CHAPTER THREE THE GREAT SACRILEGE Before going further, I ask you to remind yourself what is at stake, the most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Recall that God has given us nothing more perfect or tremendous, of which the Council of Trent said:
Of the Mass the marvelous St. Leonard of Port Maurice said:
Calling attention to the central necessity of the Mass in our lives, the great Fr. Fahey wrote:
I have chosen these quotations at random. They could be multiplied indefinitely; books could be filled with them. Every saint has taken joy in speaking and writing about the glories of the Mass. Catholics have undergone most terrible sufferings and even death in order that they might attend it, and for having done so. Hardly a single Pope has failed to write some word of inspiration for the faithful about it. What can the likes of me add to such a tradition and to such a devotion? Yet I must make an effort, at his point, to recall something of the splendor and indispensableness of the Holy Sacrifice, in order that you may not fail to appreciate the seriousness of our present concern. For, one of the (countless) unhappy results of the coming of the "New Mass" is that words of thanksgiving and praise of the True Mass are less frequently heard, so that we are likely to treasure it less, or rarely to be reminded of its preciousness. I need also to make the effort to convince you that I would never write as I will in the pages that follow did the subject not require it. Even so, it will be painful enough. Perhaps this very anguish explains why it has not been done in a more worthy fashion by someone who is better qualified. Perhaps too, this is the reason why many others have not spoken out, it being not just a lack of courage. As Mary and Joseph sought to protect their innocent Son from Herod, so are we all bound to protect and honor the Mass and the Blessed Sacrament. We are not free merely not to profane it ourselves, but duty-bound to "throw our own bodies over it," as it were, to protect it from the least irreverence, to risk whatever consequences in the effort, and consider ourselves extremely blessed if we are called upon to do such a thing. There is simply nothing as holy and wonderful as the Mass. The Mass is Christ in the act of offering His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, t the Father in sacrifice and to us for our spiritual nourishment, under hte humble and belying appearnaces of bread and wine. Because it is, in essence, the same act as that Death consummated on the Cross, it is equal to it in beauty, in perfection, and in power. Nothing on earth could be more pleasing to God than for the True Mass to be offered worthily, nothing more expressive of the love that Christ our Savior has for His Father, an unquenchable and infinite love, nothing more suitable for manifesting the glory of the Divine Trinity. Like the Sacrifice of Calvary, it would have been sufficient for the salvation of the world had the Mass been offered only once, by Our Lord at the Last Supper. But out of the magnificence of His love, God has granted that it may be offered numberless times, thus adding , with each celebration, bounty to bounty, grace upon grace, "... good measure and pressed down and shaken together and running over...." (Lk. 6:38). The Holy Mass is the "wonderful exchange" and continuing intercourse the Church holds with its Lord and God through Christ, the Eternal and High Priest. It is the source and center of the Church’s life, because it is the Act by which the Church "barters" from God its Daily Bread, His mercy, His grace, and His munificence, surrendering to Him ever and again its one and only priceless Possession, its Head and Victim, His only-begotten Son. Without the Mass, truly, the Church would die from want of nourishment. (Is anyone ready to deny that the present deterioration, anemia, and faithlessness which have befallen the Church, and whose ravages can be seen in every quarter – but particularly among the clergy and religious – are anything else than the inevitable effects of the almost complete discontinuation of the True Mass in the Latin Rite? Who will deny that there is "a grievous famine in Samaria?") (3 Kgs. 18:2). The same must be said of the souls of men. Neither can they live in Christ without His Sacrifice and Sustenance. It is a most harmful notion to imagine otherwise. Every man requires this Event and this Sacrament if he is to reach that sanctity to which he is called and to which his inner being is drawn. He needs this prayer and mutual exchange of selves and communion with the Triune God if he is to rise to that transcendent existence which conditions one for eternal life. And, desire the well-intentioned enthusiasm of the "born-again Christians," the words of the Blessed Savior still hold true: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." (Jn. 6:54). What I say here is not new to Catholic readers. They are used to hearing it rom their parish priests, or at least once were. They need to be reminded of such things afresh, as most of them have not yet considered the frightful vacuum into which they have been cast. No doubt, in many cases it is due to their previous poor attention to the Divine bountifulness of the Mass that they are now so indifferent to being deprived of it. The basic theses of this little tract requires that they themselves have a modicum of spiritual sensitivity, or, to say it better, love of God, lest they imagine my language too sharp or the issue here exaggerated. Unless they believe the dogmatic truth that they cannot be saved — and therefore will be lost — without the Holy Sacrifice and the "Bread of Angels," they will continue lackadaisically to trust their lackadaisical bishops and priests, who tell them anything to keep them quiet and benign, who themselves admit they are resting their total faith on the strange and nebulous words of Pope Paul VI, all their previous credos and preachments and studies to the contrary notwithstanding.
B. THE COUNCIL OF TRENT AND THE TRUE MASS
If and I have any inkling of the holiness and the necessity of the Mass, it is due in n osmall degree to the Council of Trent (1545-1563), which is described in the Enchiridion as "the greatest and most fruitful of all the Councils" ("excellentissimum atque fertilissimum omnium conciliorum"), (13) as well as to the Popes who reigned during the years of its convention and promulgated its decrees, particularly Julius III (1550-1555) and Pius IV (1559-1565). But we owe our greatest debt of gratitude to Pope St. Pius V (1566-1572), whose reign followed its closing, but whose pontificate and personal sanctity so perfectly typified the spirit and magnified the influence of the Council. Until our present era, Catholics, especially the Hierarchy, took pride in and guidance from the tradition and the doctrine enunciated by both the Council of Trent and by St. Pius V. For our present purposes, it is very important to know these facts: 1. The Council of Trent was the least innovative of all the Councils and was most unapologetically Counter-Reformationist. Regarding the Blessed Eucharist, it wished to reassert the doctrines "taught by Christ Jesus Our Lord and His Apostles;" its predominant concern was the "uprooting of the execrable cockle of error and schism which a human enemy has sown during our tragic time amidst the doctrine, the practice, and the cult of the most Holy Eucharist, which Our Savior left in His Church as a symbol of His unity and charity." (14) 2. The Decrees of the Council on the Holy Mass have always been understood to be ex cathedra definitions:
3. The relationship between the doctrinal and moral truths and the various rites and prayers and symbols was understood to be so intimate, so integral, that the latter were both the expression and the protection of the former. The "reformers" dared to ridicule the sacred ritual of the Mass, and, in their own fabrications, eliminated all but a few ceremonies on the excuse, mind you, that they were "purifying" Christian worship of its superstitious accretions; they were returning to the practice of the Early Church, for which reason the Fathers of the Council of Trent decreed:
And therefore:
C. POPE ST. PIUS V, QUO PRIMUM AND THE TRUE MASS
In their zeal to justify the confusion they have helped to bring upon the Church, some present-day "reformers" have felt compelled to take a few swipes at the person of Pope St. Pius V – who, for obvious reasons, has become the patron of those who are now the "un-people" of the "New Religion." This giant, even among giants, this "Super-Pope" (as our children would call him, if they were allowed to hear his true story), does not need the likes of me to defend him or anything about his pontificate; such petty souls would have no ears for it anyways. How sad is their condition! They feel uncomfortable at being reminded of this pillar of orthodoxy, whose wisdom and goodness the Church herself has declared glorious; whose love of Our Lord, of His Holy Mother, and of the Church was exemplary; whose purity and austerity and indifference to men’s opinion were legend in his own day; whose sense of the loftiness and holy purpose of his papal authority was extraordinary; and whose intolerance of sin in general and heresy in particular was terrible! He knew what this generation seems determined to deny, how heresy causes sin, and consequently every kind of social disorder, injustice, and spiritual tragedy – and that for generations unending. He was fearfully sever toward selfishness and slovenliness among the clergy; falsity or disloyalty he would not have around him; and he ruled the Papal States as fairly and sternly as he did the Church. He was almost "too much," except that, within a few weeks after his election, the faithful, particularly the poor, realized that at last they had in the Pope, a protector, a father, a hero, and happiest of all, a saint, who required much more of himself than of anyone else. (It does not hurt to notice that this man who ruled with strictest justice, who made no effort to be popular, was well-loved and willingly obeyed by his Flock. Should this not say something to the clergy of our generation?) Perhaps the most characteristic quality of St. Pius’ reign was its authoritativeness. When one reads the Saint’s decree, Quo Primum, one cannot deny that it was his intention to give it all the force with which his Office empowered him, both legislative and magisterial. He obviously had not the slightest doubt that he had the right to speak as he was doing; it did not occur to him that he could not legislate for all time to come; he could not imagine that any Catholic would ever consider his language unorthodox; and no Pope nor Doctor of the Church has ever suggested that he was doing other than following in the true tradition of the Papacy, which has charge of the Keys of the Kingdom. From the point of view of its phrasing, one could hardly imagine a more authoritative statement or a more stringently binding law, or an edict which might conceivably be interpreted in any way other than as irrevocable. When one reads this decree, he cannot help wondering whether St. Pius had been given some premonition of our present age and our present situation, although the hatred of the Mass, which the Protestants on the Continent and in England were spreading with utter malice among the defenseless people in those days, is sufficient explanation for both the tone and the finality of it. Quo Primum is Pope St. Pius’ Bull introducing and imposing the Missale Romanum. Contrary to what is being said by many, the "Tridentine Mass" was not a "Novus Ordo" of its own day, nor was it ever thought to be by anyone.
There is, therefore, no such thing as a "Tridentine Mass," or a "Mass of St. Pius V," strictly speaking, for which reason I reluctantly use the terms here and do so in quotation marks. It is almost a concession to present-day "reformers" to employ such terms. Better to refer to it as "The Mas of the Roman Rite," or "The Traditional Catholic Mass," or the like. Before I am finished here, you will understand why I feel obligated to speak of it as the "True Mass," if you do not already. According to Fortescue, the work of the Tridentine Commission, which produced the Missale Romanum, consisted mainly of purging from the Liturgy disparate "medieval accretions" and established a single ceremonial for practically all the chruches of the Roman Rite. (19) In Appendix I, I quote the translation of Quo Primum in full; below I give what has become, over the last few years, a well-known excerpt. Read it carefully, as there follows a number of important deductions to be made from it. While reading it, keep in mind that every Successor of Pope St. Pius V has ratified this act of his, thirty-six in all. Though several of the Popes have authorized revisions and re-editions of the "Missale," all such revisions contain this letter as their first preface; all of them consciously abide by its legislation. And these revisions include the last edition, made by Pope John XXIII, dated July 25, 1960, which means that the age of Quo Primum is no argument whatsoever against its binding force; even he who summoned the Second Vatican Council seemed to feel bound by it, (at least, as of then). From Quo Primum"
These words gall modern-day enemies of the Holy Mass, as well they ought. They make a large swath. How the "reformers" wish they had never been written! It will be noticed that, in all their zeal for the vernacular, they studiously avoided putting a translation of these words into any of their "missals." A clear understanding of the meaning of St. Pius V’s law is absolutely necessary to follow the argument of this writing. We shall analyze Quo Primum in terms of those elements which are required for a valid law. 1. The Object of the law: The Missale Romanum is now the standard Missal of the Roman Rite. The Mass as it is codified herein is "normative;" it is the only Mass. Nor may there be any other; all other missals are proscribed from this day forward. The only exceptions to this rule are those missals which have been used continuously in certain places and by certain communities for at least two hundred years. The obvious implication being made here is that it is impossible to "create" a new "rite" within the Roman Rite, since no such rite would have any continuity with the traditions of the Church. The prayers and ritual of the Mass as they are formulated in the Missal are in perfect harmony with the doctrine of the Church particularly with the faith of the Council of Trent. That this harmony may be carefully reserved and that all danger of doctrinal corruption of ceremonial impropriety may be removed, this Missal is to be considered fixed and unalterable. No reason for making any major changes in it is envisioned. This decree condemns the idea that the Missal will ever need to be reformed. Consequently, any suggestion that a reform in it is necessary should be regarded as highly suspect and dangerous. Henceforth, this Missal will be one of the standards by which need for reform in the Church must be judged, and if the Church ever falls away from obedience to this decree, a liturgical reform will by that fact be called for, which will consist of a return to the use of this Missal. This is not to say that absolutely nothing can be changed in the "Missale." It will be for the Pope and him alone to make any changes in it which he may find necessary and advisable. However, since such changes can pertain only to details, it is out of the question that any changes at all could ever be described as absolutely necessary. In accord with this prescription, Pope Urban VIII, for instance, arranged for a simplification and clarification of some of the rubrics of the Mass in his revision of 1634. (21) It would seem, however, that even the slightest alteration made in the Canon of the Mass would be gravely contrary to a centuries-old liturgical tradition. (22) Only slightly less grave would be a change in the Ordinary of the Mass, which includes all the prayers and rubrics from the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar to the Last Gospel. With this decree, the Last Gospel was made an integral part of the rite. Latin is the liturgical language of the Roman Rite; the use of vernacular languages is forbidden. (23) 2. The subjects of the law: This Missal must be used in all the cathedrals, churches, chapels, oratories, etc., of the Roman Rite. Again, the only exceptions are those places and communities granted the exemption mentioned above. The law binds all Catholics of the Latin Church, including all priests, both secular and religious, chaplains, canons, religious superiors, administrators, all prelates, including bishops and even cardinals. Not only are these men bound to use the Missal, but they are strictly admonished to adhere to it scrupulously, neither omitting anything from it, altering it, nor adding anything to it, either by way of prayers or ceremonies. The full meaning of this ruling will be missed if the reader fails to recall that before this time, there was a great lack of uniformity in the manner of saying the Mass. This is not to say that there was doctrinal divergence; the variations were all minor and included prayers and ceremonies. Such variation is explained by the fact that there had never before been complete uniformity, such as this decree was then legislating; immemorial customs and special privileges and nationalistic influences explained the variety; and also, bishops of dioceses, heads of religious communities, even Catholic princes had been allowed some say in liturgical matters. The main effect of this decree was to deprive all who held authority over Catholics of such prerogatives, and to concentrate the right to legislate concerning the Holy Mass in the hands of the Supreme Pontiff himself. The attempt on the part of anyone to countermand this decree will be grossly sinful, scandalous, and gravely injurious to the Faith. Legally, it will be completely illicit, null and void, and bring on its perpetrators the heaviest censures. It is presumed that such an attempt would be made by one or more men – a prelate, a council, a group of bishops, a king, some government, or the like – who might be thought to have the authority to do it, and who might be able to make it look right, good, necessary, and urgent. All the faithful should understand in advance that nothing could justify such an action, nothing could legalize it. He who attempts to abolish this Missal – probably by the substitution of a counterfeit, could have only the same kind of intentions that the Protestant "Reformers" have proved themselves to have, namely, subversion and desecration. To do such a thing that person should be presumed to have the most sinister intentions and heterodox beliefs. His act will be judged by Almighty God and His Beloved Apostles as a direct assault on the Holy Mass and the True Faith. In a word, it will be a most terrible sin, a sacrilege, a brazen and wanton effort to destroy the Mass and the Church. Just as all those in authority are henceforth forbidden to change or replace the Missal, all their subjects are commanded to refuse any cooperation with the smallest gesture toward such a transgression. Priests particularly are directed to be ready to suffer ecclesiastical penalties for their refusal to "knuckle under." All cooperation must be regarded as participation and collaboration in this attack on the Mass and therefore gravely sinful, even sacrilegious. Obviously, if no one obeys such a command, the whole effort will be frustrated from the start, as well it ought. The violation of this law by any number of people, of whatever rank and prerogative, no matter how frequently, would never abrogate it or render it less binding on them and on all other Catholics, nor reduce in the least the gravity of the sin being committed the only effects of a general defiance of it would be to call down from Heaven a most terrible punishment upon all such rebels. 3. The penalties for violation of this law: To attempt to say Mass in a way different from that prescribed in the "Missale" is a serious sin of sacrilege. (A sacrilege is defined as the "violation of a sacred thing.") Further, to attempt to alter the Missale in an essential way is likewise a sacrilegious act. The ecclesiastical penalty for either of these sins is the incurrence of the censure of excommunication latae sententiae (i.e., the censure must be imposed by an ecclesiastical court after the sin has been proved). 4. The time of the law’s implementation: The decree requires that all the priests of the Roman Curia begin to use the Missale Romanum within a month of the date of its promulgation (July 14, 1570); those on the Italian side of the Alps must begin within three months; those on the other side of the Alps within six months or as soon as they can procure the new Missal. The decree must be considered irrevocable, for so its author meant it to be: "This present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain[s] always valid and retain[s] its full force.." (Appendix I). Therefore no one may validly repeal or countermand it, the reason being, it imposes a moral obligation from which no Catholic can be dispensed. As Catholics, the successors of Pope St. Pius V will be morally bound to adhere to, uphold, and enforce this law. It may be argued that since one Pope does not have the power to enact a law which his successors may not abrogate, Quo Primum may be abrogated, as it is thought to have been by Pope Paul VI. It is true that a Pope may not pass a merely ecclesiastical law which His successors may not abrogate, but it is the office and duty of every Pope to enunciate and specify moral obligations which are essential to the Christian life. In enacting the decree Quo Primum, St. Pius so specified the moral obligations of all Catholics. More than this, the Popes are expected to be the most perfect exemplars of all the moral obligations so enunciated by themselves and their predecessors, particularly such as pertain to the Divine Liturgy. The Missale Romanum is the codification of the Mass of the Roman Rite. It does two things therefore: it brings to an end the ritual development of the Mass, and it suppresses the use of all other missals. In effect, therefore, it identifies the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with the Mass of this "Missale," so that, henceforth, all Catholics are morally bound to direct the faith and reverence which are due the Holy Sacrifice, and all the doctrines expressed in and by it, toward the Mass of the Missale Romanum. Bear in mind, the Mass we are speaking of is, after all, essentially that to which the Council of Trent had reference to in its decrees and solemn definitions, which definitions all Catholics must give obeisance if they would be saved. By the decree Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius put the Mass in the hands of his successors for its protection, in an effort to do all that a Pope might do to establish its form as inviolable and unalterable. He sought to strengthen his law further by binding all Catholics, under pain of mortal sin and the threat of excommunication, to refuse obedience to anyone, even to a Pope, who should attempt to alter the Missal substantially. Though no Pope may bind by law his successors, because of the moral principles involved, all Popes are as bound to obey the prescriptions of Pope St. Pius’ decree as anyone else, only moreso. The one exception to this truth is that, whereas no one else may make the slightest change in the rite of the Mass, a Pope may licitly make incidental and minor ones which may improve it and be of benefit to the worship of the faithful. Recall that, as we have seen, Popes are not infallible in the exercise of their legislative power; they are capable of enacting both foolish and bad laws, of commanding that which is foolish and that which is sinful. Quo Primum cannot remove the possibility that, at some future time, a Pope may attempt legally to alter the Mass radically, or even to abolish it. Its main concern is to repose the Mass in the hands of him who is least likely to abuse it or to allow others to do so. Neither when the great Pope issued this decree nor even since, until very recently, has anyone questioned its validity. Many today, not understanding it clearly, have presumed to disregard its uncompromising language and claim that, as a "merely ecclesiastical law," it could be abrogated by any of the successors of St. Pius. Perhaps they will be checked somewhat in their offhandedness by being challenged to find an explicit admission from Pope Paul VI that he considers this law either revocable or to have been revoked by himself. It can also be said that no one of any stature has ever suggested that the Saint was over-reaching his papal authority by codifying the ritual of the Roman Mass, or by doing so in such apodictic terms. No one was startled or surprised when he issued Quo Primum, and the Church in his day accepted the Missale Romanum without quarrel or difficulty. It is only since the issuance of the "New Mass" of Pope Paul VI that many Catholics, particularly priests, have begun to question its irrevocability. They have done so out of their need to reconcile Quo Primum with the "New Mass" and with the murmurings of their own consciences. Not being able to do so honestly, they argue that, indeed, Pope St. Pius spoke extremely; his words should not be taken literally. In other words, he made a mistake. If these people would only study the decree, they would realize that there is no reason for them to proceed in such a fashion, nor will it do them any good, for the simple reason that its irrevocability is intrinsic to the nature of its object and purpose. Its object is the Holy Mass, which it seeks to give a final and definitive form, and its purpose is to provide maximum protection for the Mass in order to keep it doctrinally pure and liturgically inviolable. Its method is to consign the Mass and the Missal to the hands of the Supreme Pontiff only. He alone may make whatever accidental changes and adjustments which future circumstances and the wisdom of experience dictate; he alone and no one else.
Quo Primum takes for granted that neither the Pope nor anyone else may alter the "Missale" radically or replace it completely, for to do such a thing would necessarily violate the Mass itself and contradict all the traditions which gave it its form. There has never been a time when a Pope or anyone else had the right to design or create a Mass, since the formation of the Mass was the work of the Church over the centuries. A Mass must have evolved from the traditions of the Apostles themselves. The discussion which follows will in no way seek to prove the foregoing because any argument to the contrary is manifestly untenable. The question which now plagues the Church is to what extent Pope Paul VI has changed the Mass, wether in an essential way, or in merely secondary and non-essential details.
If the reader has begun to reach certain disturbing conclusions after having studied Pope St. Pius’ Apostolic Constitution, Quo Primum, let him, with prayer if necessary, steel himself to complete the task. Let him know that he is not the first person to arrive at them, however reluctantly. St. Pius, speaking with full consciousness of his authority, says in his decree that anyone who attempts to say Mass in a way which is radically different from that set forth in the Missale Romanum commits a very grave sin. Likewise, anyone who presumes to alter the "Missale" or to replace it, in order to have others say Mass thus differently commits a very grave sin. Such acts would be grievously sinful no matter who committed them because, of their nature, they would be totally antithetic to the True Mass and to the will of God, to Whom Mass is offered. These very things, of course, are what the presently-reigning Pope has done. He has begun to say Mass in a new way . He has thrown aside the Missale Romanum and put another book, called the Novus Ordo Missae, in its place, which book contains the formula for a completely new "mass." And he has informed the Catholics of the Roman Rite that the Old Mass is of no more use. From now on, he is saying, "This is your Mass" (Exod.32:4), speaking of a bureaucratically manufactured and unrecognizable Affair, which we now refer to (for want of a better name) as the "New Mass." Pope Paul VI has done exactly what Pope St. Pius said no one must ever do, what no one could ever do licitly, and what no one could ever do without most certainly inviting upon himself and all who take part in his sin the terrible "wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul." (Appendix I). Let me assure you that I know the magnitude of the what I am accusing. Am I imagining things? Look again, and see what St. Pius’ decree says. For it says what it says, even if no one pays attention!
The whole gigantic, sinful Act is before us all, no matter how reluctant we are to see it or to call it by its true name. Out of their great reverence for the Papacy and their love for an man whom Christ chooses to be His Vicar, all but a very, very few have refused to admit the truth, even to themselves: The presently-reigning Supreme Pontiff has perpetrated a direct attack on the all-holy Mass; he has committed the great and unspeakable Sacrilege! With painstaking gradualism, with plotted procedure, in consort with men not even of the Faith, he has engineered (or allowed the engineering of) the piecemeal dismantlement of the True Mass in each of its parts; he has cloven the indivisible – which is butchery – and replaced it with a Contrivance, a mere Shell and Charade.
The Pope’s Act is one of the great sins of all history, surpassing even those of Luther and Cranmer in its enormity, in its scandal, and in its infidelity, and rivaling those of Adam and Judas! From the day of the installation of the "New Mass," to this present one, the whole Church lies like a wounded animal, and the whole world watches in stunned disbelief. The disruption is complete. The churches are the scenes of countless, indescribable profanations, and the behavior of many Catholics, particularly many priests and religious, borders on total madness. At the sight of the appalling and ever-increasing disorder and immorality, many pious souls are unable to suppress the question which until this present era seemed mystically unreal: Could this be the time, and could the so-called Novus Ordo Missae be that thing, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet in his Eighth Chapter:
And could this namebearer of the Great Apostle be that mysterious personage spoken of by the far-seeing Eagle among the Evangelists:
Apocalypse 9:1-4 Can it be that this Pope is the "star" fallen from the holiest Office which a man may hold in the Church ("heaven"), and with the "key" of his "New Mass" have opened up the "pit" of Hell, from which now leap forth every sort of blasphemy, irreverence, and sacrilege? We are witnesses of it: what abomination has not been committed in one or another of the Lord’s sanctuaries, where the Eternal High Priest was but recently wont to renew His perfect Oblation. And all in attendance would say, "My Lord and My God!" And at the sight of the almost total renunciation of the Faith on the part of the Hierarchy of the Church and the lamentable confusedness of the clergy, we cannot help wondering how it is that our much-offended God has not already loosed His Avenging Angel. How will the prophecies be fulfilled? When and how will this incredible epoch end? In order to accomplish the task of introducing the "Novus Ordo," the Pope found it necessary to proceed methodically, to engage in a Program of hypocritical deception. Before the final form of this Mimic-mass was unveiled (as if what we have now were the final form), Pope Paul stood by while his "liturgists" picked apart the Mass of the Saints. And with every step, he pacified and cajoled the faithful with words of piety and religiosity, sanctuarying himself the while with the inviolability of the August Papacy and the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Does this accusation shock you? That it should is understandable because it is against our every inclination to see any fault at all in the Pope. You are confronted with the plainly visible fact, however. The intrinsic wickedness of this Act is clearly epitomized in the "New Mass," which, so it is being preached, you must attend at least every Sunday and Holyday – while the True Mass has been made "illicit" (As if that were possible by any power on earth or under the earth). It was ever the scheme of the Revolution to do the incredible, so that those who make the accusation will never be believed. And this scheme is aided by the muddled thinking about Papal Infallibility on the part of most Catholics. Added to this, in what is referred to as the "conservative camp," many have labored these last few years in an effort to circumvent the obvious and undeniable. Some have striven to find an excuse for the great Mockery, which is the "Novus Ordo;" others have felt bound to illegitimatize Pope Paul. Their ragged efforts have contributed to the creation of various persuasions and factions within the Church. But most of their theories satisfy their authors and a few others only, because parts were always left over. The "parts" were those Pope Paul himself played in bringing off this incredible Transplantation. Why is it necessary for anyone to theorize at all, so long as he keeps his catechism answers in mind? You and I are under no obligation to judge the conscience of Pope Paul VI, less perhaps his than that of any other human being. And the Act of abolishing the True Mass is too plainly visible for anyone to deny. To put it bluntly, as has happened in the past, a Pope has failed the Church. (Were such a thing not possible, we would never pray for him.) It is not ours to say how knowing or how guilty he is because we cannot know the state of his mind. I do not mean by this, however, to disparage his sanity, which seems unquestionable, and which it seems presumptuous to deny, as some have. I mean that we can judge only the material evil of the Act. This we can hardly keep from doing because, as I said above, the Thing is right here in front of us. That we must make a decision concerning it is a matter of our own faith and salvation. Does my accusation shock you, I ask again? Let me pose to you a further question: Does Pope Paul VI truly consider his "Novus Ordo" a Mass, or the Mass? If he does, why does he continue to permit every form of profanation of it? If, as is obviously the case, his bishops are either indifferent about or incapable of stopping its defilement, which is so rampant as to be one of its hallmarks, what is the Pope’s excuse? Does His Holiness lack the authority to bring such profanation to a halt? If he has the authority to sweep away the laws of all the other Popes, saying the while that he does so under the influence of the Holy Spirit and according to the "authentic traditions" of the Popes, does he not have the authority mere bishops to see that such abuses exist? (A brief note from his desk will incapacitate a bishop permanently!) Certainly not! Yet he has complained of them repeatedly, even in tears. Has he no idea what he might do about them? You could not make even yourself believe it! He has proved himself both shrewd and competent enough to do what no one would ever have dreamed possible; he has performed one of the most flagitious hoaxes of history – akin, terrible as it is to say, to the Black Mass. If the question of either its possibility or its permissibility had been posed to any Catholic theologian or historian or scholar, fifteen years ago, each would have said, unhesitatingly, the very thought of suc ha thing were tiself a profanation toward the Mass and an affront to the Papacy. It was just this very wonderful veneration of both the Pope and the Mass on the part of all Catholics, great and small, that was exploited for the accomplishment of this sinister Act. The Pope has not done this single-handedly, of course. The Vatican in recent years has taken on the appearances of the Federal Government of the United States: one never knows how is really in power. (For many years now, he who has authority in this country has had no power – if he values his life.) However, in a case of the danger of the least desecration of the Mass, Christ Himself would expect any Catholic to suffer torture and death rather than abet or aid it. More, he must endure anything rather than permit such an iniquity. No, you must admit it: This monstrous Transgression is the Pope’s own, at least to the extent that what only the Pope could do, what he alone had to do that it be accomplished, that much he did. Those who wanted not renewal, but revolution in the Catholic Liturgy knew well they would require the services of the Pope, and Pope Paul’s have been abundantly and (apparently) enthusiastically available. (24) And if my accusation does shock you, let me ask why. Is it not because accusing the Pope of such a misdeed seems to you more sacrilegious than what he has done to the Mass? If such be the case, could it possibly be that the whole grand program for your subversion has had its debilitating effect on your own sense of values? Contrary to what you once believed, do you now accept the notion that the August Sacrifice of Christ, that mediatory act by which all the prayers of men are capitulated in ("gathered up into") the Sacrifice of the Cross, is subject to any shape, any value, and any meaning this Pope or anyone else pleases to give it? Ignoring the law of Quo Primum, Pope Paul handed the Mass over to committees of "liturgists," "scholars," "translators," and Revolutionaries, that they might re-think, re-write, re-issue, and re-explain it. The net result is that now the "New Mass" has no definite form or meaning. Let me ask you another question: Is not my contention the least damning of all? Were it not better for this "New Mass" not to be a Mass, that it might be less offensive to God? After all, which is better to say: the Pope permits these profanations of a false "mass" or of a true one? Which is the greater sin? In my judgment this Facsimile is nothing but a sacrilege. But because it pretends to be the Mass, I could not go into a church and perform the abominations which the Pope, the bishops, and many priests call it "modern" to condone. Could you? And if you could not, how is it different with them; are they not also mere men? For all his divinely-bestowed sovereignty, the Pope is still not God, you know. Yes, I know it will be argued that the sacrileges are the exception and that they are not the "New Mass" itself. No, here is where you have failed to understand this clever Impiety. You have failed to notice that what you regard as sacrilegious is in no sense of the words really shocking or disturbing either to those who devised it, or for those who now enjoy it as the rite of their own liberation. If you understand the "New Mass" and the perverse thinking which produced it, you are in no way surprised that its appearance signaled and let loose in the churches every kind of frivolous and mad-cap antic, and that in the name of religion. Of its very nature, the "New Mass" "liberates" the "children of God" that they might make a game out of worship. It claims to be able to render holy and pleasing to God, "having the odor of sweetness," every crudity, every inanity, every indecency. It claims to have the power to dispense any brazen boor who favors it with his attendance from all faith, all rightness of heart, all humility, and every divine prescription. (No, the exceptions are the presently-reigning Pontiff, his cowed bishops, and their mousy priests, all of whom think it "kind" and "ecumenical" and "forbearing" to tolerate the many desecrations which the "Novus Ordo" of its very nature unleashes against itself, and – let it never be omitted – against the True Mass, which it mocks!) Some may say, you are identifying the abuses with the "New Mass" itself. I am saying that the "New Mass" IS the abuse of the True Mass! I am saying that, with the jettisoning of both the law and the spirit of Quo Primum, by that very act, the Pope has not only substituted something totally different from the Mass, but that it is of the very essence of the "New Mass" to permit every form of profanation, because the "New Mass" makes the good pleasure of the people its "liturgy." Intrinsic to the very idea of the "New Mass" is that the people who, in Marxist fashion, are being acclaimed – not God. They are misled who, in attempting to criticize the "New Mass," complain that the people have been made equal to the priest, or that the priest has been brought down to the level of the people. Oh no; rather, they have both been given the place of God! Not until you accept this incredible fact will you be able to see the whole matter, clearly, as shocking and ghastly as it is. Again, its sheer incredibility blinds us to what is right before us. Only this fact explains why the "New Liturgy" requires the complete riddance of the True Mass, and all that pertains to it. It could never coexist with the True Mass since it is diametrically opposite. Consider, for instance, how it has been necessary to purge completely even the architecture and adornment and all the appointments of our churches. For they bespeak the nature of the True Mass, so different from the "New Mass." Step by step, the altar was dismantled, the tabernacle was relegated, the statues were removed, the stations were taken down, the communion rail was hauled out. Everything symbolic of the mysteries and the glories of the Faith had to be cleared away. In their fanaticism and ignorance, they who accomplished this pleaded that these things were either old-fashioned or poor art, or some such nonsense. This is not to defend cheap or manufactured or soulless art-pieces. Nor is it a condemnation of all art that is contemporary. It is, rather, the exposure of this Revolutionary belligerence towards all things Catholic. Consider further how the priest now faces the people. He "presides" over their activities, and arranges that all be done for their pleasure and satisfaction. Yes, I know some will say, "You are going too far. You are talking about the most extreme cases." No, that is where you err. I am talking about those places where the "New Liturgy" has been truly understood and fully implemented. Your mistake is that you are thinking of those places where the priests and people have as yet failed to do so. They are nothing but foot-draggers, hold-outs; the priest there has somehow been able to compromise sufficiently so that he has kept his place, fended off the inevitable, while he has (somehow) kept his own conscience well-muzzled. Once he is gone, however, and he expects to be given his notice any day – all depends on the good pleasure of His Excellency, or his "associate-pastor," or the sisters, (now more to e feared than the wives of the sultan), or the parish council – "progress" will resume. Where this has already happened, the true setting for the "Novus Ordo" can be observed. The new churches speak volumes. Everything is centered around the Table. The Eucharist (or what purports to be the Eucharist) is either shunted off to the side somewhere (another temporary arrangement), or is nowhere to be found (the final arrangement). The President’s Chair, or the episcopal throne, now occupies the highest and most prominent place, that place where the altar and tabernacle used to be. The "New Mass" contains no rubric which presumes or requires either. Again, some may say, you are condemning the abuses and calling them the "New Liturgy." I am saying, what can you do about it? The "New Liturgy" permits, nay, inspires and encourages the abuses with its totally untraditionalist, ridiculous "options." It is contrary to the very idea of "ritual" that it be "optional." I am saying that with the discarding of the Missale Romanum, the Pope has undermined all authority, including his own, so that no one can prevent any and every form of sacrilege and impiety. By contradicting the idea that the Divine Liturgy was or can be fixed, he has taught that it cannot be: so, the "liturgy" now consists of anything any fool decides it to be. And if you think my logic not perfectly consistent, prove it! Let the bishops prove it; let them attempt to "regulate" the "New Liturgy;" let them begin to try to enforce Catholic Orthodoxy from their pulpits; let them try to tell their clergy what they may and may not do at their "mass." They have already found it impossible because the "New Liturgy" of its very nature makes it so. Finally, you may say, "You are basing your whole argument on one decree of one Pope, Pope St. Pius V, which decree was not an ex cathedra statement, since, according to you, the doctrines articulated in the Mass were not defined by it, but by the Council of Trent before the reign of St. Pius." It is true, I am not saying that the decree was an ex cathedra definition; were I to say that, I would be contradicting my explanation of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, which I said, can only be exercised with regard to specific doctrinal or moral propositions; the rite of the Mass is not in this category. However, I am not basing my argument on one decree only, but on the constant Tradition of the Church before and after "Quo Primum," a document which merely enunciated this Tradition in unmistakable language. My argument is really based on all the documents of the Church which concern themselves with the Mass of the Roman Rite, for they know of no other and admit of no other mass. There are no documents which go contrary to Quo Primum, if one excepts the decrees of the Second Vatican Council – a subject we must not get embroiled in here. It is not, therefore, a matter of choosing the teaching and law of one Pope and rejecting those of another. It is a matter of choosing the traditional teaching and incontrovertibly binding law of the entire Church against the "wishes" of one Pope, which have no validity as law whatsoever. (On this last point, more will be said later.) Catholics will have to open their eyes to the simple fact that no Pope may abolish the Mass without denying his faith, without incurring the censures of the Council of Trent, and without giving greatest scandal. No matter if it be the Pope, he who commands that which is contrary to the teachings of Quo Primum, must be disobeyed; not to do so would be sinful. The cancerous idea that any Pope may abrogate any and all the laws of the Church, and introduce an entirely new body of doctrine, a brand new code of morality, an all-new book of rules, and a totally new concept of the nature of the Church is so utterly preposterous, that I am at a loss how to combat it. The notion has to be the ultimate form of "legalism"! According to this way of thinking, at the accession of the successor of Pope Paul, none of us should be surprised nor raise objection if the new Pope discards the "Novus Ordo" and brings out a "mass" more to his liking. Should he six months after his "mass" has been inaugurated, his successor may come forth with yet another model. (Well, now!). It will be observed, I am not attempting here to judge whether the "consecration" of the "New Mass" is valid. Let us hope not, that it might be somewhat less sacrilegious. I presume all are aware that even should Transubstantiation take place, the "New Mass" would not for that reason be a worthy sacrifice, only a more terrible offense to the majesty and magnificence of God. In the True Mass the act of Transubstantiation provides the Sacrifice with its Victim and its Offerer, Who, in the rites which follow, yields Himself up to the Father in adoration and atonement, and then hands Himself over to such poor and needy souls as we to be their Food; in the "New Mass" Christ may or may not be present, while those whom He loves, despite all, gather round to celebrate their own penurious communalism and to take full advantage of His (temporary) tolerance of this Outrage. Notwithstanding much insistence from official quarters to the contrary, there is a high likelihood of the invalidity of this Sacrilege’s "consecration rite." part of the evidence is of course the fact that the Pope and all his army of "experts," "liturgists," and "theologians" – ably assisted by his bishops – have found the chemicals to sterilize their "missale" and our churches of all testimony to the need for or belief in the realities of the Unbloody Sacrifice and the Real Presence of Christ. At the same time, they have shown themselves totally incapable of and uninterested in proving that these essential mysteries have survived their mad antibioticism. And yet, everything which has had to do with the jettisoning of the True Mass and the imposition of its Caricature has reeked of mendacity, of conspiracy, of high-handed and heavy-handed arbitrariness. There has been nothing Catholic about it, nothing holy or beneficial. Every form of specious argumentation has been attempted, every form of trickery, and subterfuge. Dishonest scholarship, "court" theologians, mistranslations – you name it! We shall come across a few examples of such tings as we proceed. Simultaneously, nothing has been omitted for the "education" (read "indoctrination") of the people: officious editorials in official papers, episcopal commissions, programs of instruction, seminars, "practice masses," filmed demonstrations, clergy conferences, lectures by "liturgists," timetables and deadlines, posters and cartoons. The "Catholic" publishing industry seems to have been saved from bankruptcy turning out new missals and missalettes, treatises and apologies, analyses and explanations, for the "New Mass," all doing their unconvincing utmost to tell how wonderful it all is, how timely, how inspired. And, as far as I can tell, there has not come forth so much as a single line of simple beauty in the vast swelter of it. It goes without saying that, with all the effort, installing the "New Mass" was still quite a feat, and yet, really simple in its approach, when you get to the bottom of it. Everyone had to be deluded into thinking that the "New Mass" is really nothing but the True Mass somewhat changed, that it is simply a new "version" of the Mass, a new "rite." It is named the "Novus Ordo Missae," the "New Arrangement of the Mass."
Pope Paul VI has proved to be the chief and ablest propagandist of all, and the idea that the "New Mass" is the same as the True Mass has been his consistent theme. Let em quote at some length from one of his speeches. I will comment on various sentences. When you hear a Pope speak, ordinarily, it never occurs to you to criticize his words. But in this instance, it is a necessity. (The contrast between Pope Paul’s style and mode of expression and that of former Popes is so great as to be alarming in itself.)
Here is the misleading suggestion that Pope St. Pius V also brought out a "novus ordo."
This is the teaching of St. Pius V and all his successors, and even Pope Paul acknowledges the belief, though he contradicts it by his actions.
Note this paragraph carefully, for it is highly indicative. I will speak of it at length after making a few more comments. The suggestion is that all of us, Pope and people, are bound to accept the "New Mass" in response to the "authentic tradition" of the Church. Notice this typical "Pauline" manner of giving orders. You must admit it is strikingly different from that of Pope St. Pius V. There is certainly no tradition for this style of speaking either. It is another instance of "brotherhood" jargon: "Let’s all do it because we are all going to do it." Let no one ever be deceived by the phrasing, however; it means the same thing in practice, if not canonically, as "We order, command, and decree, etc." Above, the Pope has mentioned that we are all under the impression that the immutability of the Rite of the Mass was a part of Catholic tradition. And where did this idea come from? From the Council of Trent, from Pope St. Pius V, and all his Successors, of course, so that, clearly, the act of "altering" the Mass is not an adherence to Tradition, but a direct contradiction and violation of it.
From our perspective here, this set of words is almost funny, in a maudlin kind of way, particularly for anyone who has attended these "New Masses" lately. Since the introduction of the "New Mass," all the Church has known has been "uncertainties," "discussions" (even during "mass"), and "arbitrary abuses," to put it mildly. But the most obvious question it evokes is the following: Does this mean that never may the Mass be changed again? Pope St. Pius V tried the very same thing, and behold what is happening here!
Many priests seem to have seen only one "direction" – optional!
I will say more about this later. Of course, the burden of this study is that the Traditional Mass has been discarded. Only certain vestiges have been kept, so "as to deceive (if possible) even the elect." (Mt. 24:24).
The fact that some have gotten – were bound to get – this idea is reason enough for the condemnation of the "Novus Ordo." It was exactly to prevent this ever happening that Pope St. Pius V forbade anyone to tamper with the Missale Romanum. Pope Paul knew very well that many already had gotten the idea that the changes then contemplated were truly radical. For example, the following quotation comes from a study made under the sponsorship of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, whose credentials need no certification:
This important study under the sponsorship of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci (in later references to be called simply The Critique) had a letter printed with it, wherein they say:
In answer to such views as these, the Pontiff gives the following explanation; I am quoting again from his speech cited above:
This kind of talk beggars belief – except that it is characteristically "Pauline." In short, the Pope is saying: The Mass has no strictly defined ceremony, ritual, or formula. It is a kind of formless, spiritual essence, like a ghost (or something else invisible). It can only be seen when it is covered, and can be covered with first this set of rites, then that. It does not really matter which set is used, although a set should be chosen which is expressive to the men of a given time-period. (A Modernist notion if ever there was one!) Do I need to tell you that this strange language is totally foreign to all Catholic teaching? One is tempted to ask, what is this "theological criticism" business? Is there some kind of gnosis or special knowledge whereby the experts and liturgists construe what shape the Liturgy of the Mass ought to have? Is this supposed to be the same as authentic Catholic Tradition? The whole idea is absurd! Anyone can see that, if it takes experts and liturgists to devise your "ritual"for you, you surely cannot describe their creations as traditional. Nor can you describe them as "ritual." For, obviously, the rites of any religion (true or man-made) must have taken their origin from its very beginning; they can only symbolize what they do through an historic relationship with what they recall and re-celebrate; and their traditional character derives from the fact that its adherents for generations have understood this relationship.
By now you should be getting a clear idea of the strategy with which the Catholic faithful were connived into accepting the legality of the "New Mass." We have seen how infallible dogmatic content and how sacrosanct the ritual of the True Mass were seen to be in the days of the Council of Trent (and ever since, save for the last decade or so). The "reformers," under the (at least visible) leadership of Pope Paul VI, have tried to throw the cloak of Tradition and the Council of Trent over what they attempt to describe as a "new arrangement of the Mass." (Appendix II). While we "dumb sheep" have been thinking they meant only to make minor changes in the Mass, they have been replacing it, parts at a time, numbing our reactions with their incessant blathering about the divine urgency and auspiciousness of it all! Over a period of time, they have introduced something altogether different from the True Mass. And, even while they were making a mockery of the traditions and the laws of the Church with regard to the Sacred Liturgy, they have been vesting themselves with the legitimate authority to do so through constant, mendacious references to those traditions and laws. Therefore, now that they have installed their irreverent Imitation, they are able to claim that immunity for themselves and their Imposture which adhered to what they have (they hope) gotten rid of. They now claim for their "Mass" that infallibility of doctrine, that venerability, that historicity of origin, and that holiness of essence, which two thousand years of Catholicism could not preserve for the True Mass against the likes of them. Their most consistent argument has been that "one Pope can countermand the decrees of a former one." They who began their insidious maneuver against every tradition, and particularly the traditions canonized by the Council of Trent, with their complain of the "legalism" of these traditions, are now the most "legalistic" of all, to the point of sheerest despotism. They thought that, if they could justify what they meant to do if they could make it look legal, they would be clear so no one could accuse them. What is this but more phariseism – using the law contrary to everything the law means and is meant to do? And, the most incredible aspect of it all – almost nobody seems to have perceived it, even now: IT IS SINFUL! IT IS SACRILEGE! In his Apostolic Constitution, Missale Romanum, Pope Paul speaks in the same vein as in the allocution I have quoted, laboring as always to wreathe with the aura of authenticity and of Tradition his "Novus Ordo" and his Act of imposing it. We find therein the following passage:
I hate to be such a "spoil-sport," but you might as well know now as later, there are not any "more ancient liturgical sources" which will justify the "New Mass," as the arguments which follow will show. As you know, the evolutionists solve all their problems by losing their hypnotized little proselytes in the foggy, distant eons. Here we are being taken into the "darkness of the libraries," where only our guides can see. Such talk is only more of the same hyper-intellectualist eyewash of which we simpletons must stand in awe. You will just have to face the fact that there is no tradition whatsoever for the Think known as the "New Mass;" any fledgling student of the Liturgy can tell you as much. For example: 1. There is no tradition allowing those not in Orders to perform special liturgical roles. In the ancient Church, even he who locked and unlocked the Church building and rang the bell had to have received the Order of Porter. The Lector was allowed to chant the "Lessons;" later on, the Subdeacon of the Mass was allowed to sing the Epistle, while the Deacon sang the Gospel. There is absolutely no tradition permitting women to speak in church; they could make only those responses assigned to the congregation. This practice was specifically noted by St. Paul in his First Letter to the Corinthians. (I Cor. 14:34). Those who say the contrary are ready to contend even with him! 2. There is no tradition of complete optionalism in liturgical matters. From the very first, under the general supervision of the Apostles, custom governed everything in each church. (I Cor. 11; 14:34-35). The constant tradition moved in the direction of ever greater uniformity, of ever more detailed rubrics; of taking the power to decide even the smallest things out of the hands, first of the local presbyter, then of the local ordinary (bishop or abbot), then of concentrating it in the hands of the Pope personally. [29] Those who say that every celebrant should be free to devise the liturgy of the day seem woefully ignorant of the fact that ours is called the "Roman Rite" because the people took pride that it derived from the practices of the Community in Rome, where the Pope himself legislated and celebrated "the Mysteries." Practically the only optionalism there ever was had to do with the selection of readings. In the early days, the lessons were consecutive readings of the Old Testament and the Gospels and Epistles. The bishop would often have the ministers read particular passages as the subject of his homily. 3. With regard to preaching, the tradition moved from the simple explanation of the Scriptures (homilies) and catechetical instruction (catechesis) to the sermon, the panegyric, and the elaborate discourse. Some of the greatest orators of history have been Catholic bishops and priests. The idea of a mere unprepared "talk," much less a "dialogue" or a little chit-chat, is so foreign to Catholic (or any religious) tradition as to be ludicrous. I might add, throughout the history of sacred oratory even Orthodoxy was insufficient; that was taken for granted. Not only did the preacher have to be able to speak well, but he was expected to expound ably, persuasively, and with edification. (One shudders to think what might have happened to a priest who babbled in the presence of St. Paul the way some of ours do today!) 4. There is no tradition which allows those of other "faiths," those who may or may not believe in Christ as the Eternal High Priest and the Divine Victim of the Holy Sacrifice, to participate in the Liturgy. The further back you go in history, the stricter you find the rules to have been. The ancient practice was to require all who did not have the Faith, all who were not baptized into the True Faith, to leave before the Creed. Only catechumens were allowed to stay till then; unbelievers were not allowed at all. Nor were those who had committed grave public sins, or who had incurred censures, nor those obliged to do public penance. (This is one practice which might very well be restored) 5. There is no tradition for presuming "good will" on the part of unbelievers. There is a very constant tradition for praying for them that they might be delivered from their spiritual blindness. There is also a very constant tradition for trying to convert them. There is also a very constant tradition recognizing that Judaism is Talmudism, and that Talmudism is essentially anti-Christian. 6. There is no tradition for permitting any kind of sound which some quasi-educated artist might find "music to his ears." In this respect, the tradition definitely moved toward the development of Gregorian Chant, which became the recognized perfect accompaniment for sung Latin. If we wanted to be "purist" about it, we would remember that, due to an ingrained sobriety, the Roman Rite would prefer no accompanying instrument at all; the organ would be permitted only because many cannot sing on key. 7. There is no tradition of casualness in the Liturgy of any Catholic Rite. In fact there is no tradition of casualness in the religious of ritual of any group in the world, no matter how pagan, how primitive, or how polytheistic. Reverential fear is the most elemental attitude of anything which purports to be worship. That attitude which dares to treat with God familiarly, as an equal, as Someone Who is even approachable, derives from the tradition of anti-religious Rationalism. Its origins are and always have been anti-Christian, anti-religious. To the very contrary, the most constant tradition of the Church has always moved int eh direction of ever greater formality, born of tremulous awe. Indeed, the essential meaning of ritual includes sobriety, reverence, carefulness, fidelity to prescribed procedures and laws (which are nothing but hallowed customs made obligatory), a sense of unworthiness in the presence of the Almighty, a sense of wonder at being allowed to come into His Sanctuary, to speak to Him, to touch Him. One of the unique contributions of Christianity to worship in general is the addition of the most restrained "gaiety" to this reverential fear, plus a serene confidence of divine benevolence. The reason why contemporary heretics presume to abandon these modes is that they have lost awareness of and respect for Tradition, as they have lost all fear of God, and they think it a sign of maturity, progress, freedom to have done so. The truth is, they don’t even know what ritual is! They are possessed with the spirit of Revolution, which has proved to be more than they can handle. 8. There is no tradition in the Church for adaptation of the divine rites to the times. Those who argue this do not know what they are talking about. Besides, what has been called "adaptation" in the "modern Church" is addle-brained. What is being attempted is the making of a religion out of the so-called modern spirit, which, in the first place, is not modern, and in the second, is not at all Christian. It is rationalistic, naturalistic, and Revolutionary. The "modern" spirit cannot possibly be adopted by Catholicism nor interpreted into its Liturgy, any more than could Judaism or Greek mythology or Hindu polytheism. Bad enough that we must listen to such drivel; we must even endure the clumsy, abortive effort – and call it "mass"! You can see from these very few examples that there is neither consistency nor Tradition in the so-called reform. One could go on and on in this vein, but the above should be sufficient. G. THE ROMAN RITE AND ANTIQUARIANISM
the great "renewal" of the Mass was executed under the guise of a "return to the liturgy of the Early Church." This was sheerest trickery, made more incongruous by the incessant fulminations about bringing the Church "up-to-date." To accomplish this "renewal," a thousand years of tradition, of doctrine development, of Catholic culture and spirituality had to be denied. This denial amounted to saying that the liturgy of the diocese of Rome from the most elementary beginnings to the time of say, Gregory the Great (590-604) was the era of true Christianity – in short, it was Catholicism (though this word seems to send these "modernists" into near frenzy). From the later time up to and including the Council of Trent, everything was error, aberration, accretion. The "reform" must, therefore, consist in the expurgation of the liturgy – and, necessarily, from the entire Catholic religion – of every trace and contribution of what might be loosely referred to as the Middle Ages (the "Age of Faith," as this era has been rightly called). The first and obvious effect of this "simplification" maneuver has been to deprive the Mass of precisely those rites which so undeniably enhance its beauty and which have inspired the devotion of the faithful from the time of their incorporation until this very day. To describe these ceremonies as "medieval" is in no way to derogate them, but merely to tell the time of their appearance. No one who has a genuine appreciation of the Roman Liturgy is disdainful of the Middle Ages, as many nowadays think it learned to be. The comment of Edmond Bishop which follows may be of some help in getting these considerations in their proper perspective:
By the time of the Council of Trent and Pope St. Pius V, there was need for a reform, not of the liturgical book as much as the practices of the churches:
The reform of St. Pius V, then, was not the issuance of a new rite of the Mass, as intimated by Pope Paul in an earlier passage, but a reform of discipline, and that, as Mr. Bishop says, for the sake of order and orthodoxy. Nor was it an attempt to reinstitute the Liturgy of the Roman Church of a thousand years previous; it was rather the establishment of a single definitive form and the binding of churches in the Roman Rite to adhere to it. Mr. Bishop considers this a fortunate thing:
Warning of the pretext for change on the basis of antiquarianism, Pope Pius XII in His Encyclical letter Mediator Dei wrote:
You will observe that, as of the year 1958, Pope Paul Vi, then the Archbishop of Milan, was in full agreement with this teaching of his predecessor. Witness the following:
Pope Pius XII was undoubtedly aware of the fact that there were some among the liturgical "antiquarians" whose devotion for the Sacred Liturgy and the Early Church were merely pretense. We are the benighted witnesses and victims of this fact, now that those true intentions have been made all but inescapable in the "New Mass." For, the "New Mass" is no more the restoration of the Mass of the ancient church of Rome than it is an "up-to-date" version of the "Mass of St. Pius V." It is rather a mocking take-off on both, a fabrication so completely different and distinct from either, that one has reason to be amazed the Catholic world has stood still for this outrage. For they were both the True Mass, the one an earlier and recognizable form of the other, the later a true, logical, and worthy derivation of the former. The True Mass is an organic whole that grew from the seed of its beginning into what we know today, without any change in its nature and with a very clear relationship of the various parts to the whole, as the limbs of a plant to the trunk; the "New Mass" is an imitation organism, quite dead, made up of artificial parts manufactured from synthetic materials, and put together with an evil genius, for the purpose of deceiving its viewers. But the "New Mass" will not sustain close scrutiny without revealing its inorganic, non-viable, and purely fabricated nature.
Footnotes: 10. Cc. Trid. Sess. XXII, Cap. 1. Quoted in The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Rev. Dr. Nicholas Gihr. B. Herder Book Co. St. Louis. 1949. pp. 94-95. 11. The Hidden Treasure. St. Leonard of Port Maurice. TAN Books and Publishers, Rockford, Illinois. 1971. Pp. 21-22 12. The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World. Regina Publications. Dublin. 1964. pp. 150-151. It is my humble opinion that the writings of Fr. Fahey, particularly this one, should be given the widest possible circulation and attention. I know of no other books which succeed so well in enlightening us on the history of this present era. These works are available from the Christian Book Club of America, P. O. Box 638, Hawthorne, Calif. 90250, and, Regina Publications, Y. P. House, Rotunda, Dublin, Ireland. 13. Enchiridion Symbolorum. Denzinger-Schonmetzer. Herder, Barcelona. 1965. Conc. (Oecum. XIX) Tridentinum, Introduction. p. 363. 14. Ibid. pp. 384-85, No. 1635. 15. "Infallibilite." Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique. Vol. 7, p. 1706. 16. "De Solemnibus Missae Sacrificii Caereomiis." Enchiridion Symbolorum. Cc. Trid. Sess. XXII, Cap. 5. p. 409, No. 1746. 17. Ibid. p. 411, No. 1757. Canon 7. 18. The Mass – A Study of the Roman Liturgy. Adrian Fortescue. Longmans, Green & Co. London. 1950. p. 213. 19. Ibid., pp. 207-208. 20. Missale Romanum. Desclee & Socii. Turin. 1962. pp. iv-vi. (Cf. also Appendix I of the present work, where the entire Apostolic Constitution is printed.) 21. Fortescue. Op. Cit. p. 209. 22. "The Robber Church" (Part 2). P. H. Omlor. Interdum. Issue. No. 7, May 31, 1971. Box R, Menlo Park, Calif. pp. 3-4. 23. Enchiridion Symbolorum. Cc. Trid.: Sess. XXII, loc cit.: p. 411, No. 1759, Canon 9: "If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church by which a part of the Canon and the words of the Consecration are said in a subdued voice should be condemned, or that the Mass should be said in the vernacular only, or that water should not be added to the wine in the chalice, which is to be offered, since it is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema." (Author’s italics). 24. Giovanni Baptiste Montini was one of the most articulate advocates of liturgical reform before he became Pope. Evidence of this can be easily gathered. A noteworthy instance can be found in Worship, Vol. 33, No. 3, a pastoral letter of his entitled, "Liturgical Formation." Nothing would be made of this were it not so inexplicable how most of the people who were campaigning in what was called "The Liturgical Movement" in those days (1958) have long since become silent and are nowhere to be found. Pope Paul is one of the few remaining spokesmen who has not become disenchanted, proved too conservative, or become unwelcome among those who continue to formulate ideas and agitate for further "renewal," and who now seem to have things very much their way. The article referred to appears to be harmless enough. It is concerned with steps to be taken for the education of the people into the "liturgical renewal," that they might participate as an intelligent community in the sacred rites. The remarkable thing is that the methods suggested there by the brilliant (then) Archbishop of Milan have since been employed, not for the sake of the ancient Liturgy, but for the introduction of its preposterous Paradigm. 25. Allocution of Pope Paul VI on November 26, 1969. La Documentation Catholique. 7 December 1969. 26. Roman Theologians Take a Look at the New Order of the Mass – a Sharp Critique. Ogilvie Foundation (Lumen Gentium). 3 Magdala Crescent, Edinburgh, Scotland. 1970. P. 3. (A different translation appeared in Triumph Magazine under the title of "The Ottaviani Intervention." December, 1969.) 27. Ibid. p. 27. 28. Allocution of Pope Paul VI on November 26, 1969. La Documentation Catholique. 7 December1969. 29. Encyclical Letter Mediator Dei of Pope Pius XII November 20, 1947. Par. 58. 30. Liturgia Historica. Edmund Bishop. University Press. Oxford. 1918 & 1962. p. 16. 31. Ibid. p. 17. 32. Ibid. 33. Mediator Dei, Pars. 61, 62, 63. 34. "Liturgical Formations." Pope Paul VI. Worship. 1958. Vol. 33, No. 3. P. 145.
|
