Church.  Thus, for example, in the reform of worship, though it is true to say that certain modernists, as "admirers of symbolism, are disposed to be more indulgent on this head",⁽³³⁾ they always manage to modify the meaning of such traditional forms as they do preserve, because they know "only too well the intimate bond which unites faith and worship"⁽³⁴⁾; thus, the meaning of these traditional formulae is distorted in conformity with erroneous and heretical doctrines, under the pretext of bringing them back to their primitive form.  The meaning of traditional formulas is most often modified by them by means of apparently insignificant changes of rite; but since these apparently insignificant rites explain and make clear the meaning of the form, their suppression or modification causes the form no longer clearly to signify what it expresses.  Thus, by apparently insignificant means, profound, indeed substantial changes are brought about.
     In consequence, when confronted with modernists, we must not lose sight of the fact that their true intentions become clear from the modifications and innovations which they introduce, when viewed as a whole, for these all converge on the end they have in view.

*     *     *

     When looking at the Mass, and the multiple changes brought about by a ceaselessly evolving reform, - let us consider, for example, group Masses, youth masses, pop masses, which include the participation and communion of non-Catholics, celebrated by priests without any vestments, seated around little tables, using kitchen utensils in place of sacred vessels, etc. -- we are really forced to the conclusion that all these apparently anarchic changes follow a definite pattern and all tend:
     - to blur, to the point of passing over in complete silence, even to deny the sacrificial and propitiatory aspect of the Mass, in order to emphasize only the aspects of a communal meal and that of a sacrifice of praise or thanksgiving;
     - to diminish the role of the priest in favor of that of the assembly.  There is even talk of "masses without a priest", and experiments in this line are made and encouraged at a time when private Masses without a congregation are tending to disappear, since these are declared to be a nonsense;
     - to cause the real corporal presence of Christ, produced by the consecration-transubstantiation performed by the priest, to be forgotten, in favor of the real spiritual presence realized by the assembly gathered together in the name of Jesus.
     To sum up, in spite of their anarchical appearances, all these changes are perfectly orchestrated and bring about de facto, a substantial change in the essential part of the Mass.
     Let us study some of these changes.  I have chosen the suppression of the genuflection immediately after the consecration of the bread and after that of the wine, and the displacement of the two words "mysterium fidei" in the consecration of the chalice.  In reflecting on these things, let us not lose sight of the fact that, in the words of Paul VI himself, there is "a revival of modernism" in the Church.

*     *     *

     The changes seem, apparently, to be insignificant.  We will demonstrate the very grave repercussions which they have on the question of the validity of the Mass.
     We know that a sacrament must signify the grace which it causes and cause the grace which it signifies.  This signification must be found in the essential rite as a whole, that is, in both matter and form; but, as Leo XIII made it clear, "it belongs chiefly to the form", in this case to the formulas of consecration of the bread and the wine.
     Before the introduction of the two changes which we have called "apparently insignificant", the adoration by the priest and by those assisting clearly manifested that the utterance of the form by the priest had really produced what it signified.  As for the "mysterium fidei", included in the consecration of the chalice, it also signified in its own way, but clearly, that the "mystery of faith", the real physical Presence of Christ in place of the substances of bread and wine, which had disappeared, was accomplished.  There was no doubt possible; the two formulas uttered by the priest were no simple memorial, but truly made present the reality which they signified.  And the proof of this: immediate adoration, and the priest's proclamation of faith at the moment of realization.
     The suppression of the two first genuflections and the displacement of "mysterium fidei" signify, in themselves and conjointly, that there is not necessarily any sacrament; that although the words of institution certainly recall what the Master did, they do not necessarily produce what they signify; that henceforth, any celebrant will be able to utter the words and remain faithful to his own particular church's ideas.
     To make my argument clear, I will cite a passage from the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique: "The matter of a sacrament is, in itself, indifferent as to signifying or not signifying the sacred effect: and ablution, for example, can serve different ends, such as washing or refreshing.  Without any doubt, it is the form, or words, which determine the sacramental meaning of the matter, BUT SOMETIMES NOT WITH ALL THE PRECISION AND CLARITY NECESSARY: it is the minister's intention which contributes to making impossible any ambiguity.  What is more, although the words of the form have an objective sense THEY ONLY REALLY EXPRESS THIS MEANING IF IT IS GIVEN TO THEM BY THE INTENTION."⁽³⁵⁾
     Let us illustrate this by an example.
     The words of consecration are uttered in a narrative tone in certain oriental rites, in the new rite and at the Protestant Supper: this means that, when recited in this manner, they can signify either consecration-transubstantiation or memorial; they do not have all the precision and clarity needed to determine the matter without hesitation; it is therefore the intention which gives precision to the form and removes all ambiguity.
     Now, how is the intention of the various ministers, who recite the same words in the same tone, externally manifested?
     In the oriental rites, for example, it is manifested with no ambiguity possible, in the first place by all the prayers of the offertory, which makes the intention of the rite itself explicit, and then by the adoration of the celebrant immediately after each of the two consecrations.
     Yes, the offertory prayers make clearly explicit the intention of the Church to consecrate, and the adoration of the celebrant immediately after each of the two consecrations manifests once more that, as a minister, he has uttered the words with the intention of doing what the Church does, namely, effecting a transubstantiation.  Doubtless, as Leo XIII taught us, "concerning the mind or intention, inasmuch as it is in itself something interior, the Church does not pass judgement: but IN SO FAR AS IT IS EXTERNALLY MANIFESTED, SHE IS BOUND TO JUDGE OF IT."  Now, one of the effects of the two genuflections is, precisely, to manifest externally the intention which the minister had of doing what the Church does: a transubstantiation.
     This way of judging the exterior manifestation of the celebrant's intention is so Catholic, that the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique informs us that, "on the subject of the "BLACK RUBRIC" inserted by Edward VI in the Prayer Book of 1552: THE REFUSAL OF ADORATION IMPLIES THE NEGATION OF THE REAL PRESENCE."⁽³⁶⁾

*     *     *

     From the displacement, in the new rite, of the words "mysterium fidei", the same conclusion can be drawn as that from the suppression of the two genuflections.
     In the traditional rite, the insertion of these words directly after those which signify the real physical Presence, in the formula itself for the consecration of the chalice, proclaims the efficacy of the words of consecration.  Mysterium fidei: the Mystery of faith has just been accomplished; Jesus Christ is there.
     For what reason, then, have they been displaced?  Why does the new rite no longer proclaim the efficacy of the words of consecration as soon as they are pronounced, if not in order to embarrass those who do not believe in their efficacy?  For my part, I do not see any other explanation.  The reason given by Authority for all these changes, namely, "to give a greater efficacy to the liturgical message", seems to me a mockery, all the more displeasing because it concerns the Holy Mass, and because it emanates from him who, the first in all the Church, should watch over its integrity.

*     *     *

     These two changes, therefore, though seemingly insignificant, take away from the words of the consecration "all the precision and clarity necessary" to determine without hesitation the matter of the sacrament, and by this fact tend towards a denial IN PRACTICE of the efficacy of the consecration of the bread and wine by the priest, in favor of the Lutheran heresy which dared to teach that the Mass is a mere memorial, a simple recital of what Christ did on the evening of the first Holy Thursday⁽³⁷⁾: a Memorial which simply stirs up the faith of those present, which faith produces a spiritual presence of Christ such as He promised when telling His deciples: "Where there are two or three gathered together in My name, etc."
     By this twofold example (and all other similar things: suppression of the offertory, of the signs of the cross, of the genuflections, of the altar itself; the introduction of saying the canon aloud and in vernacular, of receiving communion standing, in the hand, or dispensed by women, etc., all concur to the same end)⁽³⁸⁾, we can see how changes, in themselves apparently insignificant, made in the ceremonies of the mass have brought about, in a disguised (for the modernist is a dissembler), but effective way, a substantial change if the essential part of the mass: by altering the signification of the form.
     In order to better appreciate the repercussions which follow of necessity from all these changes affecting the form, let us not forget the judicious observation of Leo XIII concerning the Anglican reform in Apostolicæ Curæ: (The authors of the new ordinal) "under the pretext of restoring the order of the liturgy to its primitive form, ... corrupted it in many respects to bring it into accord with the errors of the Innovators.  As a result, (and the same thing can be said for the Novus Ordo Missæ) not only is there in the whole Ordinal NO CLEAR MENTION of sacrifice, of consecration, of priesthood (sacerdotium), of the power to consecrate and offer sacrifice, but ... every trace of these and similar things remaining in such prayers of the Catholic rite as were not completely rejected, were purposely removed and obliterated.
     The native character and spirit of the Ordinal ...  is thus objectively evident."  These words are applicable to the Novus Ordo Missæ.

*     *     *

     If, from the moment of its appearance and in its Latin text, and before it had revealed all the deadly fruits which it contained, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci could accuse the Novus Ordo Missæ of representing, "as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass", who can now seriously deny its heretical character (even though very cleverly dissimulated), when well-known Lutherans, who deny all Catholic eucharistic doctrines, have officially declared that they can accept it, since they feel at home with it, and certain Catholic (?) bishops have revealed the lutherophile tendencies of the second Vatican Council, its reforms and its new liturgy?
     Once again, let us repeat that Modernism is not an openly and frankly declared heresy, but a "praxis", that is, a heresy that destroys in practice the very doctrines which it does not deny explicitly.
     We will set down a remark made by Franzelin, Consultor of the Holy Office, concerning the Anglican ordinal, and then adapt what he said to the Novus Ordo Missæ.

ANGLICAN ORDINAL

NOVUS ORDO MISSÆ

"The Catholic rite was repudiated and a new one adopted in accordance with a publicly professed heresy, with the aim of deleting from the rite all that signified the priestly power, which is the power of consecrating and offering the sacrifice of the New Testament ...  Since the sacraments of the New Law are visible efficacious signs, they effect what they signify; and so it is absurd to say that a visible rite in which is excluded the signification of the priestly power which ought to be conferred, can be a sacrament for the conferring of that power."(39)

The Catholic rite, called that of St. Pius V, was repudiated and a new one adopted which was in accordance with the Protestant heresy, with the aim of no longer making manifest all that the Catholic Mass means: its propitiatory character, the efficacy of the words of consecration, the sacerdotal ministry of the priest and the real corporal Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ.  Since the sacraments effect what they signify, and since this new rite distorts the meaning of the Catholic faith, in order to please certain heretics who deny the same Catholic faith, it is absurd to say that this visible rite, which disguises what it should make manifest, can still effect what it has the intention no longer to signify.

     Are we not in the spirit of the Church in applying to the Novus Ordo Missæ what Pope Leo XIII said of the Anglican ordinal: "If the rite is changed with the manifest purpose of introducing another rite which is not accepted by the Church, and of repudiating that which the Church does and which is something that by Christ's institution belongs to the nature of a sacrament, then it is evident, not merely that the intention necessary for a sacrament is lacking, but rather that an intention is present which is adverse to and incompatible with the sacrament."

*     *     *

     Objection. - Here I foresee a twofold objection which certain people will make: Pope Leo XIII was speaking of the introduction of another rite not accepted by the Church, and of repudiating that which the Church uses.
     Now, those who do not agree with me will say: The traditional rite has never been rejected and, in the case of the Novus Ordo Missæ of Paul VI, though it is a matter of another rite, this other rite has not only been accepted by the Church, but has been imposed by her.
     Reply. - I deny the validity of this objection and, in refuting its second half, I will show that it is blasphemous.
     First part. - Certainly the traditional rite has never been rejected formally, that is, juridically or canonically, for the Pope knows very well that it is not in his power to do so.
     I am also well aware that the Swiss bishops as a whole, and their President in particular, knew very well that they were deceiving their flocks shamefully, on the occasion recently when they affirmed falsely that "the rite (of St. Pius V) has been abolished by the constitution Missale Romanum of 3 April 1969".⁽⁴⁰⁾
     However, modernism being, like marxism, a "praxis", it is what happens in practice which must be considered.  Here, unfortunately, it is only too true to say that the traditional rite, called that of St. Pius V, is in practice forbidden and is everywhere driven out.  Only those who are voluntarily blind will refuse to acknowledge the truth of this, but let us leave the blind to lead others so afflicted.
     Second part. - No, the new rite has not been accepted by the Church, and could not be so accepted.  How, therefore, could it be imposed by her?  And the proof which I put forward to refute the false objection made by the partisans of the Novus Ordo is simple.  Here it is: The Bride of Christ, holy Church, our Mother, is she holy or is she not?  Does not the Catholic creed affirm: "Credo ... Ecclesiam SANCTAM"?  But if she is holy, as indeed she is, how can a Catholic have the effrontery to impute to her the begetting of such a monster?  Are the words of Jesus no longer true: "Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit ... a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit"?⁽⁴¹⁾
     Show us the fruits of sanctity, the "good fruit", I mean, which has come from the liturgical reform.  Then, recognizing the goodness of the tree by this fruit, not only will I accept the liturgical reform, but I will make a full public apology for the criticisms which I have dared to make against it.  But, if good fruit from this reform cannot be shown to us - and its partisans are not able to do so, or they would long ago have loudly proclaimed them - we can, on the other hand, put under their noses all the stench of the poisonous fruits which it has produced and which it continues to produce.⁽⁴²⁾ It is thus with strong faith in Our Lord's words that I affirm of this Novus Ordo Missæ:, which tends towards heresy and towards the destruction of holy Mass, NO, IT DOES NOT COME FROM THE CHURCH AND CANNOT COME FROM HER.  To affirm the contrary amounts to blasphemy against the Bride of Christ.
     Whence, then, does it come, it will be asked?  From certain men of the Church, which is not at all the same thing.
     Explain to us, then it will be asked, how is it that almost all the bishops, priests and faithful have accepted it?
     One of Our Lord's parables furnishes us with a sufficient explanation: it is that of the enemy who came, whilst the servants of the good man of the house slept, and oversowed cockle among the wheat in his field, which is a figure of the Church.⁽⁴³⁾ Have not the following been put to sleep - and what a deep sleep! - the Index, the Holy Office, the anti- modernist oath, and all the diocesan Councils of surveillance?  Profiting from the slumber of those who should be the natural "overseers" and watchers, the devil has done his work, and caught in his net and made fools of those who have forgotten to keep watch.

*     *     *

     So, therefore, each of the changes, in themselves apparently minor and following no set pattern, which have been either analyzed or simply mentioned in this present work, are all well in the spirit both of the Constitution Missale Romanum, and of the Institutio Generalis, in particular of its Article 7.  We repeat, all these changes, all these deliberate and calculated innovations aim at the same end: to bring it about that the form shall no longer clearly signify what it expresses, with the aim of pleasing heretics who do not admit our eucharistic doctrines, but who would like to make use of the same Ordo Missæ as ourselves for the celebration of their Protestant Supper.

*     *     *

     Some revealing facts about the spirit of the new rite.

     Apart from the changes which I have already indicated, which all tend to bring our Catholic Mass into line with the Protestant Supper⁽⁴⁴⁾, here are some further facts, which anyone can verify for himself.  Since these show clearly that one of the fruits produced by the new rite in those who have completely adopted it is a hatred, like that of Luther, for the traditional Mass, we can see revealed the irreconcilable differences which exist between the two liturgies: the one is, in practice, the negation of the other.
     1.  In places where the new rite has been adopted, the authorities permit and favor every kind of so- called liturgical experiment, even the most audacious and least Catholic.
     2.  In places where the new rite is installed, the traditional rite is absolutely proscribed and often actively combatted.
     3.  This traditional rite, though "so pure from every error, that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savor of a certain holiness and piety, and raise up unto God the minds of those that offer it, for it is composed out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the Apostles, and the devout instructions also of holy pontiffs"⁽⁴⁵⁾, is, on the part of the protagonists of the Novus Ordo Missæ, the object of a hatred which reveals their criminal intention to destroy, in practice, the Catholic Mass.

*     *     *

     As in the case of the Anglican ordinal the same conclusion imposes itself regarding the Novus Ordo Missæ: "By reason of its original defectiveness" Masses celebrated in this new rite are invalid because of a lack of sufficiently explicit form.
     What Leo XIII affirmed of the Anglican ordinal, we can say of the Novus Ordo Missæ.  The adoption of a new rite which, by a carefully calculated deception, either denies or alters the nature of the sacrament of the Eucharist, and which, in practice, insists on repudiating the traditional idea of the consecration-transubstantiation, takes away all their value from the formulas, "this is My Body", "this is My Blood".  For this Body and this Blood only become present when it is intended truly to realize the sacrament of the Eucharist as Christ instituted it and the infallible Church has defined it, particularly at the XXII Session of the Council of Trent.

Conclusion

     In the section, earlier in this study, on "Defect of Intention", I have shown, on the one hand, that the idea behind the devising of the new rite of Mass is a carefully disguised heretical idea; on the other, that the intention behind the new construction is not a Catholic one, since the result is a rite in which there is an obstinate refusal to give expression to Catholic doctrines.  Finally, on the avowal of several heretics themselves, the theology of the new rite has been so "transformed", and has so far "evolved" as to render it, in practice, heretical, since they, who still make a point of rejecting Catholic eucharistic doctrines, now find it suitable for themselves.
     The new rite thus involves "an intention ... which is adverse to and incompatible with" (Apost. Curæ) that which Christ had in instituting the Eucharist.
     In the second part, on "Defect of Form", I have demonstrated how, by a combination, without precedent, of innovations, the makers of the new rite have succeeded, without changing the literal content of the essential part of the form, in modifying its sense in such a way that it no longer clearly expresses, "without hesitation", Catholic doctrine.
     All this, therefore, fully confirms the conviction which was engendered in my mind by the study of the Novus Ordo Missæ in the light of the Apostolic Letter "Apostolicæ Curæ".  The Novus Ordo Missæ, the Mass of Paul VI, was conceived, carefully considered, realized and promulgated to be just what it is.  And such as it is, it tends fatally, in its use, to destroy the Catholic rite.  FROM THIS FACT, AS WITH THE ANGLICAN ORDINAL, IT CONTAINS WITHIN ITSELF "AN INTENTION WHICH IS ADVERSE TO AND INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SACRAMENT": THIS RENDERS INVALID MASSES CELEBRATED IN THIS RITE.  Let Leo XIII explain the matter to us:
     "If the rite is changed with the manifest purpose of introducing another rite which is not accepted by the Church, and of repudiating that which the Church does and which is something that by Christ's institution belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is evident, not merely that the intention necessary for a sacrament is lacking, but rather that an intention is present which is adverse to and incompatible with the sacrament."

*     *     *

     I expect that many of those priests and faithful, who have followed my demonstration, will not dare, for fear of the consequences, to accept my conclusions.  In that case they will be tempted to refuse to look reality in the face, and will prefer to stop half way, and remember only that the new rite is ambiguous, and that its formulas are uncertain in their meaning, and nothing more.  I add therefore a few remarks for their benefit.
     It "the rite remains, to say the least, ambiguous, this ambiguity must be resolved in the direction of the opinions of those who have composed it and who have made use of it."⁽⁴⁶⁾
     "The only objection possible against this reasoning is that, according to Catholic theologians, a heretical minister validly administers a sacrament each time that he has "THE INTENTION OF DOING WHAT THE CHURCH DOES BY THIS SACRAMENT"; but this principle is only valid in cases where the matter and form employed are those which the Church uses, or that at least they do not admit of any other sense.  If another sense is introduced into the form, with the aim of rendering it capable of a heretical interpretation, the heretical intention of the minister, for the reason given above, is fatal for the validity of the sacrament."⁽⁴⁷⁾
     "Thus, the rejection of the rite used by the Church⁽⁴⁸⁾, and the adoption of a new rite with the aim of introducing heresy⁽⁴⁹⁾, constitute good proof of the absence, in the minister, of an intention to do what the Church does.  THERE IS NOT EVEN ANY NEED, as Cardinal Annibale sees it, THAT ESSENTIAL CHANGES SHOULD BE MADE IN THE FORM: A SUBSIDIARY MODIFICATION, MADE WITH THE OBJECT OF INTRODUCING A NEW RITE OR A HERESY, SUFFICES TO BEAR WITNESS TO THE DEFECT OF INTENTION.  Quod autem quidam docent sacramentum non valere si minister immutaverit aliquid accidentaliter, ut novum ritum vel errorem introducat, sic accipiendum est quia is non creditur habere intentionem faciendi quod facit Ecclesiam."⁽⁵⁰⁾
     After this, how can these priests still use this new rite, which is heretical by carefully devised dissimulation?  It is no subsidiary or accidental modification which I have uncovered, but a collection of many modifications which, taken together, involve a substantial change in the form.  The defect of intention inherent in this rite, or rather the counter-intention which governed the making of it, is thus quite clear.

*     *     *

ADDITIONAL REMARKS REGARDING THE INTENTION OF THOSE WHO HAVE USED THE NOVUS ORDO MISSÆ IN GOOD FAITH

     To conclude this work, I will reply to a question which those who have utilized the Novus Ordo Missæ in good faith will not fail to ask.  For, if they accept my arguments, they will be fearful of the practical consequences concerning the Masses celebrated by them in this rite.
     And indeed, how could such priests, who believed that they did well in accepting the Novus Ordo Missæ which was given to them by their legitimate Pastors and who, in following it, always had the intention to effect a valid consecration, not be anxious when learning that the changes made in the ceremonies of this Novus Ordo could render invalid Masses so celebrated?
     Here is the reply which I believe can be made, though I would first point out to them how much more difficult the hypocrisy of the modernist heresy makes the task of those who would defend the faith.
     The Lutheran heresy, which could be called a classic heresy, was clear and simple in denying and rejecting altogether the Catholic doctrines of the Mass.  The Lutherans have never claimed to say a valid Mass in the Catholic sense.
     The Anglican heresy, at least among those who claimed to possess a true priesthood, was already a more complicated matter; for, though claiming to have preserved the ministerial priesthood, a form was in use which was substantially modified in its essential part by the Lutherans, who rejected this same sacrament.
     The Modernist heresy is not a "classic" heresy, but a "subversive" one; one, that is, which never declares itself openly, which uses orthodox language but in a heterodox sense.  It so perfects confusion, by managing substantially to modify the modus significandi, or signification of the form (which thus becomes so ambiguous that it even suits Protestants who deny our Catholic eucharistic doctrines), as to render the Mass invalid, without any substantial modification of the words used.
     In such conditions, and looking at things as broadly as possible within the limits of orthodoxy, here is my opinion, in reply to the question of users, in good faith, of the Novus Ordo Missæ, whilst awaiting the judgement of the Church, when it shall please our Pastors to "be faithful to the most sacred of their duties" (St. Pius X).
     Since a sacrament is only valid if it signifies the grace which it causes, Masses celebrated by these priests with the Novus Ordo may well have been valid, but this would have been so because they took steps that their double consecration (of the bread and of the wine) clearly signified the efficacy of the rite performed.  So much for the past, which they should leave to the mercy of God, Who knows to what an extent their good faith has been deceived.
     For the present and for the future, I mean for that length of time during which our actions are still in our own power, I believe that THE USE OF THE NOVUS ORDO MISSÆ, WHICH TENDS, IN PRACTICE, TO DESTROY THE MASS, MUST BE REFUSED ABSOLUTELY, AT WHATEVER THE COST IN GRAVE TROUBLE FOR THOSE WHO THUS HAVE THE COURAGE OF THEIR FAITH.

*     *     *

     Some will ask: since the substantial modification of the form has been brought about by the suppression of the offertory, the signs of the cross, the two genuflections, and the displacement of "mysterium fidei", could the priests who have adopted the Novus Ordo Missæ ("adopted": reluctantly, under pressure from the authorities, in a spirit of obedience ill understood, for various motives, etc.) not continue to use it, but reintroduce the offertory, the signs of the cross, the two genuflections and the words "mysterium fidei", and thus give back to the form its full signification?
     I do not think that priests have the right to do this, and here are my reasons:
     First reason. - Liturgical rites, especially those of the Mass, must be regulated by the authority of Rome; they are not under the jurisdiction of either priests or bishops.  Now, to accept the proposed solution would result in a rite which would be neither that of the Church (fixed by St. Pius V), nor that of the reformers.
     Second reason. - To act in this way would mean, in practice, giving one's support to the new rite, to maintain it instead of hastening its disappearance, and to make oneself, to a certain extent, an accomplice of the perfidy which it conceals, and which we have uncovered.
     What is more, to support to this new rite, would it not be perjury for the priests?  The new rite, as Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci have told us, "represents, as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent."  Now, have we priests not sworn to use and to defend these prescriptions, these Tridentine formulations, in the two oaths, so often made until recently, hand on the holy Gospel, in the priestly oath and the anti-modernist oath?  What folly it would be for a priest to perjure himself materially in celebrating Mass!
     As I see it, there is only one answer that can be made to those priests who thought that they did well in accepting the Novus Ordo Missæ which is this:
     Since it is on the one hand, a certain principle that in the administration of the sacraments, and in the celebration of holy Mass, the minister must always follow the safer course, that is, he must always prefer matter, form and rite which are certain, to matter, form and a rite which are doubtful;
     And since, on the other hand, as Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci told Pope Paul VI, and as I believe I have proved, this new rite does represent "as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent";
     These priests have not the right to follow the new rite, which is at the very least doubtful, and should return to the Mass of their ordination, the Mass of before the present reform.  They should return to "the sacred Canon, so pure from every error, that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savor of a certain holiness and piety, and raise up unto God the minds of those that offer it.  For it is composed out of the very words of the Lord, the tradition of the Apostles, and the pious institutions also of holy pontiffs" (Council of Trent).
     And, then?
     Adjuvet nos Deus! quia adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domini.  May God help us, for our help is in the name of the Lord.

Bléré, 11 April 1974 On the anniversary of the institution of the Mass and the Priesthood.

Noël BARBARA, priest.

ENDNOTES:

⁽¹⁾ The English version of "Apostolicæ Curæ" used in this study is that published by the Catholic Truth Society, 1968 edition.
⁽²⁾ Franzelin, quoted by F. Clark, S.J. in "Gregorianum", Vol. 45, 1964.
⁽³⁾ St. Pius X, Encyclical "Pascendi Dominici Gregis", 8 September 1907.  English reprint by Carraig Books, Dublin, 1971, p. 3.
⁽⁴⁾ "Pascendi", p. 3.
⁽⁵⁾ Ibid. p. 4.
⁽⁶⁾ Ibid. p. 4.
⁽⁷⁾ In the Gospels, the "sheep" designate the Pastors and the Bishops, and thus the "wolves in sheep's clothing", mean in Our Lord's parlance, the bishops who have become heretics.
⁽⁸⁾ I Corinthians IX, 26.
⁽⁹⁾ "Pascendi", pp. 4-5.
⁽¹⁰⁾ In a coming number we shall expose all the skill, or rather all the hypocrisy, of the modernist tactics used to destroy Catholic dogmas and the Mass.
⁽¹¹⁾ We are preparing an edition of Father Lemius' "Catechism on Modernism".  This is nothing less than the Encyclical of St. Pius X, "Pascendi Dominici Gregis", interspersed with questions which make clear the text, and allow the faithful who are not theologians to understand the doctrine better.  Our subscribers will receive this Catechism as soon as it appears.
⁽¹²⁾ Hans Kung and Schillebeckx have published outright heresies.  Cardinal Koenig has created a commission to look into the possibility of admitting to Holy Communion divorced persons, who have contracted a new "marriage" contrary to the prohibition of Our Lord in St. Matthew's Gospel.  Cardinal Suenens has attacked the Papacy in an interview given in the French review "Informations Catholiques Internationales".  Archbishop Lefebvre, on the contrary, defends the faith and the traditional Mass, and undertakes the formation of priests according to the traditional methods and principles.
⁽¹³⁾ The last time that Cardinal Danielou received me, I said to him: "Eminence, you must certainly recall the exploits of the "Bonnot Gang" at the beginning of the century?"
     - "Yes."
     - "What would you have thought of the civil authorities of that time if, during the period when the "Bonnot Gang" was most active, they had decided to suppress the national Gendarmie and the municipal police, and counsel citizens to no longer lock their doors?"
     - "Why do you ask me this question?"
     - "Because it is at a time when a "Bonnot Gang" rages inside the Church, that Authority has suppressed the Index, the Holy Office, and the anti-modernist oath, and extols opening up to the world and dialogue with all the enemies of the faith."
     What did the Cardinal reply?
     He rose and put an end to our conversation.
⁽¹⁴⁾ "Pascendi", pp. 53-4. ⁽¹⁵⁾ "Apostolicæ Curæ", p. 19.
⁽¹⁶⁾ From the letter of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci to the Pope, 3 September (Feast of St. Pius X) 1969, which accompanied a study of the Novus Ordo Missæ by certain Roman theologians, usually known as the "Brief Critical Study".  Quotations in this study are taken from the English translation published by Scottish "Una Voce", 2nd edition.
⁽¹⁷⁾ Matt.  XVIII, 20.
⁽¹⁸⁾ It is noteworthy that in the original I.C.E.L. English translation the words "or Mass" are missing, thus gratuitously reinforcing the idea that there is only question of the supper.
⁽¹⁹⁾ "Pascendi", p. 6, 53.
⁽²⁰⁾ "Forts dans la Foi", No. 25, p. 14.
⁽²¹⁾ Ibid. p. 14.
⁽²²⁾ Ibid. p. 15.
⁽²³⁾ Let us observe, in passing, that if Luther and the heretics of all the ages had to pass judgement on their own works, they would also not have found in them any doctrinal errors, nor any reason to make changes in them.  True, in former times errors were not passed for judgement to heretics, but were deferred to those who were charged with the defense of the doctrine of the faith, and this is the reason why, in former times, heretics were condemned.
⁽²⁴⁾ Innocent III, in a letter to John of Lyons, 29 November 1202.  Denzinger, 415.
⁽²⁵⁾ "Nouveau Missel des Dimanches", 1973 edit., pp. 382-3.
⁽²⁶⁾ Cf. De la Taille, "Mysterium Fidei" Elucidatio XXV; Tanquerey, "Synopsis Theologicae Dogmaticae", T. 3, Nos. 871-882.
⁽²⁷⁾ I Timothy I, 15.
⁽²⁸⁾ I Timothy II, 4.
⁽²⁹⁾ Romans VIII, 32.
⁽³⁰⁾ I John II, 2.
⁽³¹⁾ "Catechism of the Council of Trent", Marian Publications, U.S.A., reprint 1972, pp. 227-8.
⁽³²⁾ "D.T.C.", T. XI. col. 1189-90.
^(*) Denzinger 297.
⁽³³⁾ "Pascendi", p. 47.
⁽³⁴⁾ "Apostolicæ Curæ", p. 19.
⁽³⁵⁾ "D.T.C.", T. XI, col. 2273.
⁽³⁶⁾ Ibid.  T. XI, col. 1185.
⁽³⁷⁾ Let us recall that it is this Protestant doctrine which is taught by the French bishops in the "New Sunday Missal", where it is affirmed, as a "reminder of faith", that at the Mass "it is simply a matter of commemorating the unique sacrifice already accomplished".  This has already been mentioned in the text.
⁽³⁸⁾ To understand better the significance of all of these changes, consult the article of J. Rincelet, in Forts Dans la Foi, No. 25, particularly pp. 28-31.
⁽³⁹⁾ Reference as in note 2 above.
⁽⁴⁰⁾ Since this paragraph was written in April 1974, certain other national Episcopal Conferences have made similar declarations based on the same erroneous grounds.
⁽⁴¹⁾ Matt. VII, 17-18.
⁽⁴²⁾ Recently, in a country parish in France, the father of a family, a good Christian, but usually rather timid, declared one day in despair: "Cursed be Paul VI, who has sown division in my family by this new liturgy!  We used to be all united in the same faith".
⁽⁴³⁾ See Matt. XIII, 24-30.
⁽⁴⁴⁾ Refer back especially to the declaration of the Augsburg Protestants, given on a previous page in the text, in which they refer, with approval, to the "present convergences in theology".
⁽⁴⁵⁾ Council of Trent, "Denzinger" 942.
⁽⁴⁶⁾ "Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique", T. XI, col. 1190.
⁽⁴⁷⁾ R, Smith, cited in "D.T.C.", T. XI, col. 1190.
⁽⁴⁸⁾ See above, reply to the first part of the objection, showing the rejection in practice, of the Church's rite.
⁽⁴⁹⁾ Is this not the plan we discovered when we made clear the heretical idea, cleverly concealed, which the authors of the Novus Ordo have and teach about the Mass?
⁽⁵⁰⁾ "D.T.C.", T. XI, col. 1190.

     "The Holy Eucharist is so truly the centre of a whole group of doctrines, practices and institutions, that, when the faith on that one sacrament is known, the character of the whole religion is determined."

Rev. T. E. BRIDGETT, History of the Holy Eucharist in Great Britain, London, 1881, Vol. I, p. 13.

Editorial note

A Disquieting similarity
     Preliminary observations

     Agreement between the first Protestant reform of 1549 in England
     and the reform of Paul VI since Vatican II

Holy Mass and the Novus Ordo Missae, is it valid?
     Origin of this study

     The Apostolic Letter on Anglican Ordinations

     Reminder of certain truths

     Reform of the Ordo Missæ: extent and depth of the subversion;
     the aim of the reformers

     Corruption of the Mass to bring it into line with the
     Protestant Supper:
          A - Defect of intention
          B - Defect of form

     Conclusion

     Additional remarks regarding the intention of those who have used the
     Novus Ordo Missæ in good faith

INSIDE BACK COVER

     "I believe the whole revealed dogma as taught by the Apostles to the Church, and as declared by the Church to me.  I receive it, as it is infallibly interpreted by the authority to whom it is thus committed, and (implicitly) as it shall be, in like manner, further interpreted by that same authority till the end of time.  I submit, moreover, to the universally received traditions of the Church, in which lies the matter of those new dogmatic definitions which are from time to time made, and which in all times are the clothing and illustration of the Catholic dogma."

John Henry Cardinal Newman Apologia pro Vita Sua Chapter V: "Position of my mind since 1845"

NOTE: The addresses shown above are no longer valid and are shown merely for documentary purposes