Fr. James Wathen - The Great Sacrilege

Admin

Administrator
Validity


The 'New Mass: Validity and Liceity (of Mass) - first part


"For we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully." 1 Timothy 1-8​


Despite all that has been said, however, the problem of the validity or invalidity of vernacular "English-Canon Masses"- or any of the new "masses," for that matter - cannot be decided by you or me. Only the Church, in a saner day, will be able to make a definitive judgment. It should be obvious that individuals are in no position to do so, and it does not help the cause for them to attempt to make that decision.

At the risk of seeming slow-witted, I must say that, from what I have been able to observe, the usual approaches to this question seem to have been anachronistic, and overly belabored for that reason. By this I mean to say they are at least five hundred years late. All seem to have overlooked the preeminent fact that the Church has already made an official pronouncement on the matter; the Form of Consecration was expressly determined by the Council of Florence in the year 1442. Its pronouncement was as follows:​

Since the decree of the Armenians (Council of Florence) given above does not set forth the form of words which the most holy Roman Church has been always wont to use for the consecration of the Body and Blood of the Lord, it having been confirmed by the teaching and by the authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul, we judged it should be inserted herewith. In the consecration of the Body of the Lord this form of words is used: "Hoc est enim corpus meum;" and in that of the Blood: "His est enim calix sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in Remissionem peccatorum." (For this is the Chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.) 57. Enchiridion Symbolorum. Cc. Florentinum: Decr. Pro Jacobitis. P. 341, No. 1352.

It is on the basis of this decree that the Missale Romanum of Pope St. Pius V commands priests to adhere to this Form most strictly. In the chapter entitled "De Defectibus" ("Concerning Defects"), after having given the exact same words as the decree quoted above, the "Missale" continues:

Wherefore the words of Consecration, which are the Form of this Sacrament, are these, etc:​
If anyone removes or changes anything in the Form of Consecration of the Body and Blood, and by this change of words does not signify the same thing as these words do, he does not confect the Sacrament. 58. Missale Romanum. Desclee. De Defectibus. Ch. V. Par. 1.)​

According to this pronouncement, there is no valid consecration of the wine (and possibly of the bread) in these "masses," because clearly, such a change has been made by mistranslation in the English formula. The Pope, the bishops, the theologians, the priests, the people are either going to accept this pronouncement as a certain statement, or they are not. It becomes a question, therefore, of whether Catholics (of whatever station) are willing or concerned enough to accept the authority of the Church in this matter, one over which the Church alone has the authority to make a decision. Those who contradict this position must explain (to themselves first of all) how they can do so, and that, not by quoting the opinions of theologians, reputable, numerous, saintly or otherwise, but by explaining why the authoritative and definitive statement of the Church as of the year 1442 is no longer in effect, and what right they have to differ from it. If they do choose to differ from it, let them then hold their tongues concerning us who dare to differ with them about the right of Pope Paul VI to create a Fraud and call it "The Mass."

The bishops and other prelates of the Church feign great wonderment and even scandal to hear people say they have serious doubts about whether the wine is consecrated at these "masses." "But you know," they say, "that there could be no error of this sort; you know that the Pope could not let such a thing happen! And you know that all the bishops could not make such an error. The translation was after all, approved by the bishops in plenary session!" (When you hear that phrase, "in plenary session," you are to find all your apprehensions whisked away as if they had been touched by the wand of the Fairy Godmother.) I, for one, do not know anything of the kind. But what I know does not prove anything anyhow. It is what the documents say that settles such questions, not the total silence of the Supreme Pontiff on the matter, and most certainly not the unanimous vote of certain groups of bishops. The evidence is that neither the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself nor the official teachings of the Church which have stood for centuries have any meaning whatsoever to these "priests of Baal." They seem to imagine that because they have the votes and because they have the control, they can therefore decide anything which suits their fancy, and those who say otherwise can be damned, for all they care. God will have His Sacrifice the way they prepare it for Him, or He will have none at all!

As mentioned above, discussion concerning the validity of the Consecration has seemed belabored. I was suggesting that many on that account may have allowed themselves to become too greatly entangled in this controversy. Many have thought that the problem would be solved if this single issue could be circumvented. And so they have agitated for "Latin Masses," meaning the "Novus Ordo" "said" in Latin. Thus have they shown their naiveté concerning the cause and purposes of the whole "renewal" hoax, in which the question of validity is really only a single, thought, to be sure, not unimportant aspect.

Another group has made a similar mistake: They are satisfied if, at the "Novus Ordo" when it is "said" in the vernacular, the priest pronounces the words "for many" at the Consecration. Would that it were so simple!

These two groups are to be classified with yet another one, those who have made so much of this question of validity, that they have disregarded the more comprehensive and more basic consideration, that of the morality of the "New Mass." As I said in the beginning, this is because of their too "legalistic" approach to the entire question.

The root of this admittedly honest mistake is that these people have made nothing, or at least too little, of the incontrovertible fact that the "New Mass" is illicit. Its creation was sinful and sacrilegious for no other reason than that it was against the Law of the Church - and therefore contrary to the will of God. And its "celebration" is sinful for the very same reason. Consequently it is also sinful to attend the "New Mass," to participate in it in any way, to receive Communion during it, to receive hosts which may or may not have been validly consecrated during it, or even to attend the True Mass where the "New Mass": customarily takes place. (Cf. Canon 1172, Par. 1.3).

The spirit is among us which discounts the laws of the Church, as if they were less holy and less binding than the commandments of God. Such a spirit is Protestant, or worse, as if the Church did not rule in God's Name and in His stead, as if she were not possessed of the authority to bind and to loose, to forgive and to retain, to open and to shut even the very gates of Heaven itself.

The so-called "Liberal Movement," which is but a part of the Revolution, is greatly responsible for this most serious and corruptive aberration in our thinking. We are all the witnesses of some of the ravages which this spirit has brought on the Church. The so-called "renewal" which was spawned at the Second Vatican Council is one of them. Were we to attempt to list them all, we would need to write a book instead of a paragraph. The abrogation of numberless laws, the relaxation of all discipline, the granting of every kind of dispensation, regardless of whether it will prove beneficial or disastrous for souls, the failure to proclaim, legislate, or enforce Catholic moral principles are all the works of this decadence. The Church is afflicted with what might be described as the spirit of self-contempt, which never fails to show itself wherever the Revolution is able to sow its seeds. There seems to be a studied effort on the part of the Pope and many other ranking ecclesiastics (bishops included) to parade the lovely Bride of Christ in rags of shame for all the world to jeer and befoul. They call it charity and "ecumenism" to tolerate, nay, even to encourage every manner of attack upon her. Both her own disloyal children and her mean-mouthed, jealous enemies may hurl at her an insult, accusation, or blasphemy with never so much as word of defense being spoken in her behalf. Protestants, Jews, atheists, Communists, infidels, anyone and everyone may ridicule her doctrine, calumniate her traditions, falsify her history, trample her honor, scorn her saints. And in return, they are all invited to sit at a table and carry on a "dialogue" with the hope of finding a solution to the annoyance the Church continues to be to them.

But this is not the limit of it. In the last few years the Pope has proceeded to a more astounding form of treachery than has ever been known in the Church. This activity alone in the Age of Faith would easily have brought his deposition, if not have condemned him to the stake. This is his fraternization with the bestial ministers of Communist governments, whose official policy, as an essential part of their world imperialism, is now and always has been to rid the Church from the face of the earth. These white-collared savages, whose hands drip with the blood of literally millions of Catholic and Christian martyrs, and whose every move and every word is admittedly inspired by a hatred of Christ, now receive the hospitality of the Vatican. These ruthless war-mongers and usurpers of governments now come and go thee in order to negotiate what the Church will concede them in return for their not proceeding to stamp it out altogether. During these negotiations it would be exceedingly undiplomatic and provocative were it suggested that the Catholics in the prisons and concentration camps have done no crimes.

Such policies as these and innumerable other forms of ignoble and dishonorable forbearance and abnegation have served well to diminish and undermine the Church's authority and the love and respect due to it. Another book could be written on this subject. We will not begin it here. Suffice it to say that the intolerable Sacrilege which is the "New Mass" was and is possible only because there has become prevalent inside and out of the Church the idea and spirit that the Church is a purely human institution, a kind of international moral association, whose laws are all revocable, dispensable, and purely human.

The very opposite is the case. The Church is our beloved Mother; it is the Mystical Body of Christ and the Kingdom of God on earth, endowed with all divine power and authority, the font of all grace, the repository of revealed truth, the spiritual sovereignty of the whole earth and of all created things, and the only source of salvation for men. It was by virtue of this unquestionable preeminence and authority that the Holy Mass of the Roman Rite was legislated as the liturgy for the Patriarchate of the West (the "Latin Rite"). And because of our obedience to this holy law we shall be granted its indescribably good and wholesome fruits. Such was the mind of Pope St. Pius V when he gave this Mass to us (or imposed it upon us-say it either way you wish; it was both a gift and a law); such is the truly Catholic view of this law, and our generation's tragic folly does not make the matter different.

To resume our principle discussion, when we speak of the establishment of the Mass of the Missale Romanum, we are making reference to its liceity, its legality. And when we speak of its liceity, we must necessarily mean that which is according to the divine will. As essential as is validity of consecration for the consummation of the Holy Sacrifice, of itself validity does not make the Mass worthy. You will recall the proverb, "The victims of the wicked are abominable to the Lord." (Prov. 1:18). And again, the Psalmist says,


"But to the sinner God hath said: Why dost thou declare my justices, and take my covenant
in thy mouth? Seeing thou hast hated discipline: and hast cast my words behind thee."
Psalm 49: 16-17


Source : Fr. Wathen

..
 
Last edited:

Admin

Administrator
Chapter 1

A. The Holy Mass
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:
  • Our God and Lord, though He was by His death about to offer Himself once upon the altar of the cross to God the Father that He might there accomplish an eternal redemption, nevertheless, that His Priesthood might not come to an end with His death, at the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed, that He might leave to His beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice once to be accomplished on the cross might be represented, the memory thereof remain even to the end of the world, and its salutary effects applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit, declaring Himself constituted a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech, offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the form of bread and wine, and under the forms of those same things gave to the apostles, Whom He then made priests of the New Testament, that they might partake, commanding them and their successors in the priesthood by these words to do likewise: Do this in commemoration of Me, as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught. 10

  • 10. Cc. Trid. Sess. XXII, Cap. I. Quoted In The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Rev. Dr. Nicholas Gihr. B. Herder Book Co. St. Louis. 1949. pp. 94-95.
Of the Mass the marvelous St. Leonard of Port Maurice said:
  • The sole sacrifice which we have in our holy religion, that is to say, holy Mass, is a sacrifice, holy, perfect, in every point complete, with which each one of the faithful nobly honors God, protesting at one and the same time his own nothingness and the supreme dominion which God hath over him; a sacrifice called, therefore, by David, sacrificium justitiae, "the sacrifice of justice" (Psalm IV: 5); both because it contains the Just One Himself, and the Saint of saints, or rather justice and holiness themselves, and because it sanctifies souls by the infusion of grace and the affluence of gifts which it confers. Being, then, a sacrifice so holy - a sacrifice the most venerable and the most excellent of all - in order that you may form a due conception of so great a treasure, we shall here explain, in the manner quite succinct, some of its excellencies. To express them all were not a work to which our poor faculties could attain. 11

    11. (The Hidden Treasure. St. Leonard of Port Maurice. TAN books and Publishers, Rockford, Illinois. 1971-pp. 21-22).
Calling attention to the central necessity of the Mass in our lives, the great Fr. Fahey wrote:
  • ...The great need of our generation, as of every generation since Calvary, is the living of the Life of the Mystical Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ in its fullness. Through Christ our Head the abundance of God's grace is at the disposal of every generation, but, alas! "Jesus has now many lovers of His heavenly kingdom, but few are willing to bear His cross…many follow Jesus to the breaking of bread, but few to the drinking of the chalice of His Passion." (From the Imitation of Christ, Book 11, Chapter xi) We should unceasingly ask our Lord to give us saints who, by their example, may rouse us from the torpor and mediocrity of our lives. For the need of our day is great. We seem to be fast approaching the culminating point of the open revolt from God's plan, which began with Luther in the sixteenth century. Luther's onslaught on order was an onslaught on the Mystical Body. The central point of his attack was directed against the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacrifice of the Mystical Body, visible expression of our fallen race's solidarity with Christ and of our dependence on Calvary for the possibility of presenting fully ordered homage to the Blessed Trinity…
    We Catholics must, accordingly, put ourselves by intellect and will on the real level of the struggle. If we in imagination take our stand behind the gibbet of Calvary and see God the Father holding our His Son Crucified to men, with the real life of the world coming from His Sacred Wounds to every succeeding generation, we have a faint image of the reality. We are a fallen race. Through membership of our Lord's Mystical Body, the Church, men In every generation since Calvary have received back supernatural life. 12
    • The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World. Regina Publications. Dublin, 1964. pp. 15051. 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. 92050, and, Regina Publications, Y. P. House, Rotunda, Dublin, Ireland.
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 lies of me add to such a tradition and to such a devotion?

Yet I must make an effort, at this 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 we are all bound to protect and honor the Most 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, to the Father in sacrifice and to us for our spiritual nourishment, under the humble and belying appearances 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..." (Luke 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 for want of nourishment. (Is anyone ready to deny that the present deterioration, anemia, and faithlessness to 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 a most complete discontinuance of the True Mass in the Latin Rite? Who will deny that there is a "a grievous famine in Samaria?" ) (3 Kings. 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, despite the well-intentioned enthusiasm of the "born-again Christians," the words of Our 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" (John 6:54).

What I say here is not new to Catholic readers. They are used to hearing it from 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 thesis 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 that 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.

  • Next: Chapter Three The Council of Trent and the True Mass. Part Two
  • Previous: Chapter Two - Papal Infallibility. Part Two
..
 

Admin

Administrator
..
 

Admin

Administrator
THE LOSS OF THE OLD MASS
by Fr. Wathen

It is well known that I am one of the few priests alive who have raised the issue of the morality of the Novus Ordo Missae. It is rather curious that most Traditionalist priests avoid this issue as if it were an infectious virus. The issue, however, cannot be avoided because it is absolutely basic and essential to our unhappy situation as disenfranchised Catholics; basic, because the morality of any act is the first thing a human being, as a creature of God, must determine: is this act a sin or not? After this question has been answered, other questions can be addressed: is this act advisable, dangerous, ridiculous, etc.?

The question is essential because every Catholic of the Roman Rite must decide what he is going to do in the present crisis in the Church, and where he is going to Mass is the central question. That every Catholic must go to Holy Mass is a most serious obligation; those who exempt themselves will have to answer God for it, and He will not be bedazzled by anyone’s homegrown theology. I repeat for the sake of emphasis that everyone must assist at Mass on all Sundays and holydays, if he can reasonably do so.

The most often he cannot, the more urgent it is that he do so the following Sunday. A person may not exempt himself if Mass is available, that is if Mass is being offered with due reverence by a validly ordained priest. The priest’s faulty theology does not exempt the lay person, as priests cannot be expected to be infallible and, whatever their real or imagined learning, lay people, with proper humility, must put it aside, in order to offer due worship to almighty God.

The single exception is a case in which the priest requires that those in attendance formally assent to some theological aberration, such as “the three baptism,” or “Sedevacantism,” or the priest’s juridical authority over all present, or the authority and Catholicity of the Second Vatican Council, or the acceptableness of the New Mass, or something of this kind. Any theological reasoning which exempts a Catholic from attending Mass when he could and should be there is of the Devil.

In 1970, despite my theological limitations, I presumed to treat the morality of the New Mass in the book, The Great Sacrilege.** Since, then, I have made an effort to convince everyone I spoke to that, under pain of mortal sin, he must not go to the New Mass for any reason whatsoever, even for weddings, funerals, and such things. The number of traditionalist Catholics who accept this position is probably in exact proportion to the priests who maintain it, which is very few.

I bring the subject up here on the chance that some reading this have never come to grips with the issue, because their priests refuse to do so. I have simplified my argument over the years, because the question has been reduced to this: either saying the New Mass or attending is a mortal sin of sacrilege, or it is not. If it is a mortal sin, then it is a mortal sin always, like perjury and grand larceny. There are no situations nor conditions when attendance is not sinful. If saying the New Mass, or attending it, is not mortally sinful, then it is a good and obligatory act, and all are bound to be content with it, regardless of its innumerable faults.

If the New Mass is not intrinsically bad, it is intrinsically good – it is now in all its renderings and evolutionary mutations the Mass of the Roman Rite, and the Church has the right to command us to accept it as such. Interestingly, priests who refuse to pronounce the New Mass a sacrilege protest that they would not offer the New Mass under the threat of death, presumably because to do so would be a grave compromise of their faith. They must answer why offering the New Mass is a totally different moral species from attending it. Such priests advise against, even warn against, going to the New Mass, but they do not forbid it under pain of serious sin.

They classify the New Mass as “an occasion of sin,” by which they mean that at the New Mass, attendants hear things and see things which could be detrimental to their faith. Our arguments against the New Mass, the reasons we contend that it is a sacrilege, may be termed external and internal. The external argument is the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V. For the honest person, there is not the slightest chance that the rulings and anathemas of this pontifical bull do not apply to the Novus Ordo Missae; if the law can be broken, those who gave us the New Mass broke it!

Neither can the condemnations issued therein be construed as anything other or less than authoritative and mortal. The only counter argument that revolutionists in the Church ever brought against this conclusion is that “what Pope Pius V established, Pope Paul VI could legally put aside, override, abrogate, annul, etc.” This argument puts most people to silence, because they did not know how to say, or that they could and should say: this defense is entirely false! One pope cannot annul any and every law promulgated by any and all his predecessors back to St. Peter. As anyone with any sense would say: obviously, there are some things which a pope may change and some things he may not. The seriousness of the matter decides the case.

Pope St. Pius V indicates in the strongest language possible that this law could most certainly never be contravened or set aside by his successors. I give a couple of examples:

Furthermore, by these presents, in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, we grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the changing or reading of the Mass in any church [of the Roman Rite] whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever order or by whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is to be forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force. Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this letter or heedlessly to venture to go contrary to this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul [the special patrons of the Roman Rite]. – Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V; July 14, 1570

Anyone who says that these words do not mean what they say and have no perpetual binding force is saying that there are no words which have such force. He is saying, furthermore, that a sinister and revolutionary pope, such as Pope Paul VI was, can legally, though not morally, abrogate all the laws of the Church, except those relating to the natural law and the Ten Commandments, and every Catholic is bound in conscience to accept this. In a word, the Church has no way to establish anything in perpetuity, nor any way to defend itself against enemies within its bosom.

It should not be necessary, but I insert here that, with regard to the Mass, one should not introduce the subject of papal infallibility, as it is non-applicable in this case. Papal infallibility has to do with teaching, not deciding liturgical matters, even the Divine Liturgy itself. The internal argument against the New Mass is a consideration of what the New Mass is. It should be sufficient to say that the New Mass is not the Old Mass; it is not merely a translation of the Old Mass; it is not a revision or an update, or a modernization of the Old Mass. It is not even a corrupted form of the Old Mass. It is a new thing, a new form, a new creation.

Regardless of its resemblance to the Old Mass, it is not a “Mass” at all but a weapon! The reason we are able to say this is that the theology of the New Mass is completely different from the Old Mass. Its purpose – its reason for being – is completely different and positively antithetic to the Old Mass. Unless a person is able to grasp and accept this fact, he will continue to deny that it is a sacrilege, and maintain that he and everyone else may attend it as his whimsy directs him.

The purpose of the Old Mass is to offer the sacrifice of Calvary anew in a sacramental ritual. The central and supreme purpose of the New Mass is to destroy the Old Mass by muscling it out of existence. A second and ancillary purpose of the New Mass is to teach the people the anti-religion of the Conciliar Revolution: the humanism, modernism, liberalism, and anti-Catholicism of the Council. That it has accomplished its purposes is proved by the condition of the Church today.

That it is what those who instituted the New Mass intended is proved by the fact that, in the face of the destruction of the faith of the people, they continue to promote and protect the New Mass with their juridical power, and to persecute those who hold fast to the traditional Faith. And they continue adamantly to perpetuate the lie that the old and true Mass has been banned.

The great problem many people have is seeing things that they are looking at. There is little or no harm in such blindness or obscurantism in the case of lesser matters, such as not perceiving that “modern art” is anti-art, or not recognizing that America is a socialist police state. Not seeing the deliberate and determined drive to destroy the Mass, when the fact is so blatant and undeniable, is gravely culpable. The chief difficulty in not seeing the obvious in this case is that the perpetrators are the popes, bishops, and the priests of the last thirty-six years. One must put aside all consideration of the supposed eminence and honorableness of those who have brought such evils upon us and focus on the evils themselves, beginning with the Novus Ordo Missae. A much more serious problem is that many people, even at this late date, do not know of the existence of the World Conspiracy which is masterminded by Satan himself. Satan wants to destroy all things good, but especially the supernatural life of men who are one with Christ in the Church. The way to destroy this life of grace is to destroy their faith and the holy Mass, which is our primary source of grace. The Mass is that act by which the mystical Christ, the “Whole Christ,” to use St. Augustine’s expression, Christ, the eternal high priest, with all those who are one with Him by Baptism and the Eucharist, offers His incarnate divinity to the Father in adoration and love.

This ritual act, celebrated in countless places all over the world, was the source of all the grace which men received through the Holy Ghost for their conversion and salvation. Before the New Mass, this Mass was offered in hundreds of thousands of churches and chapels everywhere. “From the rising of the sun till the going down thereof,” Christ offered Himself for men, in atonement, in supplication, and in worship. Due to the New Mass, with the exception of those priests and people who dare to defy the True Mass-haters who have temporary control of things, the true Sacrifice has been swept from the earth.

What is called the New Mass is more offensive to God than all the Protestant services and pagan rites of the world, because it mimics and mocks the all-holy Sacrifice, and perfidiously deceives those in attendance at the same time. It is the superlative act of lawlessness and hypocrisy, pretending to be a prayer, when it is nothing but a burlesque and a charade.

That is what it is, regardless of the good intentions of the presiding clergyman and his trusting people. A great degree of the evil of the New Mass is in its deception of well-meaning people, although after so long a time very little excuse can be made for them. If all the light throughout the world were to be extinguished, so that there was only darkness both day and night, it would not be a greater tragedy than the suppression of the true Mass. This has been the Devil’s ambition and goal since the Last Supper: to rid the world of the hated Sacrifice, against which he is powerless.

Nothing could be more offensive to God or injurious to men than what our religious superiors have done. Consider all the sins of the world: all the blasphemies, the impurities, the cruelties, the incessant, needless wars, the murders, the divorces, the abortions, the lies, the betrayals, the abandonment of God, and on and on. All these things are nothing compared to the loss of the Holy Mass, because it is through the Mass that forgiveness and mercy is gained for the world; it is through the Mass that God is worthily honored despite all.

** Bishop Salvador Lazo said that it was after reading The Great Sacrilege when he finally decided he must abandon the Novus Ordo and become Traditional.

..
 
Top