The Dangers of the New Mass

[Stone]

The Dangers of the New Mass

Taken from the Catholic Apologetics website

"From the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts." (Malachias 1:11)

St. Augustine said: "He who devoutly hears Holy Mass will receive a great vigor to enable him to resist mortal sin, and there shall be pardoned to him all venial sins which he may have committed up to that hour."1

Had satan been aware that Jesus Christ was the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, he would have never pushed for the Crucifixion. Every True Mass reminds him, once again, of his terrible mistake and at the same time it is a vehicle for bestowing infinite grace on mankind. It is no wonder that the devil has an intense hatred for the True Mass.

St. John Fisher said: "He who goes about to take the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass from the Church plots no less a calamity than if he tried to snatch the sun from the universe."2

St. Alphonsus said: "The devil has always attempted, by means of heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of the antichrist, who before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as a punishment for the sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel, 'And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice."3 (Daniel 8:12)

St. Robert Bellarmine said: "When we enter ornate and clean Basilicas, adorned with crosses, sacred images, altars and burning lamps, we most easily conceive devotion. But on the other hand, when we enter the temples of the heretics, where there is nothing except a chair for preaching and a table for making a meal, we feel ourselves to be entering a profane hall and not the House of God."4

Luther's slogan was: "Take away the Mass, destroy the Church."5

St. John Vianney said: "All the good works together are not of equal value with the Sacrifice of the Mass because they are the works of man, and the Holy Mass is the work of God."6


How did we get the Mass?
A general history: In his letter to the Corinthians in the year 88 A.D., Pope St. Clement of Rome (martyr and fourth Pope after St. Peter), wrote that Our Lord laid down the order of the Mass, referring to the Offertory, Consecration and Communion. St. Justin the Martyr (in his writings, 155 A.D.) stated that after His Resurrection, Our Lord taught the Apostles how to say Mass.

Many liturgical historians believe that the writings of St. Clement and St. Justin were expressed in a formal way by St. Ambrose (approximately 360 A.D.) in a book titled, De Sacramentis. De Sacramentis essentially contains the canonized Mass prayers. The Mass prayers appeared in written form only three hundred years after Jesus Christ's death. It was in the 4th century that Latin became the official language of the Church and the word missa was introduced. This was probably introduced by St. Ambrose in the Leonine Sacramentary (Pope St. Leo in 450 A.D.) and the Gelasian Sacramentary (Pope Gelasius I in 498 A.D.). The essential parts of this missal were found to be almost the same as those in the Tridentine Mass. In the year 600 A.D., Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604 A.D.) finished his Gregorian Sacramentary, which is essentially the Mass "codified" by Pope St. Pius V in 1570.7

The True Mass goes back to Apostolic times; and it was "codified", solidified, or set in stone by St. Pope Pius V in his Papal Bull Quo Primum Tempore on July 14, 1570. Pope St. Pius V specified the exact Mass ritual "of and for" the Roman Rite. Only this Liturgy or Ritual was to be used from that time until the end of time (for the Roman Rite). The Canon with the exception of one short clause, inserted by Pope Gregory the Great, had remained unchanged ". . . until 1962, when John XXIII added the name of St. Joseph to the Canon of the Mass. A total of 26 words have been added to the Traditional Canon, by Popes Leo (440-461 A.D.) and St. Gregory the Great (590-604 A.D.). Thus, as the Council of Trent accurately states, the Canon is composed out of the very words of the Lord, the tradition of the Apostles, and the pious institutions of the holy Pontiffs."8


Names Given to the Roman Rite of the Mass
It is called "the Mass of All Times" (because it dates back to the Apostles in its essential elements--though it is eternal in its nature), the "Tridentine Mass" (only because the 16th century Council of Trent <Tridentum in Latin> ordered it to be "codified"), the "Mass of Pius V" (after the Pope who actually "codified" it in 1570), and on occasion (but loosely and incorrectly) "the Latin Mass" (incorrectly because any Rite can be translated into Latin and because the Novus Ordo Missae itself was issued originally in Latin).9 The True Mass should be called the Roman Rite of the Mass. This way there isn't any confusion.


New World Order: New Order of the Mass
In the middle to late 60's, Rome started to have the Mass said in the vernacular and then in 1970, Paul VI gave us a whole new rite of Mass called the "Novus Ordo Missae". It is not by chance that the enemies of the True Faith who are building "a Novus Ordo Seclorum" (a new world order) would establish "a Novus Ordo Missae" (a new order of the Mass) to destroy the Roman Catholic Church. Even in the original Latin form, the New Mass was bad enough, but after going to the vernacular through the International Committee on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), disaster ensued, and the questions of validity were justified. A total of 35 prayers or approximately 70% of the Tridentine Mass has been replaced or discarded.10


Ambiguous, Wishful Thinking; Binding No One
Here is what Paul VI put in the new Roman Missal on April 3, 1969: #13 "We hope that the Missal will be received by the Faithful" and #15 "We wish that these, our decrees and prescriptions, may be firm and effective."11 To impose a law the Pope must make it clear to the Church that a Law is being imposed, or that he is binding the Church to use this New Mass. He did not do so. What Paul VI did had nothing to do with the Church's indefectibility or the Pope's infallibility. Paul VI said on November 19, 1969: "This Rite (New Mass) and its related rubrics are not in themselves a dogmatic definition."12 Paul VI did not and could not change the Roman Rite of the Mass.


The People Supersede the Priest as the Indispensable Element
It is not necessary to examine all four of the Eucharistic prayers in the New Mass. However, let's look at Eucharistic Prayer #3: The following words are addressed to the Lord:

"From age to age you gather a people to yourself, in order that from East and West a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your Name."13

 

This phrase makes it clear that it is the people, rather than the priest, who are the indispensable element in the celebration. In the Encyclical Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII condemned the statement that "the eucharistic sacrifice" is an authentic concelebration of the priest as well as of the people present.


Biblical Prefigurement of True and False Worship
The purpose of the True Mass is the praise and adoration of Almighty God through the Sacrifice of Christ, who is the invisible priest and victim. The difference between the New Mass and the True Mass is the difference between Cain and Abel. We are told: "The Lord had respect to Abel and to his offerings. But to Cain and his offerings, He had no respect" (Gen. 4:3-5). At the beginning of human history, the two brothers set the pattern of true and false religious observance for all time. One was an immolation in expiation of sin, the other merely a friendly exchange of gifts between man and God. One was acceptable, the other was not.14 It has been said that in countries, such as Poland, the Communist Party uses their "inspectors of religion," to keep under surveillance those priests who say the True Mass, but they leave alone those who say the New Mass.15


Freemasonry Wields the Axe to the Root
"Archbishop Bugnini was a consultant in the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, and in the Sacred Congregation of Holy Rites. He was also the chairman of the Concilium which drafted the Novus Ordo Missae. Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was a freemason, initiated into the Masonic Lodge on April 23, 1963 (Masonic Register of Italy dated 1976). Monsignor Bugnini was removed from his office in the Vatican when it became public that he was a Mason. And instead of being publicly reproved, or required to renounce his Masonic membership, he was appointed Papal Nuncio to Iran."16

The president of this Concilium was Cardinal Lecaro, a man whom Cardinal Bacci called, "Luther resurrected."17 When we discuss the New Mass we must consider the authors. Whereas Paul VI was formally and juridically responsible, it was actually composed by the Concilium, which consisted of some 200 individuals, many of whom had functioned as periti ("expert theologians") during Vatican Council II.

The Concilium was helped by six Protestant 'observers' (ministers) who played a huge part in developing the New Mass. ". . . Paul VI publicly thanked them for their assistance in re-editing in a new manner liturgical texts ... so that the lex orandi (the law of prayer) conformed better with the lex credendi (the law of belief)."18 You need a new liturgy for a new religion. The New Mass is the new law of non-Catholic belief.


Attempting the Destruction of the Roman Rite
Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote:

"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."19 

Tearing the Heart Out of The Roman Rite
Judging the Novus Ordo Missae (New Mass) in itself, in its official Latin form, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote to Paul VI on Sept. 25, 1969: 

"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 22 of the Council of Trent."20

Of the 12 Offertory prayers in the Traditional Rite, only two are retained in the New Mass.21 And of interest is the fact that the deleted prayers are the same ones that Luther and Cranmer eliminated. Why did they eliminate them? Because, as Luther said, the "smacked of Sacrifice . . . the abomination called the offertory, and from this point on almost everything stinks of oblation."22 The Offertory and Consecration are the very heart of the True Mass.


Anything But A Sacrifice
Martin Luther said:

"The Mass is not a sacrifice ... call it Benediction, Eucharist, the Lord's Table, the Lord's Supper, Memory of the Lord or whatever you like, just so long as you do not dirty it with the name of a Sacrifice."23

16th century Protestant reformer, Thomas Cranmer said: 

"The use of an altar is to make sacrifice upon; the use of a table to serve men to eat upon."24 

When you line up the New Mass with the Anglican schismatic Book of Common Prayer (1549), they are almost identical; in fact, the Book of Common Prayer is more reverent than the New Mass.


The Law of Prayer Establishes the Law of Belief
Christopher Monchton informs us that in the English version of the New Mass there are over 400 mistranslations from the Latin.25

Almost 100 percent of the new Masses around the world are said in the vernacular. Just changing the Mass into vernacular is, in itself, condemned. Session 12, Canon 9 of the Council of Trent says: "If anyone says ... that the Mass should be said in vernacular only, let him be anathema."26

Constitution, "Auctorem Fidei," August 28, 1794, Pope Pius VI (1775-1799) The Suitable Order to Be Observed in Worship #33. The proposition of the Synod condemns the following in regard to the Mass: 

"by recalling it (the Liturgy) to a greater simplicity of Rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice."

These changes were condemned by Pope Pius VI as "rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it."27

The New Mass is Pleasing to Protestant and Jew alike. In the Offertory of the New Mass the priest says precisely the same words as those which are used in the Jewish seder service. These are the words: 

"Blessed art thou, O Lord God of all creation. For through your goodness we have this bread to offer, fruit of the earth and work of human hands it will become for us the bread of life. This wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands it will become for us our spiritual drink."28

 

It's frightening to think that the Offertory of the New Mass is taken word for word from the seder meal of the Jewish holiday of Passover. In the New Mass the Priest offers bread and wine; however, in the True Mass, the Priest offers the Immaculate Victim. It is a blasphemy to offer God bread and wine.

In the Novus Ordo Requiem Masses (the Mass for the Dead), the word "Soul" is not mentioned even once.29

Paul VI said on May 24, 1976:

"The New Ordo has been promulgated to replace the old after mature deliberation and in order to fulfill the Council's decisions."30

Canon 6 of the Council of Trent says:

"If anyone says that there are errors in the Canon of the Mass and that therefore it should be abrogated: let him be anathema."31

Back at the Council of Trent, in Session 22, the Council Fathers realized that the Mass was being attacked, and they basically said, "Let's make sure the Mass remains intact." After the Council, Quo Primum forever defined the liturgical morals - the Mass Liturgies, both Eastern and Roman.


Quo Primum
St. Pope Pius V said dogmatically and infallibly in Quo Primum that:

"It shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by us."

The Decree of Quo Primum was irrevocable, and Pope St. Pius V went on further to state in Quo Primum: 

"This present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of Law . . . And if, nevertheless, anyone would ever dare attempt any action contrary to this Order of ours, handed down for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God, and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."32 (July 14, 1570)

Binding Peter's Successors
But, can one Pope change what another Pope has done? In pastoral matters, yes; in matters of Faith, No! When we talk about the Liturgy we are talking about the Faith. Quo Primum was not a discipline. It dealt directly with Faith and morals. 


Faith and Morals

Faith: What you must believe to be saved.
Social Morals: How man behaves towards other men.
Liturgical Morals: How man behaves towards God.

Liturgy is not arbitrary or dispensable. The Liturgy is the essence of Catholic Faith. 


Wrath Foretold For Those Who Destroy the Immemorial Mass

The Bull on witchcraft by Pope Innocent VIII demonstrates that Quo Primum was infallible. The Bull's language is not nearly as strong as Quo Primum, but ends with these words: 

"If any man dare to go contrary to this command, which God forbid, let him know that upon him will fall the wrath of Almighty God, and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

These are the exact words used in Quo Primum at the end. 

In the introduction to the 1928 Catholic Encyclopedia it says (speaking about Innocent VIII's Bull): 

"If any man shall presume to go against the tenor let him know that therein he will bring down the wrath of Almighty God and The Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul." 

The commentary afterwards says: "Could words weightier be found?"


Defining Truth and Binding the Faithful
The Encyclopedia goes on to say:

"Are we then to class this Bull in with the Bull Dogmatica Ineffabilis Deus where Pope Pius IX proclaimed the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception? Such a position is clearly tenable, but even if we do not insist that the Bull of Innocent VIII is an infallible utterance, that it does not in set terms define a Dogma, although it does set forth sure and certain truths, it must be held to be a document of supreme and absolute authority, of dogmatic force."

Pope Pius XI said in his apostolic constitution "Divini Cultus" on December 20, 1928, addressing the connection of the Sacred Liturgy with the Church:

"The Liturgy is an undoubtedly sacred thing; for through it we are brought to God and are joined with Him; we bear witness to our Faith . . . Hence a kind of intimate relationship between Dogma and Sacred Liturgy, and likewise between Christian worship and the sanctification of the people. Therefore, Pope Celestine I proposed and expressed a Canon of Faith in the venerated formulas of the Liturgy: "Let the Law of Supplication, (prayer) establish the Law of Believing . . ."33

Anathemas Against the New Missal
7th Session, Canon 13 of the Council of Trent: The correct Latin translation says: 

"If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, customarily used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments, can be despised or can be freely omitted by the ministers without sin, or can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whomsoever, let him be anathema."34

This canon states very clearly that the Pope, who is the first and supreme pastor may never change any approved Rite of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Rite was fixed forever by Pope St. Pius V in Quo Primum. Paul VI tried to establish a whole new Roman Rite. There is only one Roman Rite of the Mass; there cannot be two.

In the Profession of Faith in the Council of Trent, the following was always professed by the priest begin ordained; he promises and vows: 

"I also receive and admit the accepted and approved rites of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of all the aforesaid Sacraments."35

It is indisputable that according to the previous pronouncements of the Church that the New Mass is illegal, and therefore cannot be celebrated or attended. The issue of whether there is a valid consecration in the New Mass is another question which we will now address.


The Requirements for Validity
In the decree to the Armenians in the Council of Florence, it states the following:

"All these Sacraments are dispensed in three ways, namely, by things as the matter, by words as the form, and by the person of the minister conferring the Sacrament with the intention of doing as the Church does; if any of these is lacking the Sacrament is not fulfilled."36

Minister, Intention, Matter, and Form
The four main things necessary for a valid celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

minister: The celebrant must be a validly ordained priest.
intention: The celebrant must have the intention of confecting the Sacrament.
matter: The elements of the Mass must be wheaten bread and grape wine, made without additives.
form: The proper form (words) of consecration must be used. 

According to the Council of Trent, these requirements cannot be altered by anyone, not even the Church itself, since they were established by Christ.


Is the New Mass Valid?
Let's first cover the issue as to whether the New Mass is valid by reviewing the vernacular. In most every vernacular translation of the New Mass, the words "many" have been changed to "all" in the Consecration. This is not a minor change! It will be argued that in the New Mass the priest says, "This is My Body" which are the same words used in the Tridentine Mass and so, if we use the right words for the Consecration of the Body, "This is My Body," we have a Sacrament. They do not believe anything else is required. Those who hold to this position ignore the defects in the "form" of the New Mass (essential words needed to confect the Sacrament). 

Furthermore, they ignore the fact that the words in the form of the New Mass, while themselves essential to the form of the Sacrament, do not constitute the complete form of the Sacrament. Others will argue that both consecrations are not imperative to have a valid Sacrament. This is also contrary to the teaching of the Church. The proper intention necessary is an intention to confect not one, but both Sacraments. This is essential for a valid celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.


Both Consecrations are Necessary for a Valid Mass
St. Thomas Aquinas says: 

"As often as the Sacrifice is offered, the consecration of both species is required, according to the will and institution of Christ. For Christ at the Last Supper, consecrating each (both) species, commanded: 'Do this in commemoration of me' . . . the very notion of sacrifice . . . demands the consecration of both species.37

De Defectibus
De Defectibus is a long document written by Pope St. Pius V which discusses certain defects which could arise in the celebration of Mass. It is largely a point of reference so the celebration of Mass would remain the same in all lands for all times. Defects were described in detail so that priests would always say Mass in the same manner.

Quo Primum and De Defectibus emanated from the Council of Trent. Both of these documents were found in the front of all Altar Missals as an easy reference for priest offering the Holy Mass. Quo Primum and De Defectibus were first included in the Missale Romanum in 1572. They were deleted from the ICEL (Committee on English in the Liturgy) version in 1969.

De Defectibus Chapter X, Part 3, prescribes that a Mass interrupted after the Consecration of the Host (because of illness or death of the celebrant) must be continued by another priest, i.e., that the wine must be consecrated to complete and effect the Sacrifice.

In the 1917 Code, Canon 817 states: 

"It is unlawful even in the case of necessity, to consecrate one species without the other, or to consecrate both outside the Mass."

The complete form or words of Consecration needed for a valid Sacrament were clearly stated in the Council of Florence.

The Council of Florence, in 1442, declared that the following words must be used for a valid Consecration in the Mass:

"Wherefore the words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: 'For this is My Body: For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins."38

Various Mass Rites: "For Many" or "For All"
". . . The Church hast traditionally recognized as valid -- some 76 different rites in various languages, many of which date back to Apostolic times, not one however, has ever used "all" in the form for the Consecration of the Wine."39 

Even the Anglican Common Prayer Book of 1549 didn't change the word "many to "all" in the consecration and it was still declared by Pope Leo XIII to be invalid.


Little Words and Letters Can Mean a Lot
Some people may say that discarding or changing a word or words in the Mass isn't a big deal. Church history has proven that little words, even little letters, can mean a lot.

The combats sustained by the Nicean Fathers against the Arians over the definition of the dogma of the Incarnation are witness to the uncompromising zeal for stating the truth without shade of alteration, gloss, or ambiguity which the faith demand in a time of crisis. Major differences could have been settled at that time by the addition of one single letter. The problematic homoousios denoting "consubstantial" needed only have been softened to homoiousios denoting "similar in nature."40


Jesus Christ, The Word of God has Spoken
Luke 16:17: "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the Law to fall."

Matthew 5:18: "For Amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth shall pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the Law, till all be fulfilled."

Our Lord Jesus Christ did not use the word "all" in the upper room in Matthew 26:26. He used the word "many." God help the New Order priest who uses the words which are different from the words that Jesus Christ used.


Perpetual Teaching of the Universal Church
The Church has always taught that the word "all", for very specific reasons, is purposely not used in the Consecration!

St. Alphonsus tells us: 

"The words pro vobis et pro multis (for you and for many) are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the blood of Our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men but its fruits are applied only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault."41 

Or, as the theologians say, this Precious Blood is sufficient to save all men, but in reality it does not save all -- it saves only those who cooperate with Grace.

The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is not a Sacrament for all men; it is a Sacrament for you and for many.

The Catechism by Decree of The Holy Council of Trent teaches that the additional words:

"for you and for many, are taken, some from St. Matthew, some from St. Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God . . . With reason, therefore, were the words 'for all' not used, as in this place the fruits of the passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation."42

St. Thomas Aquinas expressed the same opinion in the Summa, III, Q78, Art. 4, Reply to Objection 8. Pope Benedict XIV also expressed this opinion in De Missae Sacrificio.


Doubtful Consecration; Must Not Participate
Just for the reason that there is a doubtful Consecration in the New Mass, Catholics are obliged to abstain from any participation in such rites. Fr. Jone's Moral Theology, Chapter under the Efficacy of the Sacraments Part IV #2, states under examples:

"To administer or receive a Sacrament invalidly is a much greater sin than to administer or receive it unfruitfully."43

Pope Innocent XI, in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679, condemned the idea that a person could follow a probable opinion regarding the value of a sacrament and abandon the safer course.44 Pope Innocent XI condemned this thinking not once, but twice!


Pope Innocent XI
Errors of Michael of Molinos (Condemned in the decree of the Sacred Office, August 28, 1687, and in the Constitutions "Coelestis Pastor," Nov. 20, 1687)45

11. It is not necessary to reflect upon doubts whether one is proceeding rightly or not." (Condemned)46

"Condemned as heretical, suspect, erroneous, scandalous, blasphemous, offensive to pious ears, rash, or relaxed Christian discipline, subversive, and seditious respectively."47

Fr. Henry Davis says in his Moral and Pastoral Theology Vol. 2 p. 27:

"In conferring the Sacrament, as also in the Consecration in the Mass, it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course. The contrary was explicitly condemned by Pope Innocent XI (1676-1689); to do so would be a grievous sin against religion, namely an act of irreverence towards what Christ Our Lord has instituted."48

"It would be a grievous sin against Charity, as the recipient would probably be deprived of the graces and effects of the Sacrament. It would be a grievous sin against Justice, as the recipient has a right to valid Sacraments. Matter and form must be certainly valid. Hence, one may not follow a probable opinion and use either doubtful matter or form. Acting otherwise, one commits a sacrilege."49 

That is one reason why the New Mass is a sacrilege.


Sacrilege By Which He is Offended
The New Mass is a sacrilege because it is a deliberate counterfeit of the established Mass of the Roman Rite. The True Mass was given a definite and unchangeable form by St. Pope Pius V so sacrilege could be avoided and condemned.

St. Thomas Aquinas describes a sacrilege:

"In a sacrilege, we find a special type of deformation, namely the violation of a sacred thing by treating it with irreverence." (Summa. II Q. 99, Art. 2)

What Part Does Truth Have With Error?
If the Novus Ordo Missae is not Catholic, then it cannot satisfy one's Sunday obligation, and would be a grievous sin to attend. St. Thomas Aquinas said:

"Falsehood in outward worship occurs on the part of the worshipper, and especially, in common worship which is offered by minister impersonating the whole Church. For even as he would be guilty of falsehood who would, in the name of another person, proffer things that are not committed to him, so too does man incur the guilt of falsehood who, on the part of the Church gives worship to God contrary to the manner established by the Church or Divine Authority, and according to the ecclesiastical custom. Hence, St. Ambrose says: "He is unworthy who celebrates the mystery otherwise than as Christ delivered it."50

Pope Innocent III, one of the greatest jurists, said:

"No one may depart from the universal customs of the Church."51

Saint Pope Pius X said in Pascendi Dominic Gregis: 

"For Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the Second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those who dare, after the impious novelties of some kind or to endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow anyone of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church."

The English Martyrs' Blood Testifies Against the New Mass

The New Mass is strikingly similar to the service instituted by Cranmer (the liturgist of Henry VIII) following the Protestant Reformation. Pope St. Pius V told Catholics, at that time, that they were forbidden to attend such services. In fact, many went to their death rather than go to the churches where Cranmer's form of prayer was being said. If true Catholics went to their death rather than attend a mass such as the Novus Ordo, the response of the faithful today must be the same.


A New Liturgy For A New Religion
You need a new liturgy for a new religion. Just because the original Novus Ordo Missae had a few similarities to the True Mass, that doesn't make it Catholic. Consider the following description of the early Lutheran service, as given by the great Jesuit scholar, Hartmann Grisar:

"One who entered the parish church at Wittenburg after Luther's 'victory' discovered that the same vestments were used for divine service as before, and heard the same old Latin hymns. The host was elevated and exhibited at the consecration. In the eyes of the people it was the same Mass as before, despite the fact that Luther omitted all the prayers which represented the sacred function of the Sacrifice. The people were intentionally kept in the dark on this point. 'We cannot draw the common people away from the Sacrament, and it will probably be thus until the Gospel is well understood,' said Luther. 'The rite of celebration of the Mass,' he explained, is a 'purely external thing,' and he said further that 'the damnable words referring to the Sacrifice could be omitted all the more readily, since the ordinary Christian would not notice the omission and hence there was no danger of scandal.'"52

The Morality of the New Mass
The Council of Trent, Canons on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 3 says:

"If anyone says that the Sacrifice of the Mass is merely an offering of praise and thanksgiving, or that it is a simple memorial of the Sacrifice offered on the Cross, and that it should not be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfaction, and other necessities: let him be anathema."53

The New Mass is only an offering of praise and thanksgiving. At the New Mass anything can and does go. If the only church in town happened to be a protestant church, a Catholic surely could not attend services there. The same principle applies to the New Mass. Since it is not a Catholic Mass, a Catholic has no business being there. In fact, in most churches the New Mass would not even qualify to be a Protestant service. Many New Masses have laughing, joking, clapping, singing, dancing, hugging, kissing, flutes, guitars, charismatics calling up spirits, homosexual priests, Eucharistic ministers, communion in the hand, immodest dress, no dresses, no head coverings, no reverence, etc...

As the Antichrist will be so evil because he will claim to be the Real Jesus and will not be, so the New Mass is evil because it claims to be the Real Mass and is not. The New Mass is a deliberate counterfeit of the True Mass, and a non-Catholic service. It is very clear that according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church it would be a grievous sin to attend the New Mass. This is why the New Mass is deadly.

Notes

1. St. Leonard, The Hidden Treasure , p. 157
2. Rev. T. E. Bridgett, The Life of Blessed John Fisher (London: Burns & Oates, 1888). Bishop St. John Fisher was martyred, along with St. Thomas More, by Henry VIII in 1535.
3. St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Dignities and Duties Of The Priest (London: Benzinger Bros., 1889), p. 212.
4. Octava Controversia Generalis. Liber Ii. Controversia Quinta. Caput XXXI.
5. Fr. Paul Trinchard, Holy Mass, Holy Mary (MAETA: P.O. Box 6012, Metairie, LA, 1997), p. 41.
6. St. Leonard, The Hidden Treasure , p. 157
7. Fr. Paul Trinchard, Holy Mass, Holy Mary (MAETA: P.O. Box 6012, Metairie, LA, 1997), p. 4,5.
8. Dr. Rara Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, p. 11.
9. Ibid, p. 9.
10. Fr. Paul Trinchard, New Mass in Light of the Old (MAETA: P.O. Box 6012, Metairie, LA, 1995), p. 20.
11. Fr. James Wathen, The Great Sacrilege, p. 178, 179.
12. Fr. Paul Trinchard, Novus Ordo Condemned (MAETA: P.O. Box 6012, Metairie, LA, 1997), p. 34.
13. Comment of Fr. Joseph Jungmann, the Mass: An Historical, Theological And Pastoral Survey (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1976), p. 201.
14. Solange Hertz, On the Contrary (Veritas Press, Box 1704, Santa Monica, CA), p. 50.
15. Most Asked Questions About The Society Of Saint Pius X (Angelus Press, 2918 Tracy Ave., Kansas City, MO), p. 26.
16. Fr. James Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?, p. 178, 179.
17. La Tunica Stracciata by Tito Casini, Rome 1967 / Fr. Paul Leonard, A Theological Vindication Of Roman Catholic Traditionalism (Angelus Press, 2918 Tracy Ave., Kansas City, MO), p. 43.
18. Dr. Rara Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass , p. 24.
19. Latin Mass Magazine, Winter, 1995 / Christian Order, Oct. 1994.
20. Most Asked Questions About The Society Of Saint Pius X (Angelus Press, 2918 Tracy Ave., Kansas City, MO), p. 26.
21. Msgr. Frederick McManus, The Revival of the Liturgy, p. 217.
22. Dr. Rara Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass , p. 34.
23. Ibid., p. 29.
24. The Works of Thomas Cranmer (London: Parker Society), V. 2, p. 524.
25. Faith, Nov 1979.
26. Denzinger 956.
27. Denzinger 1533.
28. Fr. Donald Sanborn, Changes of Vatican II, Part IV (Catholic Restoration Bookstore, 2850 Parent, Warren, MI).
29. Fr. Anthony Cekada, "A Response", The Roman Catholic, Jan. 1987.
30. Fr. James Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?, p. 523.
31. Denzinger 953.
32. Fr. James Wathen, The Great Sacrilege, p. 173-175.
33. Denzinger 2200.
34. Denzinger 856.
35. Denzinger 996.
36. Denzinger 695.
37. De Eucharistia, Noldin-Schmitt, S. J., in "Summa Theologiae Moralis," III Innsbruck, 1940.
38. Denzinger 715.
39. Dr. Rara Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass , p. 55.
40. Solange Hertz, On the Contrary (Veritas Press, Box 1704, Santa Monica, CA), p. 75.
41. St. Alphonsus, Treatise On The Holy Eucharist
42. Patrick Henry Omlor, Questioning The Validity Of The Masses Using The New, All-English Canon (Athanasius Press; Reno, NV), p. 59.
43. Fr. Heribet Jone, Moral Theology (The Neumann Press, Westminster, MD, 1952), p. 311.
44. Denzinger 1151.
45. Denzinger p. 331.
46. Denzinger 1231.
47. Denzinger 1288.
48. Fr. Henry Davis, S. J., Moral And Pastoral Theology (London: Sheed And Ward, 1936), V. 2, p. 27.
49. Fr. Heribet Jone, Moral Theology (The Neumann Press, Westminster, MD, 1952), p. 323.
50. Dr. Rara Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass , p. 86.
51. Innocent III, de Consuetudine Theol. II-II, 104-105.
52. Dr. Rara Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass , p. 18.
53. Denzinger 950.


[Emphasis - The Catacombs]

[Stone]

The following are a few excerpts from the letter by Archbishop Viganò letter of July 20, 2022 regarding Cardinal Cupich's shuttering of the Latin Masses in the ICKSP chapels.

Note how Archbishop Viganò calls the New Mass the "Protestantized imitation" of the True Mass and he clearly states, as did Archbishop Lefebvre, that "it is not possible to celebrate the Mass of Saint Pius V and at the same time to accept the errors of its enemies."

Abp. Viganò: Catholics have ‘sacred and urgent duty’ to resist Cdl. Cupich’s Latin Mass crackdown

Jul 20, 2022
(LifeSiteNews)

[...] It is no secret that Bergoglio has a hatred of Tradition, and that he does not miss any occasion to deride and discredit those who want to remain Catholic and are not willing to apostatize from the Faith. [...]  With Bergoglio’s placet they are bringing the subversive plan of Vatican II to completion, which is destined to lead to the Religion of Humanity yearned for by Freemasonry.

But if on the one hand it is a duty to denounce and condemn the intolerable abuses of these renegades who have as their goal the destruction of the Church of Christ and the cancellation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, on the other hand it seems to me that it is necessary to reconsider how certain forms of carefree acceptance of Vatican II on the part of the Institute of Christ the King may have wrongly allowed its members to believe that Rome would have looked the other way regarding buckles and capes as long as they did not criticize the Council or the Novus Ordo.

This shows us that – beyond the impromptu ceremonial connotations that are bit too ancien régime (which however are very moderate in Chicago and in general throughout the United States) – it is the Tridentine Mass in itself that is a formidable profession of Faith and an unflinching refutation of the patched-together reformed liturgy, whether it is celebrated by an old parish pastor or a newly ordained priest, regardless of whether he wears a Roman fiddleback or a medieval chasuble. It is that Mass, and the Mass par excellence, celebrated in the one Rite that is truly extraordinary, not because it is occasional but because it is incomparably superior to the Protestantized imitation that is the Montinian rite, which a Curé of Ars would have looked upon with horror.

This Mass, the Mass of the Holy Church, the Mass of the Apostles and Martyrs of all times, our Mass – this is the Mass that truly causes them scandal. It is not Roman birettas and bows that scandalize them; it is not the mozzettas and rochets that scandalize them. The real thing that scandalizes them is the Catholic Mass, and this is what they rail against, with the rage of heretics – the same people who preach “welcoming” and “inclusivity,” which applies to everyone without condition except for good priests and faithful laity. In reality, this ought to be enough to convince us to totally ignore the last dying wheezes of a Hierarchy that is blinded in both intellect and will because it is alien to Grace. [...]

This umpteenth show of strength by Cupich, who is cynical and ruthless towards the faithful even before the Canons of the Institute of Christ the King, can constitute a healthy moment of reflection on the many omissions and equivocations that need to be clarified, especially in the matter of acceptance of the Conciliar mens and the Bergoglian “magisterium.” I trust that the Canons of Christ the King and all of the Ecclesia Dei institutes will be able to see in these days of trial a precious opportunity for purification, courageously witnessing to the necessary coherence between the profession of Faith and its cultic expression in the Mass, and the consequent irreconcilability between these and the doctrinal and liturgical deviations of Vatican II. Because it is not possible to celebrate the Mass of Saint Pius V and at the same time to accept the errors of its enemies.

Cupich knows this very well, and this is why he wants to prevent the celebration of that Mass. He knows how much that Mass is a very powerful exorcism against the servants of the devil, both those who wear miters and those who do not. He knows how immediately that Mass is understandable to anyone for its supernatural sense of the sacred and divine – the mysterium tremendum of Moses before the burning bush – and how that Mass opens the eyes of the faithful, warms their hearts, and enlightens their minds. After decades of unspeakable torments, the faithful are finally able to approach the Majesty of God, to be converted, to change their lives, to educate their children in holiness, and to spread the Faith by their example. What could be more desirable for a Bishop who is truly a Shepherd of the Sheep entrusted to him by the Lord? And what could be more detestable for those who want to see the Sheep be torn to pieces by wolves or fall into the abyss?

The lay faithful, priests, and Bishops have the sacred and urgent duty to rise up against the decisions of these completely discredited characters and to demand, without yielding an inch, that the venerable Tridentine Liturgy remain an inviolable bulwark of doctrine, morality, and spirituality. We must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29), especially when these men have demonstrated by their reprehensible conduct, that they do not love either God or their brothers in the Faith.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
20 July 2022

[Stone]

Fundamental Problems with the New Mass - Fr. Hesse
'The New Mass is the Smoke of Satan that has entered the Church... it is intrinsically evil... somebody wanted to destroy the Church with the New Mass... its a new faith'

Fr. Hesse explains why the New Mass is illicit, citing Quo Primum and the Council of Trent to prove this point.

From this talk: A Conversation with Fr. Hesse #1 https://archive.org/details/FatherHes...

Timestamp: 39:22-44:39

[Stone]

Excerpt from Archbishop Lefebvre:

The New Mass and the Pope

8 November 1979

How often during these last ten years have I not had occasion to respond to questions concerning the weighty problems of the New Mass and the Pope. In answering them I have ever been careful to breathe with the spirit of the Church, conforming myself to her Faith as expressed in her theological principles, and to her pastoral prudence as expressed in moral theology and in the long experiences of her history.

I think I can say that my own views have not changed over the years and that they are, happily, those of the great majority of priests and faithful attached to the indefectible Tradition of the Church. It should be clear that the few lines which follow are not an exhaustive study of these problems, The purpose, rather is to clarify our conclusions to such an extent that no one may be mistaken regarding the official position of the Society of St, Pius X.

It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are then free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics, even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith.

Now, it is easy to show that the New Mass, as it was formulated by the officially authorized Conciliar Liturgical Commission considered together with the accompanying explanation of Mgr. Bugnini, manifests an inexplicable rapprochement with the theology and liturgy of the Protestants. The following fundamental dogmas of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are not clearly represented and are even contradicted:

- that the priest is the essential minister of the Rite;
- that in the Mass there is a true sacrifice, a sacrificial action;
- that the Victim or Host is Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, present under the species of bread and wine, with His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity;
- that this Sacrifice is a propitiatory one;
- that the Sacrifice and the Sacrament are effected by the words of the Consecration alone, and not also by those which either precede or follow them.

It is sufficient to enumerate a few of the novelties in the New Mass to be convinced of the rapprochement with the Protestants;

- the altar replaced by a table without an altar stone;
- Mass celebrated facing the people, concelebrated, in a loud voice, and in the vernacular;
- the Mass divided into two distinct parts: Liturgy of the Word, and Liturgy of the Eucharist;
- the cheapening of the sacred vessels, the use of leavened bread, distribution of Holy Communion in the hand, and by the laity, and even by women;
- the Blessed Sacrament hidden in corners;
- the Epistle read by women;
- Holy Communion brought to the sick by laity.

All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it. The de-sacralization is such that these Masses risk the loss of their supernatural character, their mysterium fidei; they would then be no more than acts of natural religion. These New Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects.

Must one conclude further that all these Masses are invalid? As long as the essential conditions for validity are present (matter, form, intention, and a validly ordained priest), I do not see how one can affirm this.

The prayers at the Offertory, the Canon, and the Priest’s Communion which surround the words of Consecration are necessary, not to the validity of the Sacrifice and the Sacrament, but rather to their integrity. When the imprisoned Cardinal Mindszenty, desiring to nourish himself with the Body and Blood of Our Lord, and to escape the gaze of his captors, pronounced solely the words of Consecration over a little bread and wine, he most certainly accomplished the Sacrifice and the Sacrament.

It is clear, however, that fewer and fewer Masses are valid these days, as the faith of priests is destroyed and they possess no longer the intention to do what the Church does – an intention which the Church cannot change. The current formation of those who are called seminarians today does not prepare them to celebrate Mass validly. The propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is no longer considered the essential work of the priest. Nothing is sadder or more disappointing than to read the sermons or teachings of the Conciliar bishops on the subject of vocations, or on the occasion of a priestly ordination. They no longer know what a priest is.

[Stone]

Adapted from Issue 40 of the Recusant:

THE NEW MASS IS NOT A CATHOLIC RITE:  IT IS A SCHISMATIC, NON-CATHOLIC RITE.
THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT GIVE GRACE.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

“Soon, Archbishop Lefebvre would no longer tolerate participation at Masses celebrated in the new rite except passively, for example at funerals. … He considered that it was bad in itself and not only because of the circumstances in which the rite was performed.”

(Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Marcel Lefebvre the Biography, p465 ff.)

“It is all wasted because the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, desecrated as it is, no longer confers grace and no longer transmits it.”

(‘Open Letter to Confused Catholics,’ Ch.3)

“These New Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects.”

(Conference of 8th November, 1979)

“It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are then free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics, even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our Faith.”

(Ibid.)

“Your perplexity takes perhaps the following form: may I assist at a sacrilegious Mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these Masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover apply to them the rules of moral theology and Canon Law as regards the participation or the attendance at an action which endangers the faith or may be sacrilegious. The New Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the same reservations since it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.”

(‘Open Letter to Confused Catholics,’ Ch.4)

“The current problem of the Mass is an extremely serious problem for the Holy Church. I believe that if the dioceses and seminaries and works that are currently done are afflicted with sterility, it is because the recent deviations drew upon us the divine curse. All the efforts that are made to hang on to what is being lost, to reorganize, reconstruct, rebuild, all that is afflicted with sterility, because we no longer have the true source of holiness which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Profaned as it is, it no longer gives grace, it no longer makes grace pass.”

(‘A Bishop Speaks’ - laportelatine.org/bibliotheque/oeuvres_mgr_lefebvre/
1963_1975_mgr_lefebvre_un_eveque_parle/1963_1975_mgr_lefebvre_un_eveque_parle.pdf - p. 71 ff. )

“… So, if someone asks me: ‘I only have Mass of St. Pius V once a month. So what should I do on the other Sundays? Should I go to the New Mass if I do not have the Mass of St. Pius V?’ - I reply: Just because something is poisoned, obviously it is not going to poison you if you go on the odd occasion, but to go regularly on Sunday like that, little by little the notions will be lost, the dogmas will diminish. They will become accustomed to this ambiance which is no longer Catholic and they will very slowly lose the Faith in the Real Presence, lose the Faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and have a spirituality, since the prayers are changed and they have modified everything, in the sense of another spirituality. It is a new conception of Christian spirituality. There is no longer any ascetical effort, no longer a combat against sin, no longer a spiritual combat. There is a great need to combat against our own tendencies, against our faults, against everything which leads us to sin. So I would say to them: Listen, I cannot advise you to go to something which is evil. Myself, I would not go because I would not want to take in this atmosphere. I cannot. It is stronger than me. I cannot go. I would not go. So I advise you not to go.”

(Spiritual Conference at Écône, 25th June, 1981)

“The consequences of this state of mind or spirit spread within the Church, inside the Church, are deplorable, and are ruining and sapping the spiritual vitality of the Church. In conscience, all we can do is turn priests and faithful away from using the Novus Ordo Missae if we wish that the complete and whole Catholic Faith remains still living.”

(Letter to John-Paul II, 5th April 1983 - Conference #1, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, 24th April 1983)

“...People are still asking us these questions: ‘I don’t have the Mass of St. Pius V on Sunday and there is a Mass said by a priest that I know well, a holy man, so wouldn’t it be better to go to the Mass of this priest, even if it is the New Mass but said with piety, instead of just staying away?’

No! That’s not true! That is not true! Because this rite is bad, is bad, is bad! This is the reason why this rite is bad, it is poisoned! It is a poisoned rite! Mr. Salleron says it very well here: ‘It is not a choice between two rites that would be good! This is a choice between a Catholic Rite and a practically Protestant rite!’ It’s harmful to our Faith, the Catholic Faith!”

(Conference at Econe, 11th April, 1990)

“This Mass is poisoned, it is bad and it leads to the loss of faith little by little. We are clearly obliged to reject it.”

(‘The Mass of All Times,’ p.353)

Bishop de Castro Mayer:

“It seems to me preferable that scandal be given rather than a situation be maintained in which one slides into heresy. After considerable thought on the matter, I am convinced that one cannot take part in the New Mass, and even just to be present one must have a serious reason. We cannot collaborate in spreading a rite which, even if it is not heretical, leads to heresy. This is the rule I am giving my friends.”

(Letter to Archbishop Lefebvre, 29th Jan., 1970)

Bishop Williamson (previously, before he changed his mind):



“The New Mass is in any case illicit...it’s intrinsically offensive to God, it’s intrinsically evil. […] If it’s valid, but illicit, may I attend? No. I may no more attend a valid, illicit Mass than I may attend a satanic Mass.”

(youtube/opMuVJcud7M)

The New Mass is “so bad that no priest should use it, nor Catholic attend it.”

(Eleison Comments #387)

Fr. Carl Pulvermacher OFM, founder and director of Angelus Press (writing in ‘The Angelus’ magazine):

“Question. We started going to our parish church (Novus Ordo, of course) on the Sundays there was no traditional Mass here. My question is this. Is it wrong to go to our parish church when the traditional Mass is only available so infrequently? Is it wrong to receive Communion or any other Sacrament in the Novus Ordo church? […] S. P., Kasson, Minn.


Answer. Here we get down to the bare facts. In all questions like this I always advise people to avoid attending the New Mass, as well as the altered Sacraments. I do not say they are always invalid. However, this alone doesn't make them good. The New Mass is not grace-giving. It is not our Catholic Mass. The only reason it was created was to destroy our true Mass.”

(www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=
show_article&article_id=875)

…And Again:

“Question. Several people objected to my saying, in last month's column, that the New Mass was not grace-giving. "It is heresy to hold a valid Mass is not grace giving."

Answer. First of all, there is a difference between validity and grace-giving. I believe the one may be present without the other. Surely, I do not claim that in every case the New Mass is invalid. I hate to make comparisons but I know you would agree that a valid Satanic mass (Black Mass) would not be grace giving. […] I have yet to see a single Catholic who has truly benefitted from the New Mass. Never have I seen a novus ordo convent or a monastery where religious life was not in a state of decline. When we had the True Mass, normal progress was seen. When we adopted the Novus Ordo, we have seen normal decline. I dare any person - cleric or lay - to prove the grace-givingness of the New Ordo liturgy!”

(www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article
&article_id=863)

Fr. Gregory Hesse:

The New Mass “is not a work of the Church.” It is “schismatic, it’s also doubtful.” “How can you fulfil your Sunday obligation at a Mass that’s not pleasing to God? It’s absurd! … You’d rather stay home than go to the New Mass.” 

(www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaGLel1_uXY  - 33m.ff.)

“So you can’t go there because it’s schismatic. You also can’t go there because it is doubtful. And that’s why, as Archbishop Lefebvre of blessed memory said, you’d rather stay home than go to the New Mass.”

(Ibid.)

WHY IS THE NEW MASS A SCHISMATIC RITE?

“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from our Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”

- Mgr. Annibale Bugnini

“To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.”

- Fr. Joseph Gelineau SJ, member of Bugnini's "commission" which created the New Mass

“With the new liturgy, non-Catholic communities will be able to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with the same prayers as the Catholic Church. Theologically this is possible.”

- Max Thurian, Protestant member of Bugnini's comission which created the New Mass

“Our Dear Sons and Daughters, we ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass … A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries … This novelty is no small thing.”

- Pope Paul VI

“The Catholic Church, in order that the Holy Sacrifice may be offered in a dignified and reverent way, established the sacred Canon centuries ago, so pure and free from all error that nothing is contained in it which does not, in the greatest way, inspire sanctify and raise the mind to God.”

- Council of Trent, Session XXII

“If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments may be despised, or without sin omitted by the ministers at will, or changed into new different ones by any pastor of the Church whomsoever, let him be anathema.”

[Si quis dixerit, receptos et approbatos Ecclesiae catholicae ritus in sollemni sacramentorum administratione adhiberi consuetos aut contemni, aut sine peccato a ministris pro libito omitti, aut in novos alios per quemcumque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse: anathema sit.]

- Council of Trent, Session VII, Canon XIII

[Stone]

From Issue 42 of The Recusant:

WAS ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE INCONSISTENT OR DID HE CHANGE HIS OPINION OVER TIME?

...and consequently, is it true or just or honest to characterise the Archbishop as being essentially in agreement with a man who says that you can attend the New Mass daily if you subjectively feel that it ‘nourishes’ you, that not every priest should leave the Novus Ordo nor should every faithful stop attending it, that God is using it to save souls without needing Tradition and that even Traditional Catholics who know what the New Mass is can still receive grace by attending it?



1974:

“Is the New Mass really intrinsically bad? If the Mass were intrinsically bad, I would say, well, I would say you can’t do an intrinsically bad act, that’s always forbidden; but if the Mass is not intrinsically bad, but only bad due to the circumstances which surround it … well since circumstances can change, can be changed…if there are seminarians who don’t have any other Mass, can they go to a Mass like that? I think so, what can you do! … However, I also told you, I think at least twice, that it is possible that our attitude, our position regarding this problem might become firmer or somehow harder, so to speak...”

- Écône Conference, 1st April, 1974

1975:

“Little by little the Archbishop’s position hardened … In 1975 he admitted that one could ‘assist occasionally at the New Mass when one feared going without Communion for a long time.’ [...] Soon, Archbishop Lefebvre would no longer tolerate participation at Masses celebrated in the new rite except passively, for example at funerals. … He considered that it was bad in itself and not only because of the circumstances in which the rite was performed.”

- (See: Tissier, “Biography of Marcel Lefebvre,” p465 ff)

1976:

“Let there be no mistake, it is not a matter of a difference between Mgr. Lefebvre and Pope Paul VI. It is a matter of the radical incompatibility between the Catholic Church and the conciliar church, the mass of Paul VI representing the symbol and the programme of the conciliar church.”

- ‘Agence France Presse’ Communiqué, 12th July 1976

1978:

“This is why I think that, given this increasingly serious and increasingly dangerous evolution, we must also avoid more and more, and I would almost say, in a radical way, any assistance at this New Mass.”

- Écône Conference, 21st March 1978

1979:

“It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith. All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these [new] Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it.”

- 8th November, 1979, (See: Davies, ‘Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Ch.40)

1981:

“This Mass is not bad in a merely accidental or extrinsic way. There is something in it that is truly bad. … Really, in conscience, I cannot advise anyone to attend this Mass, it is not possible.”

- (See: D A White ‘Horn of the Unicorn’ p.224 ff)

1990:

“ ‘And that’s why I will never celebrate the Mass according to the new rite, even under threat of ecclesiastical penalties and I will never advise anyone positively to participate actively in such a Mass.’

Because people are still asking us those questions: I have not the Mass of St. Pius V on Sunday, and there is a mass said by a priest that I know well, a holy man, so, wouldn’t it be better to go to the mass of this priest, even if it is the new mass but said with piety, instead of abstaining?

No! This is not true! This is not true, because this rite is bad! Is bad, is bad. And the reason why this rite is bad in itself, is because it is poisoned. It is a poisoned rite! Mr. Salleron says it very well, here: "It is not a choice between two rites that could be good. It is a choice between a Catholic Rite and a rite that is practically bordering on Protestantism,” and thus, which attacks our faith, the Catholic Faith! So, it is out of question to encourage people to go to Mass in the new rite.

[…]

I’m a little surprised, you know. Sometimes, I receive a lot of requests for consultations from our priests who are in the priories and some are asking me: ‘What should one reply to a person who says he cannot have the Mass of St. Pius V and who believes that he is under the obligation to go to a mass of the new rite, said by a good priest, a serious priest who offers all the guarantees almost of holiness? etc.’ But, I do not understand how they cannot answer this by themselves! They don’t find the conclusion by themselves and they feel obliged to ask me such a thing. It's incredible! So you see, there are still some who hesitate. This is unbelievable!”

- April 1990 (Fideliter)

THE OLD SSPX SPEAKS -  IS THE NEW MASS INTRINSICALLY EVIL?

In 1974 Archbishop Lefebvre gave his cautious permission to attend the New Mass on the grounds that he did not (yet) consider it to be intrinsically bad:


“Is the New Mass really intrinsically bad? If the Mass were intrinsically bad, I would say, well, I would say you can’t do an intrinsically bad act, that’s always forbidden; but if the Mass is not intrinsically bad, but only bad due to the circumstances which surround it…”

So, is the New Mass intrinsically bad, or isn’t it?

Here is what the SSPX used to say on the question:

“However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. […] Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available.”

- Fr. Peter Scott, “Questions & Answers”, The Angelus magazine, September 2002

“Well, the Society is definitely against the New Mass. We even say that it is ‘intrinsically evil’. That’s a delicate label that needs a little explanation. By this we mean that the New Mass in itself – the New Mass as the New Mass, as it is written – is evil, because as such you find in it the definition of evil. The definition of evil is ‘the privation of a due good’. Something that should be in the New Mass is not there and that’s evil. What is really Catholic has been taken out of the New Mass. The Catholic specification of the Mass has been taken away. That’s enough to say that it is evil. And look at the terrible fruits.”

- Bishop Bernard Fellay, conference in Kansas City, Missouri, 5th March 2002

“Now, even if one wanted to contest the heretical elements of the New Mass, the sole refusal to profess Catholic dogmas quintessential to the Mass renders the new liturgy deficient. It is like a captain who refuses to provide his shipmen with a proper diet. They soon become sick with scurvy due, not so much to direct poison, as from vitamin deficiency. Such is the new Mass. At best, it provides a deficient spiritual diet to the faithful. The correct definition of evil – lack of a due good – clearly shows that the New Mass is evil in and of itself regardless of the circumstances. It is not evil by positive profession of heresy. It is evil by lacking what Catholic dogma should profess: the True Sacrifice, the Real Presence, the ministerial priesthood.”

- (author unknown) “Is the New Mass Legit”, sspx.org, 25th May, 2011

“Since the expression of intrinsically evil is an extremely strong one, I think it is better to reserve it to the greater evil of the positive expression of heresy, and to keep the expression ‘evil in itself’ to the lesser evil of the omission of the profession of Faith. But one must acknowledge that this omission is in the New Mass in itself, in the Latin original version.”

- Fr. Francois Laisney, “Is the Novus Ordo Missae Evil?”, The Angelus magazine, March 1997

“Q.65 - Is it permissible to take part in the New Mass? 
Even if the New Mass is valid, it is displeasing to God inasmuch as it is ecumenical and protestantising; moreover it represents a danger to our faith in the holy sacrifice of the Mass. Thus it must be rejected. Whoever has understood the problem of the New Mass must no longer attend it because he would be deliberately endangering his faith, and at the same time this would be encouraging others to do likewise be seeming to assent to the reforms.


Surely one may attend a New Mass when it is devoutly and piously celebrated by a Catholic priest with an absolutely unquestionable faith? The celebrant is not the issue, but the rite he uses. … The New Mass is one of the main sources of the current crisis of faith. It is thus imperative to distance oneself from it.”


“Q.66 - May one attend the New Mass in some circumstances?
One should apply the rules analogous to those governing attendance at non-Catholic ceremonies to attendance at the New Mass. One may attend for family or professional reasons, but without actively participating; and, of course, one does not go to Communion.”


“Q.67 - What should be done when it is not possible to attend a Traditional Mass every Sunday? 
One for whom attendance at a Traditional Mass is not possible is excused from the obligation to attend Mass that Sunday. The precept of hearing Mass on Sunday only applies to attendance at a true Catholic Mass. One must, however, in this case at least try to attend a traditional Mass at regular intervals. Moreover, even if one is dispensed from attending Mass (which is a commandment of the Church), one is not dispensed from the commandment of God (“Remember thou keep holy the Lord’s day”). Thus, the Mass one could not attend must be replaced by something; for example, by reading the text of the Mass in one’s missal, by uniting one’s attention for the duration of a Mass with a Mass celebrated elsewhere, and by making a spiritual communion.” 

- Fr. Matthias Gaudron, ‘Catechism of the Crisis in the Church,’ Q65ff (Angelus Press 2010 edition, p.152 ff.)

[Stone]

Taken from the archived Catacombs.
Many thanks to the Catacombs member, Deus Vult, for the transcription!

No, the New Mass was not legitimately promulgated!

If it was we would be obligated to attend it and Archbp. Lefebvre would have been obligated to say it.

Fr. Hewko @12:07- The Novus Ordo rite of the New Mass is an insult to God.  It is not pleasing to Him and it shuts off the fountain of grace.  He doesn't [shut off grace], rather the men of the Church have by changing the Mass.

This is why our fight is so serious right now because the new-SSPX has accepted the New Mass as legitimately promulgated (one could include the False Resistance in this as well with Bishop Williamson and his syncophants all insisting the New Mass gives grace).  This is a very serious statement which Archbp. Lefebvre would never have succumbed to.  He fought that statement - legitimately promulgated.  Legitimately promulgated means it's good for souls, it sanctifies souls, it gives grace.  Archbishop Lefebvre said, no way!  That New Mass does not give grace.  He said, I'd rather form priests.  I can form them on tradition of the traditional Mass, but I cannot form them on the New Mass.

Rome once said to Archbp. Lefebvre, 'Look, just say one time the New Mass, just once and all this friction between Rome and Econe will cease.  We'll have peace.'  Did the Archbishop put peace above truth?  Not at all.  He told the Holy Father, Paul VI at the time, "I cannot form priests on the New Mass.  I will not say it and I will not participate in it."  And he was right.

This is why the new SSPX has to condemn the Doctrinal Declaration that accepts Vatican II in the light of tradition, that accepts the New Code of Canon Law, that accepts the New Mass and the New Sacraments as valid and legitimately promulgated!  This is serious war.

This is a serious attack on the work of Archbp. Lefebvre [and] on Catholic tradition.  That's why we don't go with the new-SSPX.  We stay faithful to the SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre founded.

So what did Daniel the prophet say? Daniel the prophet said, In those days (speaking of the future) they will establish the abomination of desolation and remove the Sacrifice from the holy place.  The holy place, as the prophet Micaiah said, would be everywhere all over the earth.  Everywhere there will be offered a clean oblation to My Name.  A clean oblation, that means no sprinkling of blood.  It reflects the clean oblation of Melchisedech, that Abraham knelt to and received his blessing.  And Melchisedech, what did he offer as a sacrifice pleasing to God? Bread and wine which prefigured the union of the sacrifice of the lamb of Abel and the union of the sacrifice of Melchisedech, perfectly united in the sacrifice of the Mass.

In the sacrifice of the Mass it says in St. John, St. Matthew, St. Luke: When supper was ended, then He took the chalice, to introduce not a supper but a sacrifice and He consecrated the bread, "This is My Body. He consecrated the chalice - HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI - This is My Blood.  As the Priest intones the Psalms (the propers of the Mass) at the Introit, in the Gradual and the Communion he intones the Psalms.  Christ on the Cross intoned the Mass -the Introit: Blood of the New and Eternal Testament..."

That Lamb would be sacrificed on the Cross, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Eternal High Priest who on the Cross intoned Psalm 21. Deus meus, Deus meus quare me dereliguisti - My God my God why has Thou abandoned me?  This is the first verse of Psalm 21.  Normally at a Mass, especially on Palm Sunday, the choir, the schola will sing the full Psalm.  Christ intoned it on the Cross.  And what does this Psalm speak of?  Fat bulls have surrounded Me, dogs have surrounded Me.  They have divided My garments among them and cast dice over them.  They have pierced My hands and My feet, they have numbered all My bones. That was the prophetic Psalm of Christ's Mass.

He fulfilled that Mass and He commanded the Apostles,  Hoc facite - Do this same Mass, do this same Sacrifice till the end of the world.

That's why the Abomination of Desolation has been set up and the Sacrifice has been removed from our Catholic Churches all over the world.  Replacing the real Sacrifice with a ceremonial "fruit of the vine and work of human hands" which does not give grace and it does not please God.  Nor does the Latin Tridentine Mass please God when it's sandwiched between new Masses in the local dioceses who approve of this new Mass.  They use the new Mass to the most disgraceful bait to lure traditional Catholics, who have a love for tradition, lure to a Latin Mass and then destroy their faith by the ambiance environment of the new Mass and the new Conciliar Church.  So they end up eroding and losing their faith anyway.  They use the Tridentine Mass as bait to do this.

Bishops have said this out of their own mouths, "The only reason why we permit the Tridentine Mass, the indult Mass, motu propio Mass is to lure them in to the Conciliar Church." This out of the mouth of Pope Benedict XVI himself. He himself said, we will get these traditional communities to gradually, slowly abandoned their rigid positions and accept the New Mass and Vatican Council II. 

So there's our war. We have nothing to do, as Archbp. Lefebvre said, "We have nothing to do with this new schismatic Mass which breaks with tradition and this new schismatic church which they themselves call the Conciliar Church, the Church of the new Pentecost, the church of the new Advent."  We don't want to belong to that church.  We want to stay with the Roman Catholic Church of all time.  The one that Christ established.  The one that shines with unity and faith, the true Mass, the true Sacraments and the same profession of Faith as our ancestors.

[Emphasis mine.]

[Stone]

Taken from a 2016 Letter from Fr. Cardozo regarding the errors of Bishop Williamson and company
(the whole letter is excellent and full of common sense!):

I ask, is the new mass part of the Catholic Church? And how do we know that it is not of the Catholic Church? Because of its errors, because the goal of the new mass is ecumenism, because our BIG LIONS for the Faith, Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, did not cease saying that this new mass is the mass of a new church, which is not the Catholic Church. Of course, when one listens to this, coming from a fellow priest, supposedly a traditional priest, supposedly from the Resistance, who tells you besides that the new mass is good, and that the new mass is of the Catholic Church, I'm sorry, but I thought there was going to be a short circuit.

Why? Because we are in contradiction! We enter into contradiction. Then I told him: “Father, I thought that the new mass was a mass from another church!” But Father insists, “No, no, no! It’s of the Catholic Church.” Of course, what’s going on here? What are we doing here? For, if the new mass is good, if the new mass is of the Catholic Church, please tell me what we are doing here. Why don't we go to our parishes? Maybe there we will have air conditioning. Tell me, what are we resisting? Please, because I repeat, if the new mass is good, if the new mass is of the Catholic Church, I don't really see any sense in our being here. And I think many of us would not have to be here.

But, let's finally put the movie on pause here. In mathematics, and in everything, not only in mathematics, when you start something, for instance to say 1+1=3, that is to say, you start with an error, if you do not correct the error, this error will influence the course of the analysis, and will increase exponentially [St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that: Parvus error in principio est magnus in fine - A small error in principle becomes great in its end results. The Catacombs]. Something that began as a small error will become a very big error. When I told you here on December 30th to be careful because we are looking at the tip of the iceberg, I think you did not assess the harm that this 1+1=3 has done. Why? Because to justify that 1+1=3, they start saying that the mass, the new mass is good, that it is of the Catholic Church.

[Stone]

Excerpts from Archbishop Lefebvre's 'Letters to Friends and Benefactors' - 1975-1983 that refer to the Dangers of  New Mass

Letters to Friends and Benefactors - September 1975

... For the problem of Ecône is the problem of thousands and millions of Christian consciences, distressed, divided and torn for the past ten years by the agonising dilemma: whether to obey and risk losing one’s faith, or disobey and keep one’s faith intact; whether to obey and join in the destruction of the Church, whether to accept the reformed Liberal Church, or to go on belonging to the Catholic Church.

... Defending his Faith is the prime duty of every Christian, all the more of every priest and bishop. Wherever an order carries with it a danger of corrupting Faith and morals, it becomes a grave duty not to obey it.

It is because we believe that our whole Faith is endangered by the post-Conciliar reforms and changes [including the New Mass] that it is our duty to disobey, and to maintain the traditions of our Faith. The greatest service we can render to the Catholic Church, to Peter’s successor, to the salvation of souls and of our own, is to say “No” to the reformed Liberal Church, because we believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God made Man, Who is neither Liberal nor reformable.



Letters to Friends and Benefactors - March 1976

... The balance-sheet for the ten years following the Council is catastrophic in all departments. Churchmen, herein following numerous bad examples, thought that they could replace what Our Lord instituted with institutions [including the New Mass] better suited to the modern world, forgetting that Jesus Christ is God “yesterday, today and for ever” (Heb. 13:8), and that His Work is suited to all times and to all men.

Saint Pius X condemned them in his masterly Encyclical Pascendi. Such innovators pervert the faith, bring supernatural means down to the level of man and destroy the hierarchical constitution of the Church.

For a long time now we have been warned by the Popes. Pius IX had the Documents of the Alta Vendita of the Carbonari published in which we read:

“In a hundred years’ time…bishops and priests will think they are marching behind the banner of the keys of Peter when in fact they will be following our flag.” (Masonic Infiltrations in the Church, Barbier.)

Fogazzaro at the beginning of the century, founder of the Modernist lodge of Milan, used to say: “The Reform will have to be brought about in the name of obedience.” (The Church under Occupation, Ploncard d’ Assac.)

Now, when we hear in Rome that he who was the heart and soul of the liturgical reform [Bugnini] is a Freemason, we may think that he is not the only one. The veil covering over the greatest hoax ever to have mystified the clergy and baffled the faithful is doubtless beginning to be torn asunder.

Now is the time then to hold more faithfully than ever to Tradition and the unchanging Church, and to pray to God, to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and to St. Michael the Archangel to free the Church from the scandalous occupation of which She is victim.



Letters to Friends and Benefactors - October 1976

... In fact, these decisions [to submit to Rome] constrain us to submit ourselves to a new orientation in the Church, an orientation which is the result of an “historic compromise” between Truth and Error.

This “historic compromise” was brought about in the Church by the acceptance of Liberal ideas which were put into operation after the Council by the men of the Liberal Church who succeeded in taking the reins of power in the Church.

... It is in this betrayal of the Church that they would like us to collaborate by bringing us into line with this orientation which has so often been condemned by the Successors of Peter, and by preceding Councils.

We refuse this compromise in order to be faithful to our Faith, our Baptism, and our unique King, Our Lord Jesus Christ.




Letters to Friends and Benefactors - March 1977


...The Cross of Jesus summarises the whole of our faith and therefore the whole of our conduct, all of our attitudes, our interior and exterior life. It not only teaches us the truths necessary for our salvation, but also the way to salvation and the combat, which must be waged to achieve it. It shows the way to wage this combat against all that is opposed to our salvation, whether it be within or around us. The Cross is therefore the leaven and the law of Christian civilisation which is that of the salvation of souls by Jesus crucified.

To attempt to diminish in one way or another the teachings revealed by the Cross under the pretext of the historical development of society, of historical conscience, evolution, etc. is to close the way of salvation and deliver men up to other men, with no divine hope, light or life. It is to make this world the antechamber of hell.

This is what is being prepared for us by the elimination of any idea of combat against error due to religious liberty, or against atheism, laicism, and communism. Likewise by an ecumenism which delivers the Church into the hands of her enemies, and lack of opposition to sin by wiping out law in favor of conscience.

This new attitude of the Church authorities is a negation of the Cross of Our Lord. To ask us to follow this attitude, which lay under the surface during the Council, and which is clearly expressed in the reforms and practice of the Conciliar Church [including the New Mass], is as much as to ask us to deny Christ crucified. We cannot do so.



Letters to Friends and Benefactors - October 1977

... It is not surprising that, when authority fails or is used to annihilate that which it ought to be building up, the social body finds itself crippled [e.g. the bishops of the false Resistance promoting grace in the new Mass, that the New Mass and New Conciliar Church can nourish one's faith], and that the reaction takes place according to different criteria which can be somewhat divergent.

The important thing is to save the Catholic Faith inscribed in our catechisms, to save the means of living it by the grace of the [Traditional] Sacrifice of the Mass and of the [Traditional] Sacraments, to save the means of passing it on to future generations through Catholic schools and seminaries.



Letters to Friends and Benefactors - March 1978

Providence has allowed this painful crisis in the Church for our sanctification and in order to give more brightness to the pure gold of its doctrine and its means of redemption. This passion of the Church is a great mystery, for it reaches chiefly its hierarchy, its scholars, who seem to no longer know who they are and the reasons of their being appointed.

Satan, the father of lies, as Our Lord Jesus calls him, has the extraordinary talent of finding out some words, to which he assigns a new meaning so that from their ambiguity, he achieves acceptance of the destructive falsehood which overthrows the best established societies. He found it in this “ecumenism” of the Council which has created an ecumenical liturgy [New Mass], an ecumenical Bible, and ecumenical catechism, uniting truth and falsehood – marrying the true and the false.

The most disastrous result of this marriage is the Catholic-Protestant Mass, the poisoned source afterwards yielding countless ravages: relinquishment of the Church, of the true Faith, sacrileges, tearing of the unity of the Church, proliferation of diverse sorts of creeds unworthy of the Church.

But, there exists a consequence of which one does not often enough ponder on. It is the destruction of the Catholic nations which no longer find in the Holy Mass, the source of political unity based on the unity of the Catholic Faith. Therefore, the Catholic nation hereafter must, in like manner, convert itself to an ecumenical state – pluralistic, very soon finding itself securalized and neutral, if not atheistic.

The ecumencial Mass leads logically to apostasy. One cannot serve two masters, one cannot nourish oneself indifferently from truth or falsehood. It is falsehood that flatters our evil inclinations which will prevail over truth which is more austere and more demanding.

One must, at all costs, remain bound to truth without mingling. Pope Pius IX vigorously denounced these liberal Catholics who believe they can unite falsehood and truth, good and evil, in order to please their contemporary fellowmen.

Whether this poisoned ecumenism reaches us through the hierarchy or not, the channel is not important – it is the poison that one must refuse to swallow. It is a matter of strict obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ, to the Church of all times, to all the successors of Peter. We will, therefore, keep the Catholic liturgy, the Catholic Bible and catechism.

And it is for this reason that we must have Catholic priests and Catholic seminarians, Catholic monks nuns, active and contemplative. The Catholic Church will not perish!

Each one, at his time in the Church, must endeavour to remain Catholic and to maintain the Catholic Church. It is upon this resolution and its realisation that we will be judged by Our Divine Lord.



Letter to Friends and Benefactors - September 1978

...We tremble at the thought that the infiltration of modernism, that is to say naturalism, may continue in the Church. The consequences of this veritable cancer are the most serious that the Church has had to undergo during the course of her history; that is, the corruption of the Faith of numerous bishops and a great number of priests, monks and nuns. These clerics reason like the modernists and the protestants: witness the newly published book “Bishops Speak of the Faith of the Catholic Church.” The ideas of sanctifying grace, original sin, mortal sin and its consequences, of the expiatory Sacrifice of Our Lord which continues on our altars, are all spoiled. In their place one finds all the errors of liberalism, of Americanism, of Sillonism, and of modernism condemned by the Sovereign Pontiffs. Add to that the theology of liberation which is a Marxist interpretation of the Gospel—a sacrilegious and outrageous misinterpretation of Our Lord. Therefore, let us not be amazed that the patience of God is exhausted!

All seems to crumble around us because the foundation of all things has been abandoned; that is, the Way, the Truth and the Life—our beloved Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ. It is because of these reasons, these truths, that we wish to be so much more faithful to Our Lord, to His reign, to His cross, to His sacrifice, to His sacraments [the traditional Sacraments] and to His teachings which have been faithfully transmitted by the successors of Peter during close to twenty centuries.



Letters to Friends and Benefactors - March 1979

Extract from Archbishop Lefebvre's Letter of December 1978 to Pope John Paul II:

...The flood of changes in the Church, accepted and encouraged by the bishops, a flood devastating everything in its path – faith, morals, the institutions [including the Sacraments] of the Church – could tolerate no obstacle, no resistance.

We had, therefore, the choice either to let ourselves be swept away by this stream of havoc, thereby adding to the disaster, or to resist (against wind and tide) to safeguard our Catholic Faith and Catholic priesthood. We were not slow to decide.

...A solution cannot, in fact, be found in any compromise which would in practice cause our work to vanish, thereby adding yet another contribution to the destruction.



Letters to Friends and Benefactors - October 1979

...when one lives with an ecumenical Eucharist, democratic and liberal, the auto-destruction continues, despite all the calls to order, the statements most worthy of respect and the most spectacular of ceremonies.

“Nisi Dominus aedificaverit domum in vanum laboraverunt qui aedificant eam – If the Lord does not construct the building, the builders work in vain.” Therefore, the altar of sacrifice of propitiation, the heritage of the new and eternal testament; the Body and Blood of Jesus are the foundation stone of the Church from whence gush the waters of eternal life.



Letters to Friends and Benefactors - April 1980

... we must honor Jesus as God in all our Christian life, and thus, as the Church has always taught and practised, we must refuse to make Jesus equivalent to the founders of false religions, which would be blasphemous. We must refuse to compromise with those who deny the divinity of Our Lord, or with any false ecumenism. We must fight against atheism and laicism in order to help Our Lord to reign over families and over society. We must protect the worship of the Church, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the sacraments instituted by Our Lord, practicing them according to the rites honored by twenty centuries of tradition. Thus we will properly honor Our Lord, and thus be assured of receiving His grace.

It is because the novelties which have invaded the Church since the Council diminish the adoration and the honor due to Our Lord, and implicitly throw doubt upon His divinity, that we refuse them. These novelties do not come from the Holy Ghost, nor from His Church, but from those who are imbued with the spirit of Modernism, and with all the errors which convey this spirit, condemned with so much courage and energy by St. Pius X. This holy Pope said to the bishops of France with regard to the Sillon movement: “The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but the men of tradition.”

If only the innovators of the Council and those since it would understand this language which is, after all, that of the Church since the time of St. Paul.

One cannot hope for a real renovation of the Church without a return to Tradition. The Church cannot content herself with doubtful sacraments nor with ambiguous teaching. Those who have introduced these doubts and this ambiguity are not disciples of the Church. Whatever their intentions may have been, they in fact worked against the Church. The disastrous results of their industry exceed the worst examinings, and are not lessened by the apparent exceptions of a few regions. When Luther introduced the vernacular into the liturgy, the crowds rushed into the churches. But later?

It is consoling to note that in the Catholic world, the sense of faith of the faithful rejects these novelties and attaches itself to Tradition. It is from this that the true renewal of the Church will come. And it is because these novelties were introduced by a clergy infected with Modernism, that the most urgent and necessary work in the Church is the formation of a profoundly Catholic clergy.



Letters to Friends and Benefactors - March 1981

Sadly recognising that the consequences of the Conciliar Revolution seems to be intent on becoming institutionalised and supplant the true Catholic institutions with the risk of arriving at the same results as in political society, which is sinking into a state of permanent revolution, our resolution to maintain and develop the divine institutions of the Church should be more firm than ever, for if political institutions can disappear, this can never happen to the Church.



Letters to Friends and Benefactors - September 1981

...  the Catholics who realise they have been led astray by their shepherds from the true Catholic Faith, especially if one reflects that such Catholics are to be found all over the world, in Poland as elsewhere, thanks to the propaganda of the Pax Movement, supported by both government and clergy. Alas ! How many Catholics have already lost the Faith, how many have joined the sects now spawning all over parts of the world where they were unknown twenty years ago!

Nonethess souls everywhere are regaining their balance, deepening their Catholic Faith, regrouping around the priests who are, in ever greater numbers, coming back to Catholic Tradition. Devotion to the [traditional] Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, all night vigils of adoration, spiritual exercises, the recitation of the Rosary all are springing up again in chapels, well arranged and cared for, and in which the Faith finds expression in the beautiful altars and church furnishings, more often than not rescued from ransacked churches, in the crucifixes and statues, the Stations of the Cross given pride of place once more all of which favor genuine piety and raise souls up to God in this world of ours emptied of the sacred and given over to the profane.

From these groups are coming priestly and religious vocations, which are filling our seminaries and the monasteries and religious houses keeping the Catholic Faith. The whole Church is coming back to life in this way, especially in France, Switzerland, the U.S.A., and Germany; and now this re birth is spreading to the most far flung lands, to South America, South Africa, Kerala in Southern India, Australia, Japan.

The Catholic Church will not be occupied forever by the Modernists and progressives who are taking advantage of their authority to push through all these innovations destroying the Faith.

... Yet the only ones who are called “dissident,” “disobedient,” or “rebels,” are the ones who are keeping the Faith; while those who are destroying it are called “faithful,” “submissive,” and “obedient.” How much longer is this lie this massive imposture to last? Only God knows.

... Let us keep true to the Faith, and let us pray to Our Lady to come to our aid.



Letters to Friends and Benefactors - February 1982

...the [True]  Mass is indeed the banner of the Catholic Faith, because it makes open profession of all the fundamental dogmas of our Faith combined. In it are to be found all the treatises of Catholic theology.

And by this very fact, this “Mystery of our Faith” overwhelms all the errors of Protestantism, Islam, Judaism, Modernism, and materialistic, socialist and communist secularism. No error can withstand our holy Catholic Mass. The Mass is anti ecumenical, in the sense of ecumenism practiced since the Council: namely, the union of all religions in an amalgam of prayer without dogma, without morality, without specific laws, and agreement based on a few ambiguous slogans like “the rights of man,” “the dignity of man,” “religious liberty.”

On the contrary, the Novus Ordo is precisely the banner of this false ecumenism, representing the annihilation of the Catholic religion and the Catholic priesthood.

For the honor of Jesus Christ and for the honor of the Church, let us be faithful to the [True] Catholic Mass, symbol of our Faith, banner of our holy religion.

To continue this Catholic Mass we need priests, and so we need Catholic, and not Modernist seminaries, where, as always in the Church, young clerics can direct their formation and apostolate entirely towards the altar of divine Sacrifice.



Letters to Friends and Benefactors - March 1983

... We have been accused of disobedience, and dividing the Church. Now, not only the priests of Campos but also the Fraternity, and even the Universal Church, would be given the freedom to celebrate the old Mass provided that we recognize the new Mass as being legitimate and Catholic, and that we do not deter the faithful from participation.

This is obviously a new attitude, much more conciliatory, but with an added condition which the priests of the diocese of Campos have done well to reject. If we have to consider the new Mass as having the same titles as the old, why have we not adopted it and why continue to celebrate the old Mass? The reasons which have made us suffer a hard and unjust persecution would therefore be futile! A sentimental attachment to the past! [As we], on the other hand, do not cease to affirm: the new Mass has been made in collaboration with the Protestants in order to please them; it still has a Protestant definition and produces Protestants. These reasons are more than sufficient for not giving it the titles reserved to the Catholic Mass of all time in its various rites.

[Stone]

Screenshot taken from this gloria.tv post, chart by Jacob Bauer and Peter Kwasniewski: