TRIDENTINE/ NOVUS ORDO MISSAE

Aspects Of The Liturgical Magisterium,

Part 3

If an isolated hermit were to study what the

Church teaches about the permissibility of
priests saying, and the faithful attending,
Mass according to the Missal of 1962 (the
"Tridentine Mass" or Classical Roman Rite),
and if he were informed of how great is the
desire among Catholics of almost every
nation to worship God in this way, he would
surely be surprised, not to say alarmed, to
find out how much bitter controversy and ill-
will surrounds this topic in the Catholic world.
Simply by reading the relevant documents, he
would have discovered that our Holy Father,
speaking on behalf of the entire People of
God, has taken steps to make possible the
return of the traditional rite of Mass to parish
and religious communities everywhere, and
that he desires this rite to be widely and
generously made available to the faithful. The
authoritative documents are few and
exceptionally clear, leaving no room for
ambiguity in the minds of those who wish to
know and abide by the will of the Holy Father.
Our hermit would be left with only one
question: Why are so many bishops, priests,
and laymen not heeding the voice of their
Supreme Pastor?

Invalidity of the Novus Ordo Missae

A Reply to William Most’s Defense of the
Novus Ordo
* This article originally appeared in the Fall
1977 issue (#29) of The Reign of Mary. It was
recently reprinted in a special
commemorative issue (#100) of the same
magazine, along with several other of the
most significant articles from the past three
decades.

The editor was asked to reply and comment

on a series of articles written by William Most,
S.J., defending the Novus Ordo Missae
against objections. We have taken the liberty
to publish portions of the reply in this issue,
as it may well serve to answer the questions
of many who have doubts on the subject.
Most, you see, has for his major premise in
his arguments (and he repeats it many times)
the assumption that the Teaching Authority of
the Church has decided that the Novus Ordo
is a valid Mass; as we must obey the Church,
he concludes that we must accept the Novus
Ordo. All the arguments he adds are merely,
by his own admission, to strengthen that just
stated and are inconclusive in themselves.
Obviously, his arguments are quite strong
against the pseudo-conservatives who accept
the authority of Paul VI and the heretical
bishops who have no authority whatsoever.
We, in this publication and in others on our
booklist, have shown conclusively that
Montini was ineligible for the Papacy due to
his earlier heresies. All that remains for us is
to refute Most’s backup arguments and, in so
doing, to bring up some important proof that
the Novus Ordo is invalid.
The Words of Consecration: What is
Essential?
Most argues that since the words “for many”
are omitted in the accounts of the Last
Supper given in the Gospel of St. Luke and in
the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians,
and are also lacking in the writings of some
early Church Fathers on the Mass, these
words must not be essential in the words of
Consecration (the form of the Sacrament of
the Holy Eucharist). Now, in fact, none of the
Gospels, Epistles, or the writings quoted by
Most state any intention of giving the precise
words of the Consecration (although the fact
that St. Matthew and St. Mark do have the
words “for many” proves conclusively that Our
Lord actually spoke them).
What really matters, though, is the Church’s
teaching on the forms of the Sacraments. Put
very simply, the Church teaches that both the
matter and form of any Sacrament must
signify what the Sacrament effects. This
doctrine is explained and practically applied in
the Bull of Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae
Curae(on the Invalidity of Anglican Orders):
“All know that the sacraments of the New
Law, as sensible and efficient signs of
invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace
they effect, and effect the grace they signify.
Although the signification ought to be found in
the whole essential rite — that is to say, in the
matter and form — it still pertains chiefly to
the form... the words which until recently were
commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the
proper form of priests Ordination — namely,
‘Receive the Holy Ghost,’ certainly do not in
the least definitely express the Sacred Order
of the Priesthood, or its grace and power...
That form consequently cannot be considered
apt or sufficient for the sacrament which omits
what it ought essentially to signify.”
Actually, the matter was settled long ago
when the Church defined, the Decree to the
Jacobites (to be quoted later) and in the De
Defectibus Decree, that the form of the Holy
Eucharist is the full form as given in
the Missale Romanum. Concerning the form it
states:
“Defects may arise in respect of the form, if
anything is wanting to complete the actual
words of the consecration. The words of
consecration, which are the formative
principle of this Sacrament, are as follows:
‘For this is My Body,’ and ‘For this is the
Chalice of My Blood of the New and
Everlasting Testament; the Mystery of Faith,
which shall be shed for you and for many
unto the remission of sins.’ If any omission or
alteration is made in the formula of
consecration of the Body and Blood, involving
a change of meaning, the consecration is
invalid. An addition made without altering the
meaning does not invalidate the consecration,
but the celebrant commits a grave sin.”
Thus, to omit the word “for” (enim) does not
involve a change of meaning, but this is not
the case with other words, and especially,
“which shall be shed for you and for many
unto the remission of sins.” For these words
clearly signify the grace which is conferred.
On the contrary, the words, “For this is the
Chalice of My Blood,” standing alone, do not
signify the conferring of the grace of the
Sacrament.
“Many” vs. “All”
That which is really in question in regard to
the Novus Ordo is whether the change from
“for many” to “for all men” involves a change
of meaning or not. Most argues it does not.
He reasons that the Greek word “polloi,” used
by the Evangelists in the accounts of the Last
supper (meaning “for many”), is used in other
parts of Scripture to mean “all of a large
group” (or “all who are many,” as Most puts
it); thus, to translate it “for all” is really the
same as “for many.”
But, if we examine the actual usage in the
Novus Ordo, we find “for all men” in English.
We do not find “for all who are many,” but “for
all men,” period. Now by no stretch of the
imagination can “for all men” mean the same
as “for many” or even “for all who are many.”
The last two phrases refer to the members of
a large exclusive group; “for all men” is
exclusive of no one. “For all men” is the
official English translation of the Vatican II
church.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent
explains why “for many,” i.e., the exclusive
group, must be used:
“Looking to the efficacy of the Passion, we
believe that the Redeemer shed His Blood for
the salvation of all men; but looking to the
advantages which mankind derives from its
efficacy, we find, at once, that they are not
extended to the whole, but to a large
proportion of the human race... With great
propriety, therefore, were the words, ‘for all,’
not used, because here (in the Sacrament of
the Holy Eucharist) the fruit of the Passion is
alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His
Passion bring the fruit of salvation.”
Thus, the “many” are those who actually
receive the fruit of the Holy Eucharist and the
Mass; for the Mass is the unbloody renewal of
Christ’s Sacrifice on Calvary. (We refer the
reader to the article, Res Sacramenti, by
Patrick Henry Omlor).
Now it becomes even more obvious that “for
all men” bears no relation to the effect of the
Sacrament; all men’s souls do not receive the
fruit of the Passion. Here is a clear illustration
from another Sacrament: if a priest were to
say, in baptizing an infant, “I baptize all men,
in the Name of the Father, etc.,” even though
he had the right intention, would the Baptism
be valid? Assuredly not, and Most would be
the first to say so. This point should be
obvious then: in the Novus Ordo, the words
“for all men” do not signify those for whom the
Holy Eucharist effects grace; thus, for this
defect alone, it is invalid.
Intention of the Priest: To Offer Sacrifice
To the editor’s thinking, the most damning
evidence against the Novus Ordo is its official
definition: “The Lord’s Supper or Mass is a
sacred meeting or assembly of the People of
God, met together under the presidency of
the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the
Lord (No. 7, Institution Generalis, c. 2: De
Structura Missae).”
Most claims that he can show us the
references to sacrifice in the Novus Ordo, few
though they may be. But in the Critical Study
of the Novus Ordo Missae(submitted by
Cardinal Ottaviani to Paul VI as a protest
against the New Mass), there is asked,
“Which sacrifice is referred to? Who is the
offerer?” No answer is given to either of these
questions.
Let us examine these few references to the
“Eucharistic Prayers.” In Prayer I (called the
“Roman canon” because it is the least
heretical), there are about a half dozen
references to sacrifice of some sort. But what
sort of sacrifice is it one of propitiation for
sins, which the true Mass must be? Assuredly
not; there is not one mention of the remission
of sins. In Eucharistic Prayer II there is only,
“... we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread,
this saving cup.” In Eucharistic Prayer III,
which sounds like a Baptist service, the
“offering” has already “reconciled” us to the
Father. It has already “made our peace” with
God. Is this a sacrifice of propitiation? It is
not; it is a Protestant “salvation rally.”
Eucharistic Prayer IV is even worse; now, the
“sacrifice” brings “salvation to the whole
world” (to “all men”).
If a priest intends to offer a “memorial”
instead of a Sacrifice of propitiation, his
intention is invalid. In Apostolicae
Curae, Pope Leo XIII taught:
“...if the rite [in this case, of the Mass and
Holy Eucharist] be changed, with the manifest
intention of introducing another rite not
approved by the Church and of rejecting what
the Church does, and what by institution of
Christ belongs to the nature of the
Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the
necessary intention wanting to the sacrament,
but that the intention is adverse to and
destructive of the Sacrament.”
Pope Eugene IV
Most states that Pope Eugene IV “ordered the
words ‘pro multis’ inserted in the words of
consecration.” He reasons that they must
have been frequently omitted before, but
asks, “Did Christ so desert His Church as to
let many Masses be invalid before the 15th
century and Pope Eugene?” This is a clever
bit of sophistry. For Eugene IV did not order
these words inserted in the Catholic Mass,
but rather issued these decrees in union with
the Council of Florence, to the schismatic
Greeks, Armenians and Jacobites. These
decrees (particularly those to the Jacobites)
demand that these schismatics be questioned
as to their orthodoxy in a number of areas
before they could be reconciled to the true
Church. In fact, the Decree to the Jacobites
defined:
“In the consecration of the Body of the Lord is
used this form of words: ‘For this is My Body’;
but for the Blood: ‘For this is the chalice of My
Blood, of the New and Everlasting Testament;
the Mystery of Faith, which shall be shed for
you and for many unto the remission of sins.’”
WHY SHOULD CATHOLICS HAVE
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NOVUS
ORDO MISSAE?
A.  PRELIMINARY REMARKS
1. A criticism of the “New Rite” cannot
be a criticism of the Mass in itself, for
this is the very sacrifice of Our Lord
bequeathed to His Church, but it is an
examination, whether it is a fit rite for
embodying and enacting this august
Sacrifice.
2. It is difficult for those who have
known nothing other than the Novus
Ordo Missae to understand of what they
have been deprived, and attending a
“Latin Mass” often just seems alien. To
 see clearly what it is all about, it is
necessary to have a clear understanding
of the defined truths of our Faith on the
Mass (PRINCIPLES 11 - 18 are some of
them). Only in the light of these can the
“new rite” of Mass be evaluated.
B.  WHAT IS THE NOVUS ORDO
MISSAE?
Let us answer this by looking at its four
causes, as the philosophers would say:
1. What are the ELEMENTS that make
up the New Rite?  Some are Catholic:
 a priest,
 bread and wine,
 genuflections,
 signs of the Cross, etc.,
but some are Protestant:
 a table,
 common-place utensils,
 communion under both kinds and in
 the hand, etc.
2. Now, the Novus Ordo
Missae assumes these heterodox
elements alongside the Catholic ones to
form a LITURGY FOR A MODERNIST
RELIGION which would marry the
Church and the world, Catholicism and
Protestantism, light and darkness. 
Indeed, the Novus Ordo
Missae presents itself as:
 A meal (vs. PRINCIPLE 11). This is
shown by its use of a table around
which the people of God gather to
offer bread and wine (vs. PRINCIPLE
18) and to communicate from rather
common-place utensils, often under
both kinds (vs. PRINCIPLE 15), and
usually in the hand (vs.PRINCIPLE
16). (Note to the almost complete
deletion of references to sacrifice).
 A narrative of a past event
(vs. PRINCIPLE 12). This told out
 loud by the one presiding
(vs. PRINCIPLE 14), who recounts
Our Lord’s words as read in Scripture
(rather than pronouncing a
sacramental formula) and who
makes no pause until he has shown
the Host to the people.
 A community gathering,
(vs. PRINCIPLE 13). Christ is
perhaps considered to be morally
present but ignored in his
Sacramental Presence
(vs.PRINCIPLES 16 & 17).
3. Notice also the
numerous RUBRICAL changes:
 the celebrant facing the people from
where the tabernacle was formerly
kept.
 just after the consecration, all
acclaim He “will come again.” 
 sacred vessels are no longer gilt. 
 Sacred Particles are ignored
 (vs. PRINCIPLE 15)
a. the priest no longer joins
thumb and forefinger after the
consecration.
b. the vessels are not purified as
they used to be.
c.Communion is most frequently
given in the hand.
d. genuflections on the part of
the priest and kneeling on the
part of the faithful are much
reduced.
e. the people take over much of
what the priest formerly did.
Moreover, the Novus Ordo Missae defined
itself this way: 
The Lord’s Supper, or Mass, is a sacred
synaxis, or assembly of the people of God
gathered together under the presidency of
the priest to celebrate the memorial of the
Lord.  (Pope Paul VI,Institutio Generalis, §7,
1969 version)
4. What is the AIM of the Novus Ordo
Missae as a rite?
...the intention of Pope Paul VI with regard
to what is commonly called the Mass, was
to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way
that it should almost coincide with the
Protestant liturgy... there was with Pope
Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove,
or at least to correct, or at least to relax,
what was too Catholic, in the traditional
sense, in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the
Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist
mass....*

*Jean Guitton on Dec. 19, 1993

in Apropos (17), p. 8ff[also
in Christian Order, Oct. 1994]. 
Jean Guitton was an intimate
friend of Pope Paul VI.  Paul VI
had 116 of his books and had
 made marginal study notes in 17
of these:
When I began work on this trilogy
I was concerned at the extent to
which the Catholic liturgy was
being Protestantized. The more
detailed my study of the
Revolution, the more evident it
has become that it has by-passed
Protestantism and its final goal is
humanism (Pope Paul's New
Mass, p. 137 (cf., p. 149),
[APPENDIX II])
This latter is a fair evaluation when one
considers the changes implemented, the
results achieved, and the tendency of
modern theology, even papal theology
(cf. QUESTION 7).
 5. WHO made up
the Novus Ordo
Missae?
It is the invention of a
liturgical commission,
Bugnini (as the Consilium, whose
an guiding light was Fr.
archbishop in Annibale Bugnini (made
this image), an archbishop in 1972 for
one of the his services), and which
architects of also included six
the New Protestant experts. Fr.
Mass Bugnini (principal author
of Vatican
II’sSacrosanctum
Concilium) had his own
ideas on popular
involvement in the liturgy
(La Riforma Liturgia, A.
Bugnini, Centro Liturgico
Vincenziano, 1983), while
the Protestant advisors
had their own heretical
 ideas on the essence of
the Mass.
But the one on whose authority the Novus
Ordo Missae was enforced was Pope Paul
VI, who “promulgated” it by his apostolic
constitution, Missale Romanum (April 3,
1969).
6. Or did Pope Paul VI REALLY DO
SO?
 In the original version of Missale
Romanum, signed by Pope Paul VI,
no mention was made either of
anyone’s being obliged to use
theNovus Ordo Missae or when such
an obligation might begin.
 Translators of the
constitution mistranslated cogere et
efficere (i.e., to sum up and draw a
conclusion) as to give force of law.
 The version in the Acta Apostolicae
Sedis (which records all official texts
 of the papacy) has an added
paragraph “enjoining” the new
missal, but it is in the wrong tense,
the past, and
readspraescripsimus (i.e.., which we
have ordered) thereby referring to a
past obligation, and nothing,
moreover, in Missale
Romanumprescribes, but at most
permits the use of the “New
Rite" (The Angelus, March 1997, p.
35).
Can it be true that Pope Paul VI wanted this
missal but that it was not properly imposed
(it is known moreover, that Pope Paul VI
signed the Institutio Generalis without
reading it and without ensuring that it had
been previously confirmed by the Holy
Office).

C.  JUDGMENT ON THE NOVUS ORDO

MISSAE
 1. Judging the Novus Ordo Missae in
itself and in its official Latin form (juxta
typica1969)*, Cardinals Ottaviani and
Bacci wrote to Pope Paul VI:
...the Novus Ordo represents, both as a
whole and in its details, a striking departure
from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it
was formulated in Session XXIII of the
Council of Trent.  (A Brief Critical Study of
the Novus Ordo Missae, Sept. 25, 1969)

* A Novus Ordo
Missae celebrated according to
the 1969 juxta typica edition
would look very similar to the
traditional Roman Rite, with the
celebrant saying most (if not all)
the prayers in Latin, facing the
tabernacle and wearing the
traditional Mass vestments, with a
male altar server, and Gregorian
chant, etc.  None of the current
abuses, e.g., Communion in the
hand, Eucharistic Ministers,
liturgical dancing, guitar-masses,
etc., have part with this official
form. Hence, the aforementioned
cardinals' (as well as the SSPX's)
critique of the Novus Ordo
Missae is not of its abuses or
misapplication, but rather of
its essential and official form.
And Archbishop Lefebvre definitely agreed
with them when he wrote:
The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said
with piety and respect for the liturgical rules,
...is impregnated with the spirit of 
Protestantism. It bears within it a poison
harmful to the faith (An Open Letter to
Confused Catholics, p. 29 [APPENDIX II])
The dissimulation of Catholic elements and
the pandering to Protestants which are
evident in the Novus Ordo Missae render it
a danger to our faith, and, as such, evil,
given that it lacks the good which the sacred
rite of Mass ought to have.
2. By their fruits you shall know them:
We were promised the Novus Ordo
Missae would renew Catholic fervor, inspire
the young, draw back the lapsed and attract
non-Catholics.
Who today can pretend that these things are
its fruits? Together with theNovus Ordo
Missae did there not instead come a
dramatic decline in Mass attendance and
vocations, an “identity crisis” among priests,
a slowing in the rate of conversions, and an
acceleration of apostasies? So, from the
point of view of its fruits, the Novus Ordo
Missae is not a rite conducive to the
flourishing of the Church’s mission.
3. Does it follow from the apparent
promulgation by the popes that
the Novus Ordo Missae is truly
Catholic?  No, for the indefectibility of
the Church does not prevent the pope
personally from promoting defective and
modernist rites in the Latin rite of the
Church. Moreover, the Novus Ordo
Missae:
 was not properly promulgated (and
therefore does not have force of
law;cf., [vi] above),
 the old Roman Mass (aka, the
Tridentine  or traditional Latin Mass)
was not abolished or superseded in
the constitution Missale Romanum,
hence in virtue of the of Quo
Primum (which de jure [by law] is still
the liturgical law and therefore the
official Mass of the Roman Rite), it
can always be said (PRINCIPLE 19),
 and lastly, the constitution Missale
Romanum does not engage the
Church's infallibility.*
*Let us remember that a pope
engages his infallibility not only
when teaching on faith or morals
(or legislating on what is
necessarily connected with them)
but when so doing with full
pontifical authority and definitively
(cf.Vatican I [Dz 1839].  But as
regards the Novus Ordo Missae,
Pope Paul VI has stated (Nov. 19,
1969) that:  
...the rite and its related rubric are
not in themselves a dogmatic
definition.  They are capable of
various theological qualifications,
depending on the liturgical
context to which they relate. 
They are gestures and terms
relating to a lived and living
religious action which involves the
ineffable mystery of God's
presence; it is an action that is
not always carried out in the
exact same form, an action that
only theological analysis can
examine and express in doctrinal
formulas that are logically
satisfying.
NB:  It should be also be
understood that the papal
bull,Quo Primum is neither an
infallible document, but rather
only a disciplinary document
regarding the liturgical law that
governs the Tridentine Rite
(cf. this Catholic FAQ for details).
D.  THIS BEING SO, CAN IT BE SAID
THAT THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAEIS
INVALID?
This does not necessarily follow from the
above defects, as serious as they might be,
for only three things are required for validity
(presupposing a validly ordained priest),
proper:
 matter,
 form,
 and intention.
However, the celebrant must intend to do
what the Church does. The Novus Ordo
Missae will no longer in and of itself
guarantee that the celebrant has this
intention. That will depend on his personal
faith (generally unknown to those assisting,
but more and more doubtful as the crisis in
the Church is prolonged).
Therefore, these Masses can be of doubtful
validity, and more so with time.
The words of consecration, especially of the
wine, have been tampered with. Has
the “substance of the sacrament” (cf., Pope
Pius XII quoted in PRINCIPLE 5) been
respected?  This is even more of a problem
in Masses in the vernacular, where pro
multis (for many) has been deliberately
mistranslated as"for all". While we should
assume that despite this change the
consecration is still valid, nevertheless this
does add to the doubt.

E.  CONSIDERING WHAT HAS BEEN

SAID, ARE WE OBLIGED IN
CONSCIENCE TO ATTEND THE NOVUS
ORDO MISSAE?
 If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly
Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s
Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who
do assist at it are unaware of its all
pervasive degree of serious innovation
and are exempt from guilt. However, any
Catholic who is aware of its harm, does
not have the right to participate. He
could only then assist at it by a mere
physical presence without positively
taking part in it, and then and for major
family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc).
  What now brown cow?

"Maimed Rites"
 A Review of Father Paul Kramer’s
The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the
Liturgy
 By David Allen White, Ph.D.
            “But soft, but soft awhile! Here
comes the King,
           The Queen, the courtiers. Who
is this they follow?
           And with such maimèd rites?
This doth betoken
           The corse they follow did with
desperate hand
           Fordo its own life. 'Twas of
some estate.
           Couch we awhile and mark.
                                                                    - H
amlet (5.1.217-222.)
             These words are
spoken by Hamlet to his
friend Horatio in the
graveyard scene that opens
the final act of
Shakespeare's Hamlet. The
 
young Prince of Denmark has
been ruminating on the nature of death and
staring at the skull of the court jester Yorick, a
companion of his boyhood, when he is
interrupted by the funeral procession that will
lay the innocent Ophelia to rest. There is a
likelihood, but no complete certainty, that the
young woman has committed suicide, and
thus she cannot receive the full burial
ceremony, but only a partial and perfunctory
ceremony, hence, the “maimèd rites.”
            Anyone who has followed the sad
path of the Roman Catholic Church since the
catastrophe of the Second Vatican Council
can understand this scene. Mother Church
herself, the bastion of tradition and truth that
had carried forth the Catholic faith for
centuries, suddenly decided in a moment of
Ophelia-like madness to commit suicide. The
consequence has been, of course, “maimèd
rites,” the corruption of all the sacraments and
ceremonies of the Church, as well as the
confusion of thought, the repudiation of the
past and the suppression of tradition. We are
indeed close to witnessing the burial service
for poor Mother Church; the Mystical Body of
Our Lord will have to endure the tomb just as
His physical body did. Those with strong faith
and the memory of His promise that the
“gates of hell shall not prevail” against her will
have some consolation. But now we must
weep as did His Blessed Mother, St. John
and the holy women who stood on Good
Friday at the foot of the cross.
            Pope Pius XII had a vision of such a
calamity. He is quoted as saying:
“I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's
messages to Lucy of Fatima. This
persistence of Mary about the dangers
which menace the Church is a divine
 warning against the suicide of altering the
Faith, in her liturgy, her theology and her
soul. ...
“I hear all around me innovators who wish
to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy
the universal flame of the Church, reject
her ornaments and make her feel remorse
for her historical past.
“A day will come when the civilized world
will deny its God, when the Church will
doubt as Peter doubted. She will be
tempted to believe that man has become
God. In our churches, Christians will
search in vain for the red lamp where God
awaits them, like Mary Magdalene
weeping before the empty tomb, they will
ask, 'Where have they taken
Him?'” (Quoted in Msgr. Georges
Roche's Pius XII Devant L'Histoire, pp.
52-53)
            Father Paul Kramer quotes these
prophetic words at the beginning of his
superb new study The Suicide of Altering the
Faith in the Liturgy, the title of which comes
from the same remarks.
            Not only do the modern faithful weep
before the empty tomb “like Mary
Magdalene,” but they feel the same sense of
confusion and complete disorientation as the
unthinkable seems to have happened; all the
apostles (with one exception) seem to have
run away, an action Cardinal Ottaviani,
speaking of the scene in Gethsemane when
the Apostles fled, called the first collegial act
of the Catholic hierarchy carried out in union
with the Pope. The very Church that once
stood as a bastion of truth is now covered in
clouds and fog, obscure, hidden, indefinable;
the voice of Rome which once rang out with
clarity has become garbled, contradictory,
harsh.
            There is thus a great need for books
such as Father Kramer's which is old-
fashioned and very Catholic in its clarity and
forthrightness. The book is an excellent piece
of work for Father Kramer uses clear
definitions, sound reasoning, the traditional
teaching of the Popes and Sacred Scripture
(as well as common sense) to bring clarity to
the muddled confusion in which we now find
ourselves. The book is a brilliant beam of light
that cuts through the fog and murk that
shroud modern Rome to reveal the eternal
glory of our Catholic Faith. In his precise
presentation of basic and fundamental
Church teachings concerning Liturgy,
Tradition and Magisterium, Father Kramer
gives battling Catholics razor-sharp swords
with which to cut through their opponents'
paper armor.
            Here are some examples, rooted in
hard fact and not abstract speculation:
            • What Pope Paul VI decreed -- that a
“new rite of Mass” be instituted -- was
solemnly condemned as heresy by the
Council of Trent. The Council of Trent, a
doctrinal Council, stated unequivocally that
the proposition that “the received and
approved rites of the Catholic Church
customarily used in the solemn administration
of the sacraments may be changed into other
new rites by any ecclesiastical pastor
whosoever” is heretical [Sess. VII, can. XIII].
            • What Pope Paul VI did, Pope Pius
VI had already condemned. The notion that
[the liturgy] should be recalled “'to greater
simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the
vernacular language or by uttering it in a loud
voice' as if the present order of the liturgy
received and approved by the Church, had
emanated in some part from the forgetfulness
of the principles by which it should be
regulated” is “rash, offensive to pious ears,
insulting to the Church, favourable to the
charges of heretics.” Auctorem Fidei [33]
            • The Second Vatican Council, a
pastoral Council, did not call for “the
suppression of the traditional Roman Rite of
Mass and its replacement with a new rite of
Mass.” (Kramer, p.3) It, in fact, called for the
rite of the Mass to be “revised,” so that “the
intrinsic nature and purpose of its several
parts” may be “more clearly manifested,” and
“restored according to the pristine norms of
the holy Fathers.” The Council specifically
called for any revision of the rites to be
accomplished “carefully in the light of sound
tradition” and with “due care being taken to
preserve their substance.” All these
statements come directly from Sacrosanctum
Concilium, the document on the Constitution
of the Liturgy.
            When the Catholic Bishops
Conference of the Philippines stated,
therefore, in its Admonition of November 18,
1992, that the “changes in the liturgy' were
“decreed by Vatican II,” they were, as Fr.
Kramer points out, making a statement that is
“demonstrably false.” And the same may be
said of every novus ordo priest who has
bushwhacked poor traditionally-minded
parishioners with the same falsehood.
(though Michael Davies documents that
Vatican II’s Constitution on the Liturgy is full
of “time bombs”, ambiguous phrases placed
there by liberals to be interpreted in a
progressivist manner after the Council.)
            All of this documented and factual
information can be found in the opening
pages of Fr. Kramer's book, the first part of
which is entitled “A Theological Vindication of
Roman Catholic Tradition.” His discussion of
the binding nature of Pope St. Pius V's
encyclical Quo Primum must be read by any
Catholic who seeks to protect, preserve and
defend the Roman Rite handed down to us
over the centuries. In the midst of all the
blather in the modern Church of the “rights” of
the faithful, Father Kramer provides the solid
basis on which we can demand our “rites”,
the approved and immemorial Roman Rite of
the Mass.
            Fr. Kramer does an expert job of
taking apart the newly fabricated novus
ordo mass and explaining why it “does not
conform to the traditional post-Tridentine
Eucharistic theology of sacrifice.” (Kramer,
p.25). He makes very clear how the changes
since the Council have resulted in a crisis of
authority in the Church and the very clear
teachings of Mother Church herself on the
sacred traditions which the hierarchy is
obligated to hand down over time. He
masterfully relates how the erroneous
definition of the Church which comes from the
Council document Lumen Gentium -- that the
Church “subsists in the Catholic Church” --
leads to Pope John Paul II's outlandish
statement that “the Spirit of Christ does not
refuse to use [other churches and separated
communities] as means of salvation.”
            The book gives clear and precise and
time-honored definitions of words and ideas
that may confuse an average Catholic or that
have been so abused in recent times that
their original meaning may be obscured or
forgotten. One such word is “Magisterium,”
which is defined clearly and directly as “The
authority of the Church, by divine
appointment, to teach the truths of religious
belief; the commission of the Church to teach;
the teaching office of the Church; the
teaching and interpreting of the doctrines of
faith carried on by the Church through the
Pope and the bishops and those
commissioned by them. It may
be ordinary when a doctrine is proclaimed
throughout the Church as a part of divine
revelation; or extraordinary when a general
council defines a doctrine ratified by the Pope
or when the Pope speaks as the official
teacher of the Church (ex cathedra)
proclaiming or defining a matter of faith or
morals.” The book is filled with the sane
reason and clear thought that was once found
in all approved catechisms, before our age of
obscurantism and ambiguity and imprecision.
            Fr. Kramer dismantles the “doctrinal
Novelties of the Post-Conciliar Church”, such
as religious liberty and ecumenism and “living
tradition,” by using those instruments handed
down by the earlier Popes and Councils. If all
of these earlier teachings of the Church can
be so cavalierly overlooked or discarded in
the present day, then why on earth should
any Catholic pay any attention to anything
that is decreed today? Can any thoughtful
mind take seriously a concept of doctrines
and dogmas and decrees that presents them
as changing as swiftly with the currents of the
day as the most recent fashions? In fact, why
on earth should one be a Catholic at all if the
Rock has been ground down to grains of
sand disappearing through an hourglass?
Without Tradition, the Roman Catholic
Church makes no sense.
            Part One embodies an invaluable
resource for any Catholic seeking to bring to
bear on the modern mess the clear and
precise teaching of the Popes and the
Councils of the past. It is an education in the
Catholic Faith as expressed in Tradition that
reinvigorates the mind and gives calm to the
soul. Every Catholic should read and absorb
the outstanding material that Fr. Kramer here
offers us.
            Part Two is an analysis of the status
of the Society of St. Pius X using the same
light of Tradition. This section of the book was
prompted by the already
mentioned Admonition of the Philippines
Bishops Council. The many
misrepresentations and outright errors in their
statement caused Fr. Kramer to undertake a
thorough and comprehensive analysis of the
status of the SSPX. His defense of the
Society and its founder Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre makes us grateful for the first time in
ages for a pronouncement from any Bishops
Council -- it allowed a thoughtful and serious
priest to illuminate for them their manifold
errors. A mindless response from a Father
Achacosa prompts further ruminations from
Father Kramer, and again we must be
thankful to Father Achacoso for spurring our
author on to more pages of clarity and insight.
            The book concludes with a bonus: a
frightening essay by John Vennari entitled,
“The Ecumenical Church of the Third
Millennium.” Adapted from a speech given at
a Catholic Family News Conference in 1997,
the remarks focus on a document put out by
the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian
Unity, a document entitled The Directory for
the Applications of the Principles and Norms
of Ecumenism. It is a blueprint for the
destruction of whatever structures of the
Tradition Roman Catholic Church might
remain standing; it calls for planting
ecumenism in each diocese, in convents,
monasteries, religious houses, for training a
new ecumenical priesthood, for ecumenical
formation for all the faithful with special
ecumenical training for children, for
ecumenical activity in every parish, for
allowing Protestants to receive communion
on special occasions and permitting them to
go to confession, and on and on. Fortunately,
Mr. Vennari and Father Kramer’s earlier
chapters give the precise refutation from the
gloriosus Catholic past to these modern
errors.
            The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the
Liturgy gives the reader hope. We may be
living in the post-suicide era in the Church
and forced to confront the “maimèd rites” at
the burial of the deceased but this book
shows all is not lost. And it gives the
ammunition necessary to rout those who
have driven us to the graveside. In fact, it
may not be poor Ophelia's graveside at all but
rather a chapel of miracles; not the end
of Hamlet but, rather, the glorious conclusion
of The Winter's Tale where the seemingly
dead Queen Hermione miraculously is
restored to life and reunited with her family.
We await the same glorious resurrection and
reunion with our beloved Holy Mother Church.
A Brief Defense of Traditionalism
Responding to
certain attacks and misconceptions
As is the case in the political field, there have
always been differing views on appropriate
Church discipline and governance. These
views range from the extremely liberal to very
traditional. Most of the opinions which today
fall under the category of "liberalism" are
actually heterodox or heretical and of little
value in most Catholic discussions. Because
of this element "within" the Church and the
overall shift that occurred around the time of
the Second Vatican Council, the classic battle
between liberals and conservatives has
undergone a deceptive change in
terminology.
As the heretics of yesterday have become
the liberals of today, the liberals of yesterday
now lay claim to the title "conservative".
Consequentially the conservatives came to
be known as "traditionalists". Unfortunately,
these terms are no longer completely
accurate descriptions. So for the purposes of
this essay, I will use the following general
definitions to delineate the differences
between traditionalists and "conservatives":
TRADITIONALIST: One who challenges
the novel practices and teachings of
Catholics (including bishops and priests)
which appear to contradict the prior
teaching of the Church. A traditionalist
questions the prudence of new pastoral
approaches and holds the belief that
those things generally deemed objectively
good or evil several decades ago remain
so today.
"CONSERVATIVE": One who upholds
and defends the current policies and
positions of the Church hierarchy
regardless of their novelty. A
"conservative" extends the definitions of
"infallibility" and "Magisterium" to include
most every action and speech of the Pope
and those Cardinals around him, but may
exclude those Cardinals and bishops
outside of Rome. A "conservative's"
opinion is also subject to change
depending on the current actions of the
Holy Father. "Conservative" will be used it
in quotation marks to avoid the misleading
connotation of being diametrically
opposed to liberalism or on the far right of
the spectrum. Also since there only exists
a desire to "conserve" only those
 traditions and practices of the past
deemed appropriate at any given time by
the present Pope. The quotation marks
will also ensure a proper dissociation
between the actual conservatives active
prior to and during Vatican II (Ottaviani,
Lefebvre, Fenton, etc.).
Both traditionalists and "conservatives"
acknowledge the existence of problems in the
Church but disagree as to their nature, extent,
causes and remedies.
"Conservatives" see it as an "illness" — an
incidental problem like a gangrene limb. In
the English-speaking world, this problem may
be limited to the actions of certain American
bishops. "Conservatives" see the novelties of
Vatican II and the New Mass as natural and
acceptable developments in the course of the
Church, but take issue with those seeking to
expand upon those novelties, or take them to
their next logical progression. They see the
crisis in the Church as a societal issue that
would have happened regardless of what
actions the Church leadership had taken.
Their solution is to return to Vatican II and
embark on another attempt to "renew" the
Church.
Traditionalists see the illness as a
widespread cancer affecting the whole body
put most particularly and critically the heart.
They question the prudence of making
significant changes in the Mass and the
Church's pastoral orientation. They attribute
the destruction to liberal and Modernist ideals
given a certain degree of acceptability once
the Church decided to stop fighting them with
extreme vigilance. They see the Church
leadership as sharing in the responsibility for
the crisis due to its governance (or lack
thereof). Their solution is not another attempt
at a reform that may be "more in line with the
'spirit' of Vatican II" (shudder), but a return to
the practices and beliefs of the Church that
sustained it for hundreds of years prior.
"Conservative" objections to
traditionalism
While not in agreement on many issues,
traditionalists and "conservatives" have
typically enjoyed some degree of
coexistence. "Conservatives" attacked
heretics posing as Catholics in American
churches and traditionalists focused on
dangerous trends in the upper Church
hierarchy. Unfortunately, it is becoming
increasingly popular for "conservatives" to
condemn traditionalists as "Schismatics" and
guilty of "excommunication". Be it on the
Internet, in periodicals, during speeches or on
radio programs, traditionalism is being vilified
as never before. This essay concerns itself
with the attacks of those "conservatives" who
have taken it upon themselves to condemn
those who fall to the right of their views.
It is questionable whether the proper
functions of Catholics is to hunt down,
"expose" and condemn Catholics they
suspect of undue rigidity, disobedience or
"material schism"; especially while giving
support to a Vatican ecumenical campaign
which addresses heretics
and actual Schismatics as "separated
brethren", Jews as "people of the covenant"
and Muslims as "people of God". This is part
of the overall contradiction (or inconsistency)
that permeates the "conservative" mentality.
Cloaked in a pledged loyalty to all things
"whatsoever" emanating from the Holy See,
many "conservatives" will go beyond the
measures taken by the Church leaders, or
even disagree with their actual positions. The
Hawaii "excommunications" were an obvious
example but others can be seen.
"Conservatives" denounce as "Schismatic" all
those who set foot in SSPX chapels while the
Vatican embraces the Schismatics in China.
"Conservatives" deny any significant change
at the Second Vatican Council while the Pope
celebrates the enormity and impact of the
changes. "Conservatives" seek the
conversion of the Eastern "Orthodox" while
the Vatican promises not to "proselytize"
them. "Conservatives" deride American
bishops while the Pope appoints and
promotes the same ones.
Much ink has been spilled (or whatever the
electronic equivalent is) in these increasing
attempts to condemn traditionalists, with
some polemics requiring hundreds of pages
to make their point (if traditionalism is so
clearly evil and harmful to the Church, why
are such lengths necessary?). What follows
is a brief essay addressing the most common
objections of traditionalism. As a disclaimer
(which will certainly be ignored), I am neither
attacking nor defending any particular
individual. I will discuss a number of
objections which vary in substance and
degree, but I am not asserting that all
"conservatives" hold each of these positions;
just as I don't presume to express the views
of every traditionalist in my defense.
1) "Traditionalists criticize the Church
leaders, particularly the Pope. These
criticisms show disloyalty and are only to
be done by qualified theologians in rare
circumstances."
 This objection comes from an
assumption as to the root
"I say to thee,
motivation of the criticisms. A
thou art Peter,
criticism in itself is not a bad
and on this
thing but it can be, depending
rock I will build
on its nature and intent. For
My Church;
instance, a criticism made
and the gates
out of malice or done in a
of hell shall not
disrespectful manner
prevail against
becomes an attack or insult.
it."
Unfortunately,
-Matthew
"conservatives" seem to be
16:18
taking issue with any criticism
or disagreement on non-doctrinal matters,
regardless of the nature or presumed intent.
To them, the very act of criticism itself seems
to indicate a lack of loyalty or obedience. This
was not the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas.
"When there is an imminent danger for the
Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even
publicly, by their subjects." 1
Why would traditionalists waste so much time
discussing Papal actions out of simple malice
towards the Supreme Pontiff? Traditionalists
are Catholics who are very concerned about
the state of the Church and are forced, out of
charity, to make those concerns known.
There should be no doubt that those who
offer proper criticism show an even deeper
love than those who remain in unquestioning
silence.
If someone were to write a letter to President
Bush, criticizing his decision to allow
experimentation on stem cells from human
embryos, would the author be seen as
disloyal to his country? It should be clear that
he cares so much for his country, that he
does not want to see it suffer from such a
horrible lack of judgment. Granted the Church
is not a democracy, but the same principle
applies. Dominican theologian Melchior Cano
states the obvious:
"Peter has no need of our lies or flattery.
Those who blindly and indiscriminately
defend every decision of the supreme
Pontiff are the very ones who do most to
undermine the authority of the Holy See
 — they destroy instead of strengthening
its foundations."
Ever since the pronouncement of Papal
Infallibility at the First Vatican Council, there
has existed to some degree a false
impression that the Pope enjoys a high level
of perfection and is protected from most
errors — not just in matters faith and morals
but all words and actions. Such a view is not
Catholic and is dangerously close to the
worship of a man (papolatry), a violation of
the First Commandment. Infallibility is defined
within very precise limits. Not every Pope
enjoys an aura of infallibility or is generally
protected from imprudence — just ask one of
the sons of Pope Alexander VI.
A criticism of the Pope is not a criticism of the
Catholic Church or a denial of its
indefectibility, but of the decisions of the man
who occupies the Chair of Peter. According
to John Henry Newman:
"It is in no sense doctrinally false that a
Pope, as a private doctor, and much more
bishops, when not teaching formally, may
 err, as we find they did err in the fourth
century."
The Supreme Pontiff is indeed deserving of
the benefit of the doubt and his teaching
deserving of "internal assent" (except in
cases where there is nothing towards which
to assent or an apparent contradiction with
previous teaching). Although, this assent has
been lacking in the Church since the 1960's
(especially in America), to respond with an
insistence of papal perfection is an extreme
and dangerous overreaction.
Although he was "Prince of the Apostles" and
the head of the Church, Peter was not Christ.
More scriptural verses are devoted to Peter's
mistakes and imprudence than those of any
other apostle. From his denials of Christ to
his treatment of Gentiles, the first Pope was
shown as a man with human weaknesses
who was by no means perfect or deserving of
"blind obedience".
Some "conservatives" are fine with the
existence of the criticisms but not with the
perceived tone. Examples of previous saints
(e.g. St. Catherine of Siena) are given to
demonstrate the "proper" and "respectful"
way to question authorities. First of all, a
simple disagreement over communication
techniques hardly accounts for the vast
difference between loyalty and disobedience,
or Catholic and Schismatic. Secondly, when
situations turn dire, language must follow.
Traditionalists are not taking issue with a
single isolated incident in an otherwise strong
and impressive Church. This is not the time
for a simple reminder or request for
clarification on a minor issue. It has long
since escalated to full-scale alarm. The
Church has gone through such overwhelming
devastation over the past thirty-five years, it's
a wonder anyone can react otherwise. Strong
affirmations of Catholic truths and
unambiguous criticisms of dissent are
necessary in a time of confusion and ruin.

2) "Traditionalists do not 'trust' their

leaders and assume the worst."
"Conservatives" compare
traditionalists to the apostles
who were disturbed by
Christ's sleeping in the boat
while the waters raged Hans Küng
around them. I don't think "Every
the analogy applies. Again, institution,
Peter is not Christ and while even the
"conservatives" may find it holiest, every
morally acceptable to remain aspect of
silent, "trusting" that it is all organization
part of God's Divine Plan, can, through
most Catholics are unable to the historical
calmly witness the Bride of process of
Christ subject to such formation and
abuse. deformation,
come to need
History is full of "defenders renewal, and
of the Faith" who were must then be
unwilling to see the Church reformed and
afflicted in the smallest of renewed.
ways ("small" at least by Indeed, the
today's standards). Just holier the
because the gates of hell institution, the
cannot prevail doesn't mean worse the
damage, and
the more
the attack on souls being carried out in the
meantime should be passively ignored in a
misguided act of faith. For what is a Catholic
to do when heretics like Hans Kung are
allowed to publish lies with impunity? When
globalists and mass abortionists like
Gorbachev are treated as guests of honor at
the Vatican? When Schismatic groups,
heretical sects and false religions are treated
as on a similar level as the One Holy Catholic
and Apostolic Church? When bishops who
deny the necessity of conversion for salvation
(Walter Kasper) and advocate the Church's
assistance of women procuring abortions
(Karl Lehmann) are rewarded with Cardinal
birettas? When traditional bishops and priests
are subjected to extreme and disproportional
persecution while heretics exercise great
power and influence? When Our Holy Father
flatters the undeniably evil Chinese
government as an institution whose
objectives are "not in opposition" to the
Catholic Church? Of what sort of "trust" are
these activities deserving? What is the proper
Catholic response? What would St. Paul
have done?
"But though we, or an angel from Heaven,
preach a gospel to you besides that which
we have preached to you, let him be
anathema." (Galatians 1:8)
Indefectibility is not a promise of wonderful
times in the course of Christendom. The Arian
heresy was certainly no Golden Age for the
Church. As St. Jerome wrote, the whole
world "awoke with a groan to find itself
Arian," yet the Church did not defect. The
Faith was maintained primarily by the laity
and led by a few courageous individuals
when it appeared the majority of priests and
bishops had fallen into heresy.
Throughout history, there have been
numerous corrupt Popes, Cardinals, bishops
and priests but the Church has marched on,
emerging from each trial stronger than
before. While "conservatives" may be content
to passively wait around for the next triumph
of the Church, some Catholics set their sights
a little higher and are concerned about the
loss of souls that could be avoided in the
meantime.
Also, such a criticism of the "trust" of
traditionalists is more than a little
disingenuous. It represents the most
traditional of "conservative" mentalities — an
implicit admission that all these problems
may exist but we should silently sit back and
watch those chosen to run the Church do so
as they see fit. To be consistent,
"conservatives" would have to withdraw their
attacks on American Cardinals who, by virtue
of their office, should be deserving of similar
"trust". This objection also shows a lack of
"trust" for the previous Popes and their efforts
as recently as the early part of the 20th
century. Again, some "conservatives" claim
all current Papal actions to be completely
consistent with his predecessors and Vatican
II completely in line with the history of the
Church, while the Pope and Cardinals claim
and celebrate the opposite. Why would Pope
St. Pius X devote so much time and energy
to combating and rooting out Modernism if he
did not clearly see its power and ability to
infiltrate the highest levels of the Church?
Many people laughed at his "crusade" and
thought he was overreacting, but history has
long since vindicated the prophetic nature of
his words. Why were many priests and
theologians, who would later rise to influential
positions in the Church, under serious
investigation for Modernism in the 1950's? Is
perfect wisdom and orthodoxy guaranteed by
position? Again, of what sort of "trust" is
deserving here?
3) "Traditionalists defy the Magisterium of
the Church."
Not so. The Magisterium is not everything a
Pope or Cardinal may decide to do (like hold
an ecumenical seance) but the official
teaching authority of the Church, whether
Ordinary or Extraordinary. As with infallibility,
"conservatives" extend the meaning of
Magisterium to encompass the actions of
anyone in the upper hierarchy of the Church
or with current residence in the Vatican.
Traditionalists have
called into question
(not defied or rejected) Pope Alexander VI
some recent teachings and Girolamo
of the Ordinary Savonarola
Magisterium because Despite his
of their apparent shortcomings,
contradiction with Savonarola was one
previous teaching. This of the few to speak
is not a preference or out against the
an overly-arrogant use worldliness,
of "private judgment". excesses and
They maintain the humanism growing
attitude that what was among the clergy
true for their parents and especially the
and grandparents is Pope: "In these
just as true for them. days, prelates and
They refuse to share in preachers are
the optimism of new chained to the earth
ideas and techniques by the love of
promising to "renew" earthly things. The
the Church. Such care of souls is no
naive longer their concern.
optimism may have They are content
with the receipt of
revenue. The
preachers preach to
been excusable forty years ago — it's not any
more.
Suspicion towards non-infallible teachings of
the Ordinary Magisterium will be addressed
more below, but it is founded in a belief of
absolutes in the objective order. Just
because matters of Church discipline are not
on the same level as solemn moral
pronouncements, doesn't mean the
arguments which support them cease to
apply. In fact, when communion in the hand
and "altar girls" were forbidden by Rome,
"conservatives" led the crusade against the
dissenters and were the first to proclaim their
evils. When Rome caved into the pressure
and deemed each aberration acceptable,
what was once so clearly imprudent to
"conservatives" was suddenly "OK".
Granted this is "only" a disciplinary matter,
but a Catholic attitude is one that holds
novelty and change suspect no matter what
the justification. If this strange sort of "trust"
leads to a blind complacency which renders
one incapable of recognizing error once it has
bored its way into the heart of the Church, it
should be seen as an accursed vice. If
"integrism" is used to describe those people
who protect the Church from dangerous
novelties with the zeal encouraged by St.
Pius X, how can it become anything other
than a badge of honor?
4) "Traditionalists view the documents
and encyclicals of recent years as
questionable or different than those of
previous Church leaders."
It doesn't take a theology degree to recognize
that the language of documents since Vatican
II is decidedly different than those of previous
years. What once was clear and precise,
giving little room for alternative interpretations
is now vague and questionable. In previous
times, a statement that apparently
contradicted previous teaching would, out of
obligation, contain a clarification of how it is
to be reconciled with what was previously
taught. This is no longer the case and any
inconsistencies are either ignored or the
previous teaching is said to "no longer apply".
Traditionalists ask the question "why?". Why
are Catholics owed no explanation of why a
teaching is being completely reversed before
their eyes?
And why are "conservatives" the only ones
defending these documents? Why don't the
actual authors in the hierarchy provide
clarifications? While many "conservatives"
are quick to defend some of the novel
language Ut Unum Sint or Dominus Iesus as
perfectly orthodox, such defenses have not
been regular or forthcoming from the Vatican.
And (as with the Novus Ordo) since when
does something "perfectly orthodox" even
need a defense?
The objection comes that Catholics should
trust the language as orthodox and assume
any apparent contradiction is just a deficiency
in their own untrained understanding rather
than in the document. But if that's the case,
what is the point of the document in the first
place, if not to clearly instruct? These
documents are not written for "elite"
theologians but for all Catholics. These
documents used to be in clear, unambiguous
language which took no chances when it
came to possible misunderstandings.
Theological degrees and "conservative"
defenders were not needed to discover their
"proper" meaning, and they should not be
today. The very fact that modern encyclicals
leave any room for intelligent, faithful
individuals to debate the meaning is, in itself,
a serious criticism.

5) "Traditionalists view Vatican II as a

significant change in the orientation of the
Church."
Second Vatican
Council The claim that Vatican II
"We have the represented a very slight or
impression that insignificant change is the
through some first of the two very
cracks in the mysterious objections
wall the smoke addressed in this essay
of Satan has (the other being the New
entered the Rite of the Mass wasn't
temple of much different than its
God: . . . doubt, predecessor). Mysterious
uncertainty, because these were the
questioning, same claims made by
dissatisfaction, everyone (liberal or
confrontation . . . conservative) when the
We thought that changes were going on.
after the Council There was little
a day of disagreement as to the
sunshine would extent of such changes,
have dawned for just the prudence of making
the history of the them.
Church. What
The fact that things were
dawned,
changing was an obvious
instead, was a
fact admitted on all sides.
day of clouds
Liberal Dominican
and storms, of
darkness, of
searching and
"theologian" Yves Congar celebrated the
changes he helped implement, then chided
traditional Catholics that "no one ever
promised you a Church you'd be comfortable
with". Upon his election, Pope John Paul II
praised the council for its revolutionary nature
and cites it almost exclusively (apart from
Scripture) in his encyclicals and letters. In
fact, over ninety percent of the references in
the new Catechism are from the documents
of Vatican II. In Ecclesia Dei, Pope John Paul
II even admitted:
"Indeed, the extent and depth of the
teaching of the Second Vatican Council
call for a renewed commitment to deeper
study in order to reveal clearly the
Council's continuity with Tradition,
especially in points of doctrine
which, perhaps because they are new,
have not yet been well understood by
some sections of the
Church." 2 (emphasis mine here and
throughout)
Whether or not the changes have been
beneficial is debatable, but whether or not a
change in orientation has taken place within
the Catholic Church is a clear, established
fact admitted by all.
6) "Traditionalists reject the infallibility of
the Vatican II documents which are
automatically infallible, being pronounced
by an ecumenical council."
The canonical status of Vatican II documents
can be an unnecessarily long discussion to
get into. Put simply, just because an
ecumenical council can exercise infallibility
does not mean it will. Although it is an "organ
of infallibility", an ecumenical council does not
enjoy that privilege simply by virtue of its
commencement. Even liberal theologians like
Karl Rahner were forced to admit as much.
Countless quotes from bishops, priests and
theologians can testify to the fact that
infallibility wasn't even an issue during the
council, but the testimony of Pope Paul VI
should be enough to suffice:
 "In view of the
pastoral nature of the
Council, it avoided
any extraordinary
statements of
dogmas endowed
with the note of Liberal
infallibility..." 3 theologians
Ecumenical councils censured under
have typically been Pius XII but
called to address welcomed by John
doctrinal issues and XXIII as Vatican II
make solemn definitions. advisors: Karl
Vatican II was, from the Rahner, John
start, billed as a Courtney Murray,
"pastoral" (as opposed to Henri de Lubac
"doctrinal" or "dogmatic") and Yves Congar
council. This was
"Beware of false
repeated to the bishops
prophets who
on several occasions
come to you in the
when concern was
clothing of sheep,
raised over the
but inwardly they
are ravening
wolves. By their
fruits you shall
know them."
orthodoxy and authority of some of the
documents.
In Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to Archbishop
Marcel Lefebvre on July 20, 1983, he states
that:
"It must be noted that, because the
conciliar texts are of varying authority,
criticism of certain of their expressions, in
accordance to the general rules of
adhesion to the Magisterium, is not
forbidden. You may likewise express a
desire for a statement or an explanation
on various points. ... You may that
personally you cannot see how they are
compatible, and so ask the Holy See for
an explanation." 4
It is impossible for infallible texts to "vary in
authority". Also, criticizing expressions and
asking for clarification on seemingly
contradictory teachings is "not forbidden".5
Of course, non-infallible declarations of an
ecumenical council are deserving of internal
assent, but not when those documents make
no solemn definitions, or seem on their face
to be in contrast to previous teaching
(e.g. Dignitatis Humanae). As explained in
the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"But before being bound to give such an
assent, the believer has a right to be
certain that the teaching in question is
definitive (since only definitive teaching is
infallible)..." 6
That such contradictions are apparent has
been admitted by no less a man than
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
"If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the
text as a whole, we might say that (in
conjunction with the texts on religious
liberty and world religions) [Gaudium et
spes] is a revision of the Syllabus of
Pius IX, a kind of counter-syllabus ...
Let us be content to say here that the text
serves as a counter syllabus and, as
such, represents, on the part of the
Church, an attempt at an official
reconciliation with the new era
inaugurated in 1789..." 7
The nature of such "apparent contrasts" is
debatable, as are the appropriate methods
employed for discussion and clarification, but
all investigation on the matter should not
cease to a halt due to an insistence on
infallibility that never existed. To do so would
reward those looking to take advantage of
this imaginary infallibility "gray area" by giving
novel ideas the authority of an ecumenical
council.
In order to prevent any confusion on the
matter, very clear restrictions were put on
what can be considered infallible. Infallibility
only applies to solemn definitions by the
Pope or an ecumenical council in a matter of
faith or morals, binding on the entire Church.
It does not automatically apply to everything
coming out of a council or even all parts of a
documents making infallible definitions.
TheCatholic Encyclopedia entry on
"Infallibility" goes on to state that:
"It need only be added here that not
everything in a conciliar or papal
pronouncement, in which some doctrine
 is defined, is to be treated as definitive
and infallible. For example, in the lengthy
Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate
Conception the strictly definitive and
infallible portion is comprised in a
sentence or two; and the same is true in
many cases in regard to conciliar
decisions. The merely argumentative and
justificatory statements embodied in
definitive judgments, however true and
authoritative they may be, are not covered
by the guarantee of infallibility which
attaches to the strictly definitive sentences
— unless, indeed, their infallibility has
been previously or subsequently
established by an independent decision." 8
What could be more clear? What is reserved
for certain individual sentences cannot be
generally applied to an entire collection of
documents. Non-definitive statements cannot
inadvertently be sealed with infallibility
because they happen during a council. No
matter how many times Vatican II is praised
by present bishops and even the Pope,
infallibility cannot be applied retroactively. If it
did not exist at the time, it cannot be claimed
now or in the future.
7) "Traditionalists view the current crisis
of the Church that has occurred since the
60's as somehow 'caused' by Vatican II or
the New Mass or the actions of the Church
Leaders. That is
ridiculous and similar
Pope Pius IX and to claiming Humanae
the First Vatican Vitae 'caused' the
Council modern crisis."
"The Holy Ghost
This comes closer to
was not promised to
the heart of the
the successors of
traditionalist position.
Peter that by His
Traditionalists tend to
revelation they
place the "blame" for
might disclose new
many modern issues on
doctrine, but that by
the Vatican Council and
His help they might
the New Mass (also
guard sacredly the
Church governance
revelation
which could be seen as
transmitted through
an extension of
the apostles and the
deposit of the Faith,
and might faithfully
set it forth."
conciliar-style "ecumenism" and
"collegiality").
"Conservatives" revel in the claim that since
such a "cause-effect" relationship cannot be
"proven", assigning any blame or trying to
reasonably demonstrate how one could lead
to the other is completely unreasonable. They
cite the basic principle of scientific research
that correlation does not demonstrate
causation. Unfortunately for "conservatives",
such exact causation cannot be determined
outside experimental settings and thus has
little bearing on examinations of history.
Political scientists will always debate whether
America came out of the Great Depression
due to the "New Deal" or World War II, but
neither can be scientifically "proven" as the
cause. Because one cause cannot be
proven, another cannot be discounted —
especially one with reasonable logical
support. Traditionalists make a compelling
case for the role the "renewal" of Vatican II
has played in the modern crisis. To discount
such an argument due to the failure of
establishing an impossible "proof" is
intellectually dishonest.
Traditionalists believe the Second Vatican
Council to be harmful to the Church. As with
criticisms of the Pope, this does not represent
a denial of the Church's indefectibility. Just
because an ecumenical council is called,
does not guarantee it will succeed or be good
for the Church.
"It is entirely possible that an ecumenical
council can simply fail in its stated goal.
The fifteenth-century Council of Ferrara-
Florence failed to bring about a lasting
reconciliation with the Orthodox. The
Second Council of Constantinople, held
during the 550s, seems only to have
confused people further about the
controversy surrounding Monophysitism.
For that reason, St. Isidore of Seville
believed that the Church would have been
better off had it never been called." 9
This is not to say that all the directors of this
new pastoral orientation which begun with
Vatican II were evil or subversive. Many (but
not all) certainly were well-intentioned people
who bought into the idea of a "renewed"
Church with an "improved" outlook towards
the world. But given the results we have all
witnessed, such initial optimism is no longer
reasonable. Even Cardinal Ratzinger admits
as much:
"I am repeating here what I said ten years
after the conclusion of the work: it is
incontrovertible that this period
[following Vatican II] has definitely been
unfavorable for the Catholic Church." 10
Such a conclusion did not take very long to
realize. The results could be seen
immediately after the council. In 1968, Pope
Paul VI lamented:
"We looked forward to a flowering, a
serene expansion of concepts which
matured in the great sessions of the
Council. ... [Instead, it] is as if the Church
were destroying herself." 11
And the following year, Fr. Louis Bouyer
wrote:
 "Unless we are blind, we must even state
bluntly that what we see looks less like
the hoped-for regeneration of Catholicism
than its accelerated decomposition." 12
The Church has never been guaranteed that
it will take the wisest and most prudent path.
Infallibility on matters of faith and morals does
not extend to every decision and pastoral
technique the Church leaders may try. As Dr.
Woods reminds us:
"... [how can one] conclude that an
orientation could itself be a magisterial
teaching? How can an orientation be 'true'
or 'false'? It can only be wise or unwise,
fruitful or barren. Thus if the Pope were to
declare that the pastoral experiment
inaugurated by Vatican II, having
produced more dissension and confusion
than genuine fruit, was to be abandoned
in favor of the Church's traditional posture,
that would be entirely his prerogative. If
the suggestions of Vatican II fall short
of their expectations, they can be
revised or rejected by the Church. For
 example, in the wake of the Council of
Trent and in the face of the Protestant
Revolt, the Church granted the request of
some of her members that Communion be
offered to the faithful under both species.
Over time the practice seemed to produce
more confusion than piety - some laymen
simply could not be persuaded from the
superstitious notion that one receives
more grace by receiving under both kinds
- and so the very churchmen who had
originally requested the Holy See's
permission for this experiment finally
asked that the previous discipline be
restored." 13
which agrees perfectly with Dietrich von
Hildebrand, praised by Pope Pius XII as the
"20th century Doctor of the Church":
"In the case of practical, as
distinguished from theoretical,
authority, which refers, of Dietrich von
course, to the ordinances of Hildebrand
the Pope, the protection of the "If one of the
Holy Spirit is not promised in devils in C.S.
the same way. Ordinances Lewis' The
can be unfortunate, ill- Screwtape
conceived, even disastrous, Letters had
and there have been many been
such in the history of the entrusted
Church. Here Roma locuta, with the ruin
causa finita does not hold. The of the liturgy,
faithful are not obliged to he could not
regard all ordinances as good have done it
and desirable. They can regret better."
them and pray that they will be
taken back; indeed, they can work, with all
due respect for the pope, for their
elimination."
The alternate "conservative" theory of
causation (that the current situation would
have happened anyway due to unavoidable
changes in social climate) is possible but
seems unlikely for several reasons.
Anecdotally, we've seen that non-Latin
Catholic Rites and Eastern Schismatic
churches did not see the same drop-offs and
mass exodus. We've also seen the popularity
of Islam explode in Western civilization,
especially in Great Britain and the United
States. One would expect a debilitating
societal condition to afflict different "religious
groups" equally (or at least somewhat
proportionally).
But the main reason to discount such a
"would've happened anyway" hypothesis is
that Vatican II and the New Mass were
extremely visible and major changes — if not
in substance than appearance. Such
appearances (or accidents) are not
insignificant details but have always been
regarded as important. The result of changing
them does not have to be theorized. It can be
seen by the statistical drop in conversions,
ordinations, practicing Catholics and every
other vital sign one wishes to examine. It can
also be heard in the words of confused
Catholics:
"If it now seems that salvation can be
obtained in other religions, why remain
Catholic?"
"If anyone can participate "actively" in the
liturgy, why be a priest?"
"Why is the Mass now very similar (in
prayers, music, architecture) to the
heretical ones previously condemned?"
"If the Mass and the Church can change
this much, why can't it change further to
whatever my particular cause is?"
"If that which was formerly condemned is
now acceptable and the 'old' Church was
mistaken or 'out of touch', how do we
know the current Church isn't the same
way, and will be judged as 'out of touch' at
some future point."
All understandable concerns — concerns
which had no real basis in pre-conciliar days.
They do now.
Which brings us to the much heralded "Spirit
of Vatican II" which is used to justify any and
every aberration or heresy. Regardless of
whether you see this as an abuse of the
Council or the result of the logical
progression it unleashed (I tend to favor the
latter), such novelties would have no excuse
were it not for the Council, and the laity would
be less likely to accept them. Novelties on a
far smaller scale went on before the Council
but received limited support and were clearly
seen for what they were.
The Archdiocese of Seattle went through a
disastrous time in the 1980's under
Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen.
Everything from "altar girls" to lay-run
"liturgies" to pagan architecture to invalid
sacramental matter was justified by
conformance to the elusive "spirit of Vatican
II". What if no such Council could be used for
such abuse? They may have found another
excuse but it would be much less likely to
succeed and certainly less widespread.
When Modernism and liberalism were
emphatically condemned from the highest
levels of the Church, when priests were
required to take anti-Modernist oaths, when
diocesan councils were encouraged to root
out these errors, such a thing could never be
justified nor carried out. When the fight
against these forces turned into an implicit (or
explicit) acceptance and such outward
changes could be seen by Catholics every
week, the Catholic Church became fertile
ground for a revolution. When confusion
reigns, those things that would normally
cause mass protest are accepted.
All this is defended as the necessary cost of
the "renewal". No matter how enthusiastic the
Pope is about the current Church and Vatican
II, no "renewal" is happening. The evidence
of this fantastical "Springtime" is nowhere to
be found, except in those small pockets of
grace which find the faithful rediscovering the
traditional teachings, practices and rites of
the Catholic Faith.
With regards to the "Humanae Vitae"
argument, equating a significant change in
the orientation of the Church towards the
world (accompanied by a change in worship
experienced every week by every member of
the Latin Rite) with a single encyclical which
upholds Catholic teaching, and discounting
the possibility for either to significantly effect
the Church is, at best, careless. It seems that
"conservative" Catholics are frantically
looking for some explanation of what's going
on, convinced it couldn't be the Council or
anything the Church leaders have done. Why
not?
Some have gone so far as to claim that most
every modern problem in the Church from
low Mass attendance to a lack of vocations
was "caused" by dissension from Humanae
Vitae.14 And that through a sort of "radiation"
theory, the "plague" of dissent has brought
the Church to its knees and driven away
priests and converts, leaving the Pope and
bishops absolutely helpless. Again, if you'll
believe this, why discount the possibly of
significant wide scale changes made by the
Church itself having some negative effects?
"Conservatives" are faced with another
problem when they start blaming the current
crisis on certain dissenting bishops and
priests who spread heresy, dissent and
scandal. If they are to blame, so is their
leader. Who is the one in charge of governing
the bishops and priests? Who is responsible
for keeping them in line? If local policemen
start a riot, you can bet the police chief and
mayor will be held accountable. When
Palestinian suicide bombers attack Israel,
Arafat will certainly be held to blame. When a
company is facing bankruptcy and losses, the
CEO needs to answer for it. Pick any
organizational analogy you like — teachers,
parents, sports teams, schools, businesses,
organizations, societies — the result is the
same. The state of a household in ruin has
something to do with its head — whether
through misguided actions or the lack of
appropriate response.
So any attack against a liberal Cardinal or
dissident bishop is an implication of Our Holy
Father. Who has the power to reprimand
heretics? Even if you excuse the Pope as
"too busy" or claim he "has his hands tied",
who has the power to assign bishops? Why
has the Pope made bishops out of Thomas
Gumbleton and Matthew Clark? Why are
Francis George and Roger Mahony named
Cardinals and electors of the Pope? You can
only pretend for so long that the Pope is
oblivious to "what's really going on". John
Paul II was very familiar with the "views" of
Karl Lehmann and Walter Kasper when they
were named Cardinals last year. Again, does
true loyalty mean remaining silent or, much
worse yet, making excuses? Or is the proper
Catholic response to question what's going
on?
As a final clarification, most traditionalists do
not see the Second Vatican Council
and Novus Ordo as formal "causes" of the
modern crisis but catalysts which allowed a
number of Modernists to come to the
forefront and foist their ideas and heresies on
the Church under the guise of a "renewal".
Both marked a sort of "triumph" of liberal,
masonic and Modernist ideals within the
structure of the Church. It is not wholly
inaccurate to claim that:
"What the French Revolution was to
France, the Second Vatican Council was
to the Catholic Church."
8) "Traditionalists view the Mass of Pope
Paul VI as significantly 'different' than the
Tridentine Mass."
Here we come to the second "mysterious
objection". Again, traditionalists are accused
of a position held partially or totally by those
same Church leaders they are supposedly
being disloyal to. It is well-known that one of
the main objectives behind the "revision" of
the Roman Rite was an "ecumenical" one. It
was to break down one of the chief
differences between the Protestant forms of
Worship and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
While the validity of the sacrament may not
be up for debate, the prudence of the
decisions supporting the revision (revolution)
of the Roman Missal is not beyond
questioning, especially given one of its chief
objectives. If one objects to the current
ecumenical direction and practices which
humiliate the Catholic Faith and cost
countless souls, why should the Novus
Ordo Mass receive immunity?
The significance of such a change is
necessitated by its goal. If the Mass
underwent the same "natural" development it
had undergone over the ages, it would not
accomplish any "ecumenical" ends because it
would not be seen by Protestants as any
different than the previous Catholic Mass. Of
course, the degree of change was substantial
and widely acknowledged by those assigned
to the very Consilium responsible for its
revision. Consilium expert Joseph Gelineau,
S.J. stated:
"Let it be candidly said: the Roman Rite
which we have known hitherto no longer
exists. It is destroyed." 15
This was reiterated by Consilium appointee
Fr. Louis Bouyer:
"There is practically no liturgy worthy of
the name in the Church."
Msgr. Klaus Gamber, one of the most
esteemed and respected liturgists of the
twentieth century and chamberlain of Pope
Paul VI, strongly criticized the nature in which
this "reform" was undertaken. As Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger wrote in the preface of one
of Gamber's books:
"...in the place of liturgy as the fruit of
development came fabricated liturgy. We
abandoned the organic, living process of
growth and replaced it...with a fabrication,
a banal on-the-spot product.
Gamber...opposed this falsification, and,
thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge,
indefatigably taught us about the living
fullness of a true liturgy." 16
As Gamber demonstrated, this was a
"revision" never before seen in the historical
development of the Mass. This was not just
another organic development but an effort to
create a "new" Mass for particular objectives.
The result was clearly shocking, even to
Ratzinger's predecessor as head of the Holy
Office, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani:
"...the Novus Ordo Missae...represents,
both as a whole and in its details, a
striking departure from the Catholic
theology of the Mass. ... To abandon a
liturgical tradition which for four centuries
stood as a sign and pledge of unity in
worship, and to replace it with another
liturgy which, due to the countless liberties
it implicitly authorizes, cannot but be a
sign of division — a liturgy which teems
with insinuations or manifest errors
against the integrity of the Catholic Faith
— is, we feel bound in conscience to
proclaim, an incalculable error." 17
Finally, the Novus Ordo required an additional
"foreword" published one year later which
justified the doctrinal orthodoxy of the Mass.
The existence of this "justification" is the most
condemning aspect of all. Why is such a
justification needed if the orthodoxy of the
Mass is so clear? And, as with all the other
excuses and defenses of this new orientation,
the very fact that they exist is an implicit
acknowledgement of the legitimacy of
criticism.
9) "Traditionalists are on a trajectory
towards or leading people into
disobedience and schism and are no
better than liberal dissidents on the left."
While it's heartening that some
"conservatives" realize they cannot
pronounce someone "Schismatic" just
because they don't agree with his views on
successful pastoral techniques, it's not much
better when they try to use an imaginary
slippery slope.
It's unfortunate that the views of traditionalists
(the same views universally held by Catholics
several decades ago) are now on the "fringe"
of the "mainstream" Church, but it's
unavoidable. This is not a place traditionalists
themselves have traveled but where they
have been forced in light of the current
Church orientation. Different saints
throughout history have found themselves at
odds with the popular opinions held by
Churchmen, but have remained as such to
avoid the even greater error of compromise.
St. Athanasius may be used as a justification
for too many things, but one cannot deny that
he was better off being at odds with a
majority of those "within" the Church than
denying his Faith.
To go along with the popular opinions just
because they are popular is a significant
error, especially when dealing with the
Catholic Faith and salvation of souls. To say
that those Modernist ideas condemned as
heretical and dangerous at the beginning of
the century are now acceptable because the
Pope seems to "say so" is to surrender based
on the odds. That truth and error can be
defined by public opinion is not Catholicism
and is wholly detestable.
Furthermore, comparing "Catholic" liberals
(material Protestants and heretics) who
campaign for Church "acceptance" of baby-
killing and "ordination" of women to
traditionalists who uphold the consistent
Truth of the Catholic Church is extremely
insulting and inaccurate. It is a difference of
night and day, black and white.
Liberals reject encyclicals that aren't in
line with their "lifestyle choice";
traditionalists ask clarification on only
those items which apparently contradict
past teaching.
Liberals condemn the spiritual and moral
authority of the Church; traditionalists
uphold and defend it.
Liberals want to promote personal or
political agendas; traditionalists don't want
those agendas anywhere near the
Church.
Liberals push for new beliefs,
approaches, philosophies, practices and
rituals; traditionalists protect the old ones
that have sustained the Church for
thousands of years.
 Liberals see the Church as an old-
fashioned discriminatory institution of
which they are ashamed; traditionalists
would die to defend it.
Liberals would just as soon leave the
Church for a trendy alternative if they
don't get their way; traditionalists will
remain until the end of time.
Just because our current leaders are less
sympathetic to traditional Catholic beliefs and
practices does not put us on the same level
as those who would "renew" the Church
according to their humanist and diabolical
desires. The fundamental difference is
obvious.
The dissidents on the left who were rightfully
shunned a half century ago have seen their
ideals (religious liberty, collegiality,
ecumenism) gain great measures of support
in the Vatican. Will today's dissidents who
proclaim their new causes (women's
"ordination", "choice", contraception) gain
some measure of official support fifty or a
hundred years from now? The Church
making any concession to these "causes"
seems unthinkable, but no one ever thought
eighty years ago that an ecumenical council
would release a document affirming the
"right" of an individual to publicly profess a
false religion. No one thought the Vatican
would support or even acknowledge a global,
atheistic, man-made institution that
aggressively spreads abortion and
contraception to all the countries of the world.
No one ever thought a Communist
government would be so much as tolerated,
much less praised in an attempt towards
"dialogue".
Of course the Church is indefectible, but it
can be influenced by evil forces and
outwardly appear to be in collapse. A
consequence of this crisis is that faithful
Catholics upholding traditional beliefs are
seen as "extremists". As St. Basil lamented
during the Arian Heresy:
"Only one offense is now vigorously
punished — an accurate observance of
our father's traditions. For this cause the
 pious are driven from their countries and
transported into deserts." 18
As is the case during every widespread
Church crisis, those holding firm to the
Catholic Faith are subject to ridicule and
persecution. Traditionalists expect nothing
less.
Conclusion
The traditionalists of today were the
conservatives of fifty years ago. Their
positions have not changed — the Church
around them has, and the results are there
for everyone to see. "Conservatives" claim a
greater degree of "trust" in their leaders
whose opinions and actions have received
stark criticism from the prophetic words of
former Popes.
Of course, a "trusting" road is a much easier
one to travel. Bearing in mind the ridiculous
state of the Church in America, it is natural to
cling to the hopeful idea that there are allies
in Rome who are "on your side". And if those
leaders only knew the extent of what was
going on or were not too busy with more
important matters, surely they'd come to the
rescue. Wouldn't they?
"Conservatives" would dread having to get
down on their knees every night worrying
what the Pope is going to do or say next; or
how many potential converts are being lost
due to the ecumenical shenanigans; or how
an orthodox priest will ever be able to make it
through a seminary without getting expelled
for being too Catholic; or what type of man a
College of Cardinals which includes Mahony
and Kasper will elect to succeed John Paul II.
I, for one, would love to sleep peacefully each
night comfortable that, as bad as things may
be in my local parish or diocese, the majority
of the Church (and especially the leadership)
is composed of perfectly wise and holy
individuals, incapable of error. But that's not
the case — and maintaining such misguided
"trust" is not being honest.
The Church Militant now, more
than ever, needs strong St.
warriors. We must respond to Athanasius
St. Athanasius' exhortation: "Whoever
"Our canons and our forms wishes to be
were not given to the saved,
Churches at the present day, needs above
but were wisely and safely all to hold
transmitted to us from our the Catholic
forefathers. Neither had our Faith; unless
faith its beginning at this time, each one
but it came down to us from preserves
the Lord through his disciples. this whole
That therefore the ordinances and
which have been preserved in inviolate, he
the Churches from old time will without a
until now, may not be lost in doubt perish
our days, and the trust which in eternity."
has been committed to us -Athanasian
required at our hands; rouse Creed
yourselves, brethren, as being stewards of
the mysteries of God, on seeing them now
seized upon by aliens." 19
and heed the words of Pope Pius XI:
 "The two opposing camps are now clearly
marked; each man should choose his
own. Men of good will and men of evil will
face one another. The uninterested and
the cowards face their fearsome
responsibility. They will have their
names changed if they do not change
their behavior: they will be called
traitors."
It is completely backwards to fight against the
destruction of a cathedral building while
ignoring the actual Church in a state of ruin. It
is ludicrous to share in the Vatican illusion of
a "Springtime of Vatican II" when all eye can
see is a devastated vineyard.
Catholics must never give in to compromise
or ignore error out of a false sense of loyalty.
We must avoid the errors of those who fall
into "conservative" relativism out of a fear of
"private judgment". Our Sensus
Catholicus cannot be abandoned or
suppressed at the time when it is needed
most!
 "Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing
it. Right is right even if no one is doing it."
-St. Augustine
Unmasking the New Mass

by John Vennari
Perhaps the best way to begin a review
of The Problem of the Liturgical Reform is to
quote from the book's concluding paragraphs:
"The doctrine of the Paschal mystery, with its
serious doctrinal deficiencies, is, then, at the
origin of the liturgical reform. Certainly, the
reformed missal does not deny Catholic
dogma outright, but its authors have so
oriented the gestures and the words, they
have made such significant omissions and
introduced numerous ambiguous
expressions, and all in order to make the rite
conform to the theology of the Paschal
mystery and to give expression to it.
"Consequently, the new missal no longer
propagates the lex credendi [law of belief] of
the Church, but rather a doctrine that smacks
of heterodoxy. That is why one cannot say
that the reformed rite of Mass of 1969 is
'orthodox' in the etymological sense of the
word: it does not offer 'right praise' to God.
Equally, one cannot say that the rite of Mass
resulting from the reform of 1969 is that of the
Church, even if it was conceived by
churchmen . . . "And lastly, one cannot say
that the new missal is for the Faithful 'the first
and indispensable source of the true Christian
spirit,' [1] where the Church 'communicates in
abundance the treasures of the depositum
fidei of the truth of Christ' [2]. [3]"
Strong words? Perhaps. But The Problem of
the Liturgical Reform buttresses this
conclusion with nine chapters of solid
argumentation. These chapters demonstrate
the New Mass to be the fruit of a new religion
that favors Protestantism, smacks of
modernism, and fails to convey the truths of
the Catholic Faith on sin, redemption, and the
propitiatory nature of the Mass. The book is
arguably one of the most important critiques
of the Novus Ordo Missae since the Ottaviani
Intervention.
Yet the new book differs from the famous text
of Cardinal Ottaviani in this way. The
Ottaviani Intervention studied the New Mass
and found that it "teems with dangerous
errors." The Problem of the Liturgical Reform,
however, explains how and why those errors
got there in the first place. The Ottaviani
Intervention studied the effect. The Problem
of the New Mass studies the cause. As such,
it is a work unlike anything done before.
New Mass, New Religion
The Problem of the Liturgical Reform, a slim
volume of only 111 pages, is a theological
and liturgical study written by priests of the
Society of Saint Pius X. [4] Originally
published in French, 17,000 copies of the
book have been sent to priests throughout
France, where it provoked heavy discussion.
It seems that a great deal of traditional
Catholic literature is defensive in nature:
articles and booklets that explain "Why we
are not disobedient" or "Why we are not
schismatic," etc. The need for this literature is
understandable due to the fact that traditional
Catholics are maligned as mavericks because
they practice and believe what the Catholic
Church always practiced and believed.
This latest book, however, is refreshing in that
it goes on the offensive against the post-
Conciliar orientation of liturgy and theology. It
asks hard questions, states bold accusations,
spotlights flaws, exposes errors, and provides
ample documentary evidence that the
theology on which the new mass is based is
not truly Catholic. The book is composed of
three parts:
Part One, that the New Mass constitutes a
liturgical rupture with Tradition.
Part Two, that the New Mass is based on a
new theology of sin and redemption, which is
called the "theology of the Paschal Mystery."
Part Three, the new theology on which the
New Mass is based stands condemned by
traditional Catholic doctrine, especially by the
Council of Trent; In summary, the New Mass
is unacceptable because it is the fruit of a
new religion.
Part One: 
The Reform of 1969: A Liturgical Rupture
The authors analyze the Novus Ordo
Missal along with the Institutio Generalis
Misallis Romani, which was the General
Instruction on the New Mass published in
1969. [It should be noted, though the authors
mention it in passing, that the first edition of
the General Instruction was so Protestant in
orientation that Pope Paul VI had to re-issue
a "Catholicized" new edition. Sadly, the
revised "General Instruction" was not much
better than the first]. [5]
The analysis of the New Mass brings three
basic conclusions to light.
1) That the new rite is no longer based on
sacrifice, but on a memorial meal, a concept
harmonious with Protestant practice.
2) Rather than emphasizing Our Lord's
presence in the Priest and in the Eucharist,
which is the Catholic focus, the new rite
emphasizes Our Lord's presence "in His
Word and in His people." This too favors
Protestant doctrine.
3) In the new rite, there is a downplay of
emphasis on the Mass as propitiation, that
the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass makes
satisfaction to God for sin. Rather, the Novus
Ordo emphasizes the Mass as an act of
Thanksgiving. Again, this is a shift from a
Catholic orientation to one that is Protestant. 
The book provides many examples of this
new focus. Here we will mention only one, the
New Offertory Prayers.
In the Tridentine Missal, the Offertory Prayers
express clearly the sacrificial and propitiatory
nature of the Mass. It properly conveys
Catholic doctrine:
" Accept O Holy Father, Almighty and Eternal
God, this unspotted Host, which I, Thine
unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living
and true God, for my innumerable sins, and
negligences, and for all faithful Christians,
both living and dead, that it may avail both me
and them unto life everlasting."
By contrast, the fabricators of the New Liturgy
stripped the Offertory prayers of a sacrificial,
propitiatory emphasis. This was done, they
claim, in order to place "the words of
institution of the Eucharist back into their own
context which is that of the ritual berakoth of
the Jewish meal." [6]
This explains why parts of the new
"Presentation of the Gifts" were "borrowed
word, for word from the Jewish grace-before-
meals;"
"Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation.
Through your goodness we have this bread to
offer, which earth has given and human
hands have made. It will become for us the
bread of life."
This pivots away from the Sacrificial character
of the Mass and the Real Presence of Christ
in the Eucharist. Instead, we see the
emphasis on a memorial meal and on
thanksgiving. Further , the term "It will
become for us the bread of life." is
deliberately ambiguous. "Bread of life" means
different things to different people [likewise
with the term "it will become for us our
spiritual drink"]. Also, the words "for us"
stress a subjective emphasis rather than the
objective reality of transubstantiation.
It is not surprising that M. G. Siegvalt, a
Professor of Dogmatic Theology in the
Protestant faculty at Strasbourg wrote, ". . .
nothing in the renewed Mass need really
trouble the Evangelical Protestant." [7]
Part Two: 
The Principle Behind the Liturgical reform, the
Paschal Mystery
Here we come to the most difficult section of
the book. The authors lead us into the world
of modern theologians, which is not a
pleasant place to be. A study of the new
theology of the "Paschal Mystery" however,
reveals the basis for the three-point shift of
emphasis mentioned in Part One.
I) The new theology explains the diminution,
not to say suppression, of the notion of
propitiation in the new missal. 
II) The new theology of "mysteries" accounts
for the innovation regarding the notion of
Christ's presence in the Mass. That is, the
emphasis of Christ's presence in "His Word
and in His people" rather than His unique
Sacramental presence in the Holy Eucharist. 
III) An understanding of the 'sense' which this
new theology gives to the word 'memorial,'
which explains the abandoning of the
sacrificial rite in favor of the memorial meal.
The authors look at writings from the
theologians responsible for the liturgical
reform, [8] the official post-conciliar texts,
along with pertinent sections from Vatican II.
I) The New Notion of Redemption
The section titled "The Passover of the Lord"
explains that the "Paschal Mystery" embodies
a new way of looking at sin and redemption.
This novel approach holds that man's sin is
not something that offends God to the point
where He requires satisfaction for these sins.
Rather, sin injures man and requires man's
restoration. According to this mind-set, "man's
sin seems to harm only himself and society,
without being prejudicial to God."
What then is redemption if not satisfying
God's justice for man's sin?
Answer, redemption is the Paschal Mystery
revealing God's unbreakable love for us,
especially as shown in the Resurrection.
One of the many expressions of this new
teaching is found in a 1994 statement from
the International Theological Commission.
Here the Commission does not hesitate to flirt
with blasphemy, as it caricatures God as
"merciless:"
"The death of Jesus is not the act of a
merciless God glorifying supreme sacrifice; it
is not the 'price of redemption' paid to some
repressive alien power. It is the time and
place where God 'who is love and who loves
us, is made visible. Jesus crucified declares
how God loves us and proclaims through this
gesture of love that one man has conditionally
consented to the ways of God." [9]
In short, it means that there is no debt to be
paid to God in order to satisfy Divine justice
offended by sin. This false doctrine, applied to
the new liturgy, results in the propitiatory
aspect of the Mass being downplayed or
effaced. It also results in the elimination or
reduction of prayers asking for satisfaction for
sin. Also, since "Redemption is seen as a full
revelation of the Father's free and
superabundant love for us, the response
which the celebration of the liturgy embodies
can only be of thanksgiving and petition. The
vicarious satisfaction of Christ and His
mediation in prayer no longer prove to be
absolutely necessary. Such notions have"
therefore, been largely removed from the new
missal, and notably from the Eucharistic
Prayers . . ."
II) Sacrament as Mystery
Next, the book discusses "Sacrament as
Mystery," a complex concept from the
muddled minds of modern malcontents. In
reading this section, especially the quotations
from progressivist writers, I was reminded of
Flannery O'Connor's comment about how
incomprehensible modern theologians can
be:
"It was the Theology of Death [by Karl
Rahner] I was reading. I finished it but I could
read it once a year and still not know exactly
what he has said." [10]
Briefly, the authors point out that modern
theologians promote a new concept of
"mystery."
The new use of the word "mystery" is a
disturbing trend since the Council. In 1963,
the brilliant theologian Father David
Greenstock, writing in The Thomist, warned
that modern theologians exerting influence on
Vatican II, were deliberately suppressing the
precision of scholastic language in order to
employ new vague theological expressions.
This was done to make way for the creation
of a new 'situational theology' to fit the needs
of modern ecumenism. [11]
Father Greenstock's warnings were well
founded. For example, in 1966, the
progressivist Father Joseph Ratzinger
rejoiced that in the Council's
document Lumen Gentium, "the title of the
text no longer referred in scholastic fashion to
the 'nature of the Church,' but rather spoke of
its mystery." [12]
Here's what's happening. Before the Council,
we spoke precisely of the "nature of the
Church," which had a strict definition. Now,
instead, we speak of the "mystery of the
Church." Before the Council, we spoke of the
unchangeableness of Sacred Tradition.
Today, however, we talk about the "mystery
of living tradition." This is a semantic tactic to
introduce confusion. The progressivists take
our defined certitudes and refer to them as
"mysteries." Once they do this, they can do
anything they want with the terminology, and
open the door to their novel theological
concepts. This seems to be the game being
played here.
Within this new concept of mystery, the word
"sacrament" receives a broader meaning than
that of applying strictly to one of the Seven
Sacraments of the Church. According to this
vague, Protestantized view, a sacrament is
something that "makes divine realities
present and gives them to man to nourish his
faith." [13]
The authors note that this new concept
surfaces in Vatican II's Constitution on the
Sacred Liturgy which seems to apply the
vague notion of "sacramental mystery" to
Scripture: "He is present in 
His Word since it is He Himself who speaks
when the holy scriptures are read in the
Church." [14]
Again, this new emphasis was not lost on the
young progressivist Father Joseph Ratzinger.
In his 1966 book, Theological Highlights of
Vatican II, Ratzinger wrote the following in
praise of the Council's Liturgy Constitution:
"There is and will be a stronger emphasis on
the Word as an element of equal value with
sacrament." [15]
The new concept of "sacrament as mystery"
was one of the main lines of the liturgical
reform. As such it explains the following
orientation of the Novus Ordo:
  The constant parallel between the "Liturgy
of the Word" and the "Eucharistic Liturgy"
both of which are the "table of the Lord"
where Christ gives Himself as spiritual
food.
 The lessening of worship of the Real
Presence during Mass. The Eucharistic
presence is no longer firstly recognized in
Itself, but principally insofar as it
nourishes faith,
 The greater emphasis laid on the common
priesthood of the Faithful. The authors
explain, "The sacrificial oblation is
considered almost exclusively from the
point of view of the oblation taken in its
restricted sense which constitutes the only
response of Faith."
 The new way of expressing the Mysterium
Fidei [The Mystery of Faith]. [16]
Regarding this last point [Mysterium Fidei] the
authors spotlight the shift as to where this
term is placed in the Tridentine Mass vs.
the Novus Ordo.
The traditional missal places the
expression Mysterium Fidei amid the very
words of consecration. This is done to
emphasize the truth of the real presence of
Christ brought about through
transubstantiation, and also to mark the
culminating point of the Mass: "Here is the
sacrifice of Christ presented in an immolated
state wherein the species of bread and wine
signify the separation of His Body and Blood
during the Passion." [17]
By contrast, the new missal's Mystery of
Faith no longer expresses transubstantiation
and the sacrificial consecration. Rather, the
words are placed outside of the consecration
formula 
[that is, immediately after it], and express
primarily the Mysteries of Christ's life
remembered together. "Let us proclaim the
mystery of faith. Dying You destroyed our
death, rising You restored our life. Lord
Jesus, come in glory."
This part of the New Liturgy is also "pro-
choice" in that it offers the celebrant a
selection of four new Mystery of
Faith formulas from which he may choose,
none of which emphasize Transubstantiation.
These prayers are now called the "Memorial
Acclamation."
For example, Acclamation "A" also centers on
Our Lord's life: "Christ has died, Christ is
risen, Christ will come again". Memorial
Acclamation "C", however, does not focus on
the Mysteries of Our Lord's life, nor on the
Consecration, but on a type of Communion:
"When we eat this bread and drink this cup,
we proclaim Your death, Lord Jesus, until
You come in glory." All four of the
new Mystery of Faith acclamations could be
recited at a Protestant communion service.
[18]
As the authors note, these changes taken as
a whole shift the center of gravity and lay
bare the difference in emphasis between the
two rites. In the Tridentine Missal, "the Mass
is a sacrificial offering of the transubstantiated
presence of Christ," while in the Novus Ordo,
"the Mass is understood as a memorial of
Christ's Passover." [19]
III) The Mass as Memorial
With the sacrificial nature of the Mass
undermined, we move to the next major
section of the book which explains that the
liturgical reform has brought the memorial
aspect of the Mass to the foreground.
Following the latest notion of "sacrament," the
new understanding of the Mass is "the
memorial [which] makes present the reality it
communicates."
Here, in part, is the new emphasis. Christ
instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper
which was a Passover meal. Since the Old
Testament Passover was a communal action
of memorial in the form of a meal, so now,
New Testament worship must be a new kind
of Passover ritual, a communal action of
memorial in the form of a meal. And in the
new rite, this memorial is not
primarily Calvary represented, but rather a
memorial of the entire paschal mysteries from
the Last Supper to the Resurrection.
This error is not new. Pope Pius X II took
great pains combating it when he insisted that
the sacrifice of the Mass is only a
memorial insofar as it represents Christ's
death on the Cross. [20]
Part Three: 
Does the Liturgical Reform Constitute a
Dogmatic Rupture 
with Tradition?
The authors answer yes!
 "By affirming that Christ did not die on the
Cross in order to satisfy the debt of
punishment demanded by Divine justice
of fended by sin, the theology of the
Paschal mystery openly contradicts a
truth of the Catholic Faith as taught by the
Council of Trent." In fact, "the infallible
teaching of the Church, chiefly expressed
 in the text of the Council of Trent, obliges
us to consider the vicarious satisfaction of
Christ as one of the principal truths of our
Faith." That is, Christ's sacrifice satisfies
the justice of God, offended by sin.
 "By making the sacrificial aspect of the
Mass flow from the memorial dimension of
the Mass, the theology of the Paschal
mystery cans into question the teaching of
the Council of Trent in this area." The
Council of Trent's infallible teaching in this
area is that "the Mass is a vere et
proprie [truly and properly] a visible
sacrifice." [This teaching is defined dogma
and can never be subject to change or
updating in the name of a "deeper
understanding."] [21] This makes "the
emphasis placed by the theology of the
Paschal mystery on the memorial aspect
of the Mass unacceptable."
 "By relying upon a new concept of
sacrament, the theology of the Paschal
mystery shows itself to be very dangerous
to the Catholic Faith. By favoring
 heterodox theses on more than one point,
this theology shows itself to belong to the
modernist theology condemned by Pope
St. Pius X." [22]
For these and many other reasons, the
authors conclude with the statement with
which this review opened:
"The doctrine of the Paschal mystery, with its
serious doctrinal deficiencies is, then, at the
origin of the liturgical reform. That is why one
cannot say that the reformed rite of Mass of
1969 is 'orthodox' in the etymological sense
of the word: it does not offer 'right praise' to
God."
Tridentine Mass Never Abrogated
At the book's end, the authors explain that it
was not their intent to discuss the manifest
influence of false ecumenism on the reform,
nor to treat of the absurdity of concocting a
new liturgical rite by committee, nor to explore
the link between the new concept of the Mass
and the crisis of identity now sweeping the
Catholic priesthood. [23] All of these points
could be addressed at length.
Rather, the aim of the book was a fixed focus
on the progressivist "theology of the Paschal
mystery" that is at the heart of the liturgical
reform, [24] and to demonstrate that this new
theology stands condemned by traditional
Catholic doctrine.
The book closes with a 5-page treatment of
the "Canonical Status" of the Tridentine Mass
under six headings:
1) The Tridentine Mass has never been
abrogated. 
2) The Tridentine Mass was not "obrogated." 
3) The Tridentine Mass has acquired the
status of an immemorial custom. 
4) The Missal revised by St. Pius V is
protected by an indult. [And here "indult" is
given its proper meaning rather than the false
use of the word by the fraudulent Commission
Ecclesia Dei.] [25] 
5) Pope Paul VI's Missal does not have the
character of true law. 
6) One can in good conscience use the
Missal revised by St. Pius V [The Tridentine
Missal].
Well Worth the Read
In conclusion, I cannot recommend this book
highly enough, even though various sections
of the book are not an easy read. The authors
present the thinking of trendy theologians
whose concepts are difficult to grasp,
especially Part II on the "Theology of the
Paschal Mystery."
This is not to imply that these "new concepts"
are the lofty product of great thinkers with
something worthwhile to say. It is rather the
opposite. In reading some of their obtuse
theories, I was reminded of the story of G.K.
Chesterton who once heard a man make an
outlandish remark. Chesterton turned to a
friend and said, "That statement had to be
made by an intellectual. No normal man could
be that stupid."
Progressivists, who are kissing cousins to
modernists, are usually not as stupid as they
are cunning. As Pope St. Pius X warned, the
modernists employ the strategy of imprecision
and vagueness in their writings. This is why it
is not easy to wrap one's mind around their
obscure notions, such as their broad
interpretations of "mystery" and "Sacrament."
It is also why some of their quotations need to
be read at least three times before one
catches what is said.
Nonetheless, the book is well worth the read.
The authors have jam-packed huge amounts
of material into a brief 111 pages. On a
positive note, the work also contains much
doctrinal meat on the Sacrifice of the Mass,
many points of which could even be used in
catechism instruction [yes, parts of the book
will be helpful for homeschoolers].
For those who may struggle with various
sections of the book, I encourage them to
persevere until the finish. The general
conclusion at the end of the book is
satisfactorily clear. The Problem of the
Liturgical Reform demonstrates that with the
imposition of theNovus Ordo Missae, our
Church leaders have given their children
stones instead of bread.
It is no wonder that Sister Lucy of Fatima, in
the early 1970s, warned of the "diabolic
disorientation of the upper hierarchy."
Fr. Paul Kramer