Moreover, I maintain and profess, without doubting, all the other teachings handed down, defined, and declared in the Sacred Canons by the Ecumenical Councils, especially by the Most Holy Council of Trent and by the [First] Ecumenical Vatican Council, particularly that of the Primacy and the Infallible Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff; and at the same time I condemn, reject, and abominate all opinions to the contrary and all heresies whatever which the Church condemns, rejects, and anathematizes.

I, N..., promise, vow, and swear that, with God’s help, I shall most constantly hold and profess this true Catholic faith, outside which no one can be saved and which I now freely profess and truly hold. With the help of God, I shall profess it whole and unblemished to my dying breath; and, to the best of my ability, I shall see to it that my subjects and those entrusted to me by virtue of my office hold it, teach it, and preach it. So help me God and His holy Gospels. (Appendix III).

The foregoing comes from the Oath known as "The Profession of Faith," which all priests are required by the Code of Canon Law to take both before and after their Ordination. Who would not say that it is highly providential that this Oath makes specific mention of the decrees of the Council of Trent (which defined the doctrines of the Mass) and the First Vatican Council (which defined the doctrine of Papal Infallibility)?

The "Profession" concerns Catholic doctrinal belief. It is made regardless of all earthly authority. It is made directly to God, before the Tabernacle of the King of kings. Nothing could possibly happen to make its tenets untrue, hence, to dispense any priest who pronounces it, be he Pope or simple curate. It seems that most priests have been so affected by the "spirit of renewal" (read: "Revolution"), that they feel no obligation at all to this commitment. In a way, therefore, they are no different from some of their confreres who have abandoned their priestly ministry altogether; that is, they do what they are allowed to do instead of what they promised.

The Oath is unconditional. The Church is "in command." No one has to take it; but one must take it if he is going to enter the priesthood or, having entered, ascend to a higher office and dignity. The Code of Canon Law requires that it be taken before the reception of the subdiaconate. After ordination it must be reiterated before faculties are granted for preaching, teaching, or hearing confessions. It is required again when one receives a pastorate or professorship in a Catholic college or seminary where one intends to teach philosophy or theology. It must be renewed by a bishop-elect and a cardinal-elect and by him who accedes to the papal throne.

Since those who have higher rank in the Church must have taken this Oath more frequently, it must be a graver thing for prelates to violate it than for those "down in the ranks." One feels inclined to say that the former are more strongly bound by it for that reason, if such were possible.

One thing is certain, the Oath is absolute; it is strictly worded – clearly, and uncompromisingly. There can be no excuse for a cleric not knowing what it says or what it means. There is nothing in it which suggests its terms are alterable or dispensable. No reason – even a direct command from the Supreme Pontiff – is conceived for its future retraction.

No great imagination is required to appreciate how much strength the Church has derived from such a commitment on the part of each of its priests, when each of them adhered to this Oath literally and fearlessly. No wonder the Revolutionists who now infest the Church had to begin the process of emasculating and eventually discarding the Oath. You may remember a few years ago they began by abbreviating its companion, the Oath Against Modernism. You can be sure it was only the first shot! And no wonder that, while the cry of obedience to the Pope is being dinned into our ears, mention of this Oath is regarded as a most impolite digression.

Every priest takes the Oath individually. What a grand and bold affirmation it is, and how gladly and proudly we uttered it! In that day, we were ready for the sword of the lions! (Bring them on!) The faithful are bound to wonder whether their priests would (or should I say, could) bring themselves to repeat the ceremony now, in view of recent events, using the very same words they used in the adventurous days of their subdiaconate. Would they, or do they now, have some reservations? Would they now, at least internally, attach certain conditions?

Most priests, if they were honest (in a simple, child-like way – not in an "adult" way), wold admit they have excused themselves from the literal terms of their priestly Oath. This is a nice way of saying they have perjured themselves through their acceptance of the "New Mass," whose very existence is a clear and inarguable violation of the Canons of the Council of Trent. To have accepted the "faith" represented by the "Novus Ordo" is to have abandoned that of Trent and to have apostatized from it. And every time they follow the "New Order," they are renewing that original forswearal (A less abrasive word than "lie").

Such priests exist, therefore, in a condition very similar to those who live in adulterous marriages, only worse. Adulterers live in sin and compound their guilt with every act of intercourse. Those priests, however, add the dimension of sacrilege to their perjury when they parody the Mass.

Well did the prophet Ezechiel say of them:

Her priests have despised my law, and have defiled my sanctuaries: they have put no difference between holy and profane: nor have distinguished between the polluted and the clean: and they have turned away their eyes from my sabbaths, and I was profaned in the midst of them. Ezechiel 22:26

Therefore, the dilemma for priests nowadays is more compelling than they wish to admit: Either they must acknowledge they do not believe any longer the tenets of the Council of Trent and do subscribe to the "New Religion" with its worship of man, or they are falsely performing the rites of the "New Religion," while secretly holding to the "Old Faith." In their present predicament, they will have to decide which is the greater sin, as well as which sin they choose to be damned for. I really should say "sins," because, as you can see, their acts have many dimensions.

For the present, it looks as if most of them will continue to convince themselves that the "New Mass" is the "Old Mass," that the "New Religion" is the True Religion, that there is no essential difference between what was and what is. All the while the will keep their eyes peeled for a "break" in the situation, keep a careful count of the months before their retirement, when they will say the "Tridentine Mass" privately, just to be on the safe side! They will also keep up a lively interest in the question of whether Pope Paul VI will retire; there is some hope in that quarter!

During the interim, they will keep telling themselves they are doing the prudent thing, rendering the greatest service to the people, maintaining the peace, keeping things going, saying their prayers, trying to make the "New Liturgy" as respectable-looking as possible! They will scrupulously avoid consulting their theology texts and "pre-Conciliar" papal writings. The Council made all those obsolete you understand. They will find themselves treating as some kind of malevolent strangers those few daring, single-minded people (for it takes daring), who account them with bland and blunt questions, which need highly-technical theology training to understand the answers to. You know: "But, Father, how can you justify....?"; "But it says right here in this book....!" Etc. Having become accessory to the negation of all traditional belief and authority, they will perforce run to hide behind the skirts of their "Revolutionary ‘mother church,’" which can dispense them from anything and everything.

They do not want to see it or to be reminded of it, but the fact remains: these "middle-of-the-road" padres, these many-hued ministers of the "New Establishment," have become a new-born generation of T. S. Eliot’s "hollow men," "men of straw." They are the compliant "yes-men" which the Revolution produces and finds so useful. And they work so hard, preoccupying their minds, drowning out their consciences. Watching them, one cannot help recalling Orwell’s work-horses in Animal Farm. As Father Fahey wrote: "Profanation of the Blessed Eucharist has, on many occasions at least, been part of the preparation of apostate Catholics to be fitting instruments of revolution...." (65)

They pretend such great independence and voluntariness and such strong belief, all as if nothing untoward were happening in the whole wide world. On "safe" subjects, they are veritable titans of Orthodoxy and principle. (Grrrr!).

They are such dutiful and honorable men, not because they are servants of Christ, but because they are insecure, nervous, and unhappy. They used to be leaders, men of discipline, a force to be reckoned with. (The atheist Nietsche warned his followers to keep a safe distance from them.) Now they are hasbeens, relics, cast-offs. They are without purpose, without dedication; there is a thorn in their side, a pebble in their shoe, and a scar across their eyes. All their answers are circuitous; they wish to change the subject. "But if the salt lose its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing anymore but to be cast out, and to trodden on by men." (Mt. 5:13).

If they were honest, they would at least consider seriously the contentions made in these pages; they should have made them long before now. There is no excuse for this. Either such men should never have been ordained, or they are using their priesthood as a benefice. However, the reason these priests have not given the matter any thought is that those of their confreres who are customarily more alert to matters theological, and their bishops, have played the coward and not dared to raise the question for them to consider. A perusal of periodicals written for priests during the past few years is a perfect example. The "New Mass" is usually treated in the "question-and-answer" columns. I need not describe the pettifoggery one encounters there.

The conclusions I have come to here do, of course, seem extreme. The reason, however, is not that my conclusions are inaccurate, but because most priests have ceased to mean what they say. Is it too much to expect that they give sound reasons why they consider themselves no longer bound by their priestly oaths. Do not the people have a right to some sort of explanation? Since when is any Catholic – priest or layman – not supposed to have a good reason for everything he does? Indeed, here is the momentous glaring discrepancy in the whole "renewal" argument and effort: there are no adequate reasons for any of it! None of all its adherents seem to be able to deal with these questions according to the rules of honest argumentation. Their pusillanimous invocation of the Pope is well calculated to make our Religion what our worst enemies have always said it was, even though our enemies knew better. Their efforts to justify the insufferable "New Mass" amount to one argument: "The Pope said to!" And this is the Faith without which there can be no salvation. Imagine!

All priests, cardinals not excluded, must return to the True Mass immediately. This obviously involves two steps – if they do not do the second, they still must do the first: (1) They must stop "saying" the "New Mass." They must completely separate themselves from it and the churches where it is "said" – or separate the "New Mass" from the churches in their care. They must desist doing anything to compromise themselves in this regard. To "say" the "New Mass" is an act of sacrilege and desecration. (2) They must begin to say the True Mass with total disregard for any earthly consequences, whenever and wherever this can be done, but only in accord with the Code of Canon Law. How they manage it is their affair; they are of age, strong, brave, and consecrated men. They will be surprised at how God will provide for them. Even should they have to suffer great hardships, these will serve as partial reparation for their previous disloyalty and infidelity, as well as the first installments on that great expiation which the whole Church must in time surely make for the Great Sacrilege. Let them be reminded that Pope St. Pius V, in Quo Primum, envisioned that penalties might someday be threatened those who adhered to his command. No matter what sufferings their act costs them, none are so cruel as those the Revolution has in store for them once it is through with them! They must proceed to offer the True Mass for as many of the faithful as they can get to attend it, as often as is possible and canonically permissible. They will find in this apostolate enough.

I need to add that a priest does not have to agree with all my contentions concerning the "New Mass" to be bound to the "Traditional Mass;" he is so bound by his Oath, independently of all other considerations.

Let priests take their example from those six thousand priests of Spain who, in a body, swore they would never accept the "New Mass." (66) Many questions suggest themselves by this heroic act, none of which, by the way, clerical periodicals have dared to raise. The only question I have is, "Where as the Americans?"

Now, it is my grave obligation to act as a pastor and confessor and say what lay Catholics must do in view of what we have found the "Novus Ordo" to be. With the deliberate intention of preparing the reader, I have already mentioned these obligations in passing; now I must spell them out in detail. I emphasize again that Catholics will be able to realize the truth of what I am saying only if they have grasped the terrible fact of the Great Sacrilege. No doubt, even after this belabored expose, many will be tempted to describe as extremism that which follows, and upon their finding themselves completely circumscribed, as they will, they may tend to imagine their plight as somehow of my doing.

Let them recall once again that the first and principal purpose of the Holy Mass is the adoration of the Most Blessed Trinity. This purpose precedes and dominates all other considerations, including our own salvation. Many will wish to circumvent the conclusions of this book, not because insufficient evidence has been adduced, but because the "New Mass’s" innate falsity and wickedness impose upon them what seem to be excessively strict obligations. Let them look for excuses and subterfuges to their heart’s content. We can tell them in advance that their efforts will avail nothing. Woe to them if they are not honest about it!

While they are searching, they will need to keep two principles in mind. First, unless a person is completely certain that I am wrong concerning what the "New Mass" is and what it is not, he may not attend it. In other words, unless he can explain away the countless incongruities, the doctrinal faultiness, and the calculated deceitfulness of this unspeakable Harlequinade, as well as supply ecclesiastical, legal reason for its very existence, unless he can produce a valid argument for the "New Mass," which the Pope of Rome himself has not done to this very date, he is strictly bound to stay away from it altogether.

The Church forbids us to act under doubt where a question of morality or liceity exists in a case where the Mass or the Sacraments are concerned. In a word, one is bound in conscience to choose the safer course.

Moreover, the first inclination many people will have, due to the disturbance which these facts cause them, will be to rush to their nearest priest, that he might console them, quiet their scruples, and airily brush aside this whole matter. Such people will do so at their own risk. The idea of taking this book to their priests is not only a good one, it is a necessary one. But let them not allow any priest to discount these many pages with a sentence or two. If he is able to refute my arguments, by all means let him! This writer will be as much in his debt as anyone. The main theses of this book cannot be refuted with a few off-handed, facetious remarks or some stammering double-talk – if they can be refuted at all, which I defy anyone to attempt. He who allows himself to be so easily placated need not make plans to blame the priests for his own damnation.

Now, therefore, after we have busied ourselves casting such generous blame on the clergy, from the Sovereign Pontiff to the most unsuspecting and well-meaning curate, we get to the part where we see who among us has the right to throw any stones at others. As the excellent Father Lawrence Brey has written, "This matter [of the Holy Mass] may well be the final test of orthodoxy, the auto de fe of the latter times, which will differentiate the true remnant Church and its faithful from the growing body of apostates who have affiliated themselves with the new religion of the Beast." (67) The True Mass has truly become the "atuo de fe." Every Catholic can know with certainty whether he stands with Christ or against Him. The line is clearly drawn. "He that can take, let him take it." (Mt. 19:12) No one is free to be indifferent or non-commital, or to feign uninvolvement. There is no middle ground to flee to. The "New Religion" is no religion at all, but the beguiling Siren-song of the terrible and unappeasable Revolution; and the "New Mass" is its malicious ploy, its official, brazen affront to God the All-Blessed, and to Jesus Christ the God-Man. To accept either the "New Religion" or the "New Mass" is to assent to both; it is an act of rejection of the True Faith, without which one cannot be saved. Attendance at the "New Mass" is a positive act of infidelity, a sin against the First Commandment, against the virtue of religion, and a violation of all the laws of the Church which have to do with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. In a word, attendance at the "New Mass" is a mortal sin. This statement is strong enough, but not the whole story. The following principles derive from it:

1. It is wrong to receive Holy Communion at such "masses," or to receive "hosts" which have been "consecrated" at them. The same principle applies whether one is well or sick, or even in danger of death. It should be understood that the main issue here is not whether these "hosts" are validly consecrated, but whether they come from the sacrilegious "New Mass."

2. All churches where the "New Mass" is "celebrated" must be regarded as desecrated sanctuaries, in that "impious and sordid actions" have been committed there. (Canon 1172, Par. 1.3). Therefore, the True Mass should not be offered in them, nor should anyone attend the True Mass offered in them. Further, other services which are held in such churches must be avoided if they have any connection with the "celebration" of the "New Mass." These include Benediction, Confirmations, marriages, funerals, etc. It would seem that the only acceptable reasons one might have for entering these churches at all is to attend a Baptism or go to Confession. At this statement, some may find themselves bestirred as they have not been from the beginning of this writing until now. They will say: "Now, this is too much! We may not even attend weddings and funerals in our own churches? Why, we have always been allowed to go to Protestant churches for such occasions!" My answer is: Eureka! Now you are catching on! It is permissible to go to Protestant churches for social reasons. But such services, no matter how greatly they resemble it, and no matter how dissident their doctrine, are not to be regarded as irreverent Mimicries of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Of set purpose, Protestant services are not and explicitly claim not to be the Eternal Sacrifice of the Mass. Perhaps before we are finished here, the meaning of the Revolution will have become clearer. For, truly, this is our situation: Through the "New Mass," those who treasure the Faith and who fear God have been virtually excluded from their own places of worship, just as Christ Himself, His Mother, and the angels and saints have been rudely cast out. Surely we should not be surprised. Did not our Divine Redeemer warn us: "The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you." (Jn. 15:20).

3. For the protection of one’s orthodoxy, it is necessary to have nothing to do with the perjured ministers of the "New Religion" who prefer being "presidents" to being priests. It is obvious that they cannot be trusted. They have compromised their priesthood, their honor, their faith for a little security they are like walking dead men, disease-bearers. They will tell anyone anything to be allowed to remain on the "inside," to be assured of a place to stay, and to be thought obedient. Particularly, these parasitic pariahs must not be allowed to influence out children. It is difficult enough to rear children in these days without having all one’s efforts ruined by the likes of them.

4. There is no reason in the world why one should feel obliged to continue to give money to support the: "New Church." In fact, it is morally wrong to do so. For it benefits the enemies of Christ, contributes to the strengthening of their hold on the Church, and helps them to perpetuate their tyranny. I can think of one thing more foolish than the foregoing: that is to continue to ask these ‘presidents" to "say" "mass" for one’s intentions. Rather, if you have mistakenly given stipends for this person, ask for them back.

5. Children should be removed immediately from those parish schools whose churches permit the "New Mass," no matter how "decently" it is "said." These are literally "schools of scandal" where the doctrines of the Revolution are systematically inculcated into their minds. Some will say: "But Catholic schools are better than public schools." In this respect – which takes precedence over all others – they are not. For all their corruption, no state schools (yet) have pseudo-religious ceremonies in which the Mass is buffooned. If one had his child in a state-owned school in which the Catholic Mass were travestied as a matter of daily schedule, would he not be bound to take his child from such a place, even at the risk of going to prison. We are in the midst of the Revolution. For this reason parents should not be surprised to find their own schools forbidden to them.

Some will say: "It is not my responsibility to decide about the Mass; it is the priests’ and the bishops’ and the Pope’s. If they do not provide the Mass, they will have to suffer for it." Such talk bespeaks a jaded spirit and is very common among lukewarm Catholics. This is a Protestant attitude. It bases everything on the avoidance of sin and the achieving of salvation. Our religion has a higher motivation. The main concern of this writing is not "who is guilty and who is going to pay," but the proper adoration of God and the defense of His honor. God knows well the clergy will suffer for their great betrayal and their niggardly cowardice. We can only pray that our beloved Lord will have mercy on them, so that they may turn and make amends before it is too late. It seems safe to say, they will be converted as soon as the people require it of them and prove themselves worthy of the Mass, so painlessly relinquished. But the answer to the objection given above is that, if the clergy provide a sacrilege instead of a Mass, the faithful may not substitute the one for the other – fulfilling their obligation of worshiping Almighty God by insulting Him – just because that is what is scheduled for Sunday. If the father hand his son a stone instead of a loaf, is the son going to eat it? (Mt. 7:9).

Some may say: "I would have discontinued going to the ‘New Mass’ long ago if it were not for the children. How am I going to teach the children to go to church unless I take them?" This is neat logic. You have no food for your children, so, in order that they may not forget how to eat, you will give them poison! It is this kind of warped reasoning which has prepared us all for our present plight. Instead of facing up to the fact that we are in the very midst of the Revolution, these people would hand their children over to ravagers, almost out of spite. They will submit their children to be scandalized so that those priests whose responsibility it is to instruct them will come to deserve their damnation! Such an attitude is reminiscent of the harlot who, after having lost her own child, wished King Solomon to slice her neighbors child in two. (3 Kgs. 3:24-25). Let such unworthy, lazy parents as this be assured they will have a warm, cozy bed waiting for them in Hell. It should not have to be said, but I want to be sure to say it: This kind of talk treats children as if they were no more than dumb animals. Would it ever occur to such parents to tell their children with truth and proper earnestness of the times they live in, to prepare them for even greater tests of their faith, and to arm them with the sword of the Spirit, lest when the challenge comes, their children be incapable even recognizing its demands, much less fulfilling them. What do parents think their counterparts must do in countries where Communism has shown its full power and hatefulness?

Some may wish to accuse me of commanding the faithful to leave the Catholic Church. By no means. The point being made here is that Catholics have no choice but to withdraw from the pernicious Burlesque called the "New Mass" and to keep themselves clear of the sin and scandal involved in having any part in it. The obvious implication is that the people must demand that this hideous Distortion be cleansed from the House of God; they must turn out the "priests of Baal;" and they must arrange for Masses of reparation to be offered – immediately is not soon enough. The faithful must demand Catholic bishops for their dioceses, Catholic priests for their parishes, and Catholic teachers for their schools. If the people do not bring such a restoration about, let them not be surprised if God does it directly. But if they wait for God to do it, let them expect that He will count them party to the Crime, for so, as of now, most of them are. Surely, there is no need to remind anyone that the wrath of God is terrible indeed; only a fool would provoke it upon himself.

Below I will say what must be done by those who recognize the correctness of the preceding onerous injunctions and who determine that they have no choice but to obey them. But first I must offer a word of advice to those of you who think serving with Christ’s ragtag remnant will be too strong for your blood, or to ignominious. You have, of course, two other choices. I urge you to come to a decision as quickly as possible for your own peace of mind. You can either give up your religion altogether, (as many have done) in a spirit of small-souled indignation and disloyalty, since it is, after all, unreasonable to expect you to do more for the Church now than you ever have or ever intended. Or, you can go along with the "New Religion," yield to he subversion of your own faith and that of others, thus helping the cause of "peace," and continue "dutifully" to attend the "New Mass," thus adding your voice to the communal blasphemy of the Divine Majesty and the Holy Mass. (You really would be missed if you were not there, you know.) I say again: make a decision. And should you thus decide to surrender without a struggle, because this is surely the easiest and most "respectable" approach to your problem, I have further advice to give. By all means, do not merely surrender. Rather, join the Revolution, throw yourself into the effort, and dedicate yourself to its total program. Be either hot or cold in this present contest. Either take the side of the true Church, or take the side of those who intend to destroy it. In other words, play the game, win or lose. I so advise you because this is the way our Lord would advise you, He finding sluggishness and mediocrity and neutrality more contemptible than open hatred and hostility. (Apoc. 3:16).

If you do decide to continue in your new-found allegiance, I urge you to make the most of it. If you are going to abandon your faith, well then, what are you afraid of? Cast off all your "medieval moral inhibitions" and enjoy being "free." You are living as if the old rules still bound you, while you participate in the "rites" of your "liberation." Does that make sense? Look at all your brothers and sisters (look at the nuns); you see they have caught the spirit. If you must pay the bills for the "New Religion," you might as well get something out of it. I say again, jump in with both feet, do not look back, and "live it up!" In this way, you will have no complaints or regrets ever after, nor feel cheated when it is all over. Enjoy the Revolution’s current ascendancy and thrilling high ride. Enjoy the euphoria of living on extravagant promises and utopian dreams. Eat, drink, and be merry while you revel in the exciting anticipation of the coming New Age.

But whatever you do, do not be silly enough to imagine that there is anything at all in the promises for you personally, either on this earth or in the life to come. That would be to miss the point altogether. Whether you are one of the enthusiastic soldiers of the Revolution or just one of its harmless serialized slaves, you must understand that the Revolution promises you nothing. You have never heard it promise you virtue, nor union with God, nor final repentance, nor heavenly beatitude. In return for your renunciation of Catholicism and of your own person, the Revolution promises you only a Cause, and the final exaltation of the Community. This is what the Revolution says, and this is what it means. In this respect, at least, it is honest. I tell you these things, that when finally the Church revives, and with one mighty play, scores a great victory, you will not have missed your part of the fun.

Now for those of you who are still with me, who will dare to stand with Mary, the Sorrowful Mother, at the foot of Christ’s Cross, I have these further instructions. You are wondering, I know, about your obligation to attend Holy Mass. Well, you must do all in your power to attend the True Mass as often as possible. There can be no sin in being unable to get to one, though it is understandable that greater effort must be put forth during these days than formerly. "For this is a very evil time." (Mich. 2:3). You must band together, obtain places which can be made to serve for chapels, and have priests come to offer the Holy Sacrifice – provided, I must emphasize, all things are done in accordance with the Code of Canon Law and with suitable decorum. Faithful priests and faithful people must find each other.

The principal intentions of these Masses should be the following:

1. Reparation for the countless acts of sacrilege being committed against the freshly crucified Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ.

2. The earnest petition for the conversion of the presently-reigning Supreme Pontiff, that he may himself restore the True Mass.

3. The petition for all bishops and priests, that God may grant them the grace to "fulfill their ministries." (2 Tim. 4:5).

4. The revival of love for Holy Mother Church among all its members, the calling of young Catholics back to The Faith, the conversion of all men (especially the Jews), the liberation of all nations and peoples from slavery and despotism, the restitution of all lands and possessions to their rightful owners, the healing of all wounds, and the magnanimous assistance of all "Christ’s poor."

When Mass cannot be attended, you must pray the Rosary. While the Rosary is in no sense a substitute for the Mass, or any of the other Sacraments – an error that is disturbingly widespread these days – it is well-known that God has given the deliverance of our age from its present desolation into the hands of Our Lady of Fatima, under the title of the Immaculate Heart. It is she who will triumph in the end over the forces of the Revolution, just as she promised.

You should also make it a frequent practice to read the prayers of the missal. If you are completely deprived of the Mass, this devotion will help you not to lose all familiarity with it. More important, these prayers are in every way perfect and most pleasing to God. They may be taken individually and made the subject of meditations. On Sundays and holydays, reading all the prayers which the faithful priests in their various nooks and crannies are saying at the altar is a most excellent thing. Such devotions, admittedly, may leave your heart heavy, but will prove very beneficial for the soul. Offer your desolation for Catholics behind the Iron Curtain who must do the same thing.

To the foregoing I must add two further notes:

First: Over the past few years there have been many attempts to win official permission for the retention of the "Tridentine Mass" as a kindness to those who prefer it to the great Forgery. Letters of petition have been drafted, long lists of names have been compiled, even impressive marches have been held in Rome. There is no doubt that those who have promoted and assisted these efforts have had the best of intentions and that they have achieved some good results. In my humble opinion, these fervent and generous souls seem to have shot wide of the mark. For one thing, Pope Paul VI is not going to yield to these requests in a spirit of kindness. He thinks it is an act of greatest kindness on his part to have attempted to rid the Church of the traditional Mass. The good purpose served by these popular vociferations is to slow down somewhat the further stages of the Program. Another thing, in case loyal Catholics do not perceive it, they should at least be realistic enough to know that those who are in power understand perfectly that there is a total incompatibility between the unspeakable Affront called the "Novus Ordo" and the beauteous Catholic Mass. The authorities know perfectly well what these "Latinists" are driving at, namely, to prove that the faithful prefer the True Mass. There is no need to prove this to these tyrants. Furthermore, the idea of making pitiful entreaties for the merest crumb of what is already perpetually ours only serves to make us appear contemptible. But the basic mistake these petitioners are making is this: They are much more concerned with their own privation than with the glory of God. The implication of their argument is, "If you will allows us to have the Tridentine Mass, we will cease to bother you. We will learn to live with the ‘Novus Ordo’ and make no objection to its performance in our churches." Apparently these people are unconcerned about the insolent dishonor which this damnable Play-mass flings in the Face of God the All-perfect. If they do not, they ought to know very well that the "New Mass" is not Catholic, that it is expressive of an anti-religion.

Let us have no more of this unworthy compromise and this groveling obsequiousness. Whether you write or speak or march, this must be your insistent and indignant demand: "AWAY WITH THE GREAT FRAUD! WE WILL BE CATHOLIC! WE WILL HAVE OUR MASS! We will no longer abide the base profanation of our churches, nor the unholy pantomiming of the all-holy Sacrifice!" To compromise with the usurpers and ravishers of the Holy Church is against every Catholic virtue. It is to come to terms with Christ’s tormentors. Those who have undertaken the praiseworthy labor of restoring the Mass must remember the words of Saint Paul:

Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? 2 Corinthians 6:14-15

Second, I urge all to make it their private apostolate to get a copy of this book into the hands of as many priests (and bishops) as they can. I would hope that the reasons are obvious. Every priest must be given a chance to decide whether he will choose Christ or Baal. If he cannot refute the contentions made here, particularly those which pertain to the liceity of the "New Mass," he knows he is bound to desist immediately from "saying" it.

If, after having had an opportunity to acquaint himself with the moral alternatives involved in this matter, he chooses to profess the "New Religion," "let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican." (Mt. 18:17). But if he thinks he can refute these contentions point-for-point, then he has an obligation in justice to do so either in writing, or to accept my challenge to debate him, which I shall offer presently. His obligation derives from the necessity of defending the "New Mass" as all that it is supposed to be and of thereby stopping the circulation of this incendiary little missile.

Footnotes.

64. O Sacrum Convivium, Magnificat Antiphon from the Second Vespers of the Feast of Corpus Christi. Roman Breviary.

65. The Kingship of Christ and Organized Naturalism. Rev. Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp. Regina Publications. Dublin. P. unknown.

67. "The Final Test of Orthodoxy." Rev. Lawrence Brey. Pro Multis. No. 1. Box 276, Palos Park, Ill.