A PROCLAMATION ON "THE NEW MASS AND THE POPE"
annotated by
Benjamin Frederick Dryden
Feast of Corpus Christ, June 5, 1980
The Superior General of the Society of S. Pius X, Archbishop Marcel Lefèbvre, has officially declared that "the Society of St. Pius X... cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid." Many lay folk, are puzzled by this official stand and do not understand the reasons the Superior General advances to justify it.
Hence, we have prepared a sentence outline of his declaration. Nearly every sentence in the outline is followed by an evaluation (true, false, half-truth, or irrelevant) and by the number of a note where this evaluation is explained. Conversely, at the beginning of each note will be found an indication of that portion of the outline with which it deals.
Archbishop Lefèbvre's declaration was published in the French Cor Unum November 1979, and again in English translation in The Angelus, January 1980, under the title "The New Mass and the Pope." A reprint is available from the Angelus Press, P.O. Box 1187, Dickinson, Texas 77539.
OUTLINE
"The New Mass and The Pope"
I. Introduction: The author, Archbishop Lefèbvre, speaks with authority (Half-truth; notes l-5).
A. In answering questions on the Novus Ordo Missae and the false popes, he has been careful to breathe with the spirit of the Church (False; notes 3 & 4).
B. His views have not changed (False; note 5).
C. This is not an exhaustive study, but an official statement of the Society of St. Pius X's position on the Conciliar Pope and Novus Ordo Missae (True; note 1).
II. The Novus Ordo Missae is illicit (True; note 6), but may be valid (False; notes 8 & l0).
A. It is illicit, i.e., forbidden by the Catholic Church (True; note 6).
1. The Church has always forbidden attendance even at a valid Mass among heretics and schismatics, sacrilegious Masses, and those that endanger our faith (True; notes 9 & 27).
2. The Novus Ordo Missae is a cozying up to Protestant theology and liturgy (True; note 7).
a. Essential notes of a valid Mass are missing from the Novus Ordo Missae:
1) Essential requirement for celebration by a priest;
2) True Sacrifice, an action;
3) Real Presence of Christ as victim, with His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity;
4) Propitiation for sins;
5) Words of Consecration by which the action is accomplished, independently of preceding or following words. (True; notes 8 & 10).
b. Unessential features of a Protestant nature are found in the Novus Ordo Nissae (True; note 8);
1) Table instead of an altar;
2) Priest speaks loudly in the vernacular, facing the people;
3) Division into Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist;
4) Irreverence shown in cheap vessels, leavened bread, distribution of host in the hand by laymen and women;
5) Hosts reserved in out-of-the-way places;
6) Women reading the Epistle;
7) Communion taken to the sick by lay persons.
II-A-3. Most Novus Ordo celebrations are sacrilegious (True; note 9), mere acts of natural religion (False; note 9) insufficient to fulfil our Sunday obligation (True; note 9), and forbidden as worship with non-Catholics (True; note 9).
B. Validity of the Novus Ordo Missae depends on the Faith of the celebrant (False; note 12).
1. The Novus Ordo Missae is valid if the celebrant has the Faith (False; notes 10 & 12).
a. All the requisites may be present: matter, form, intention and a validly ordained celebrant (False; note 10).
b. Words outside the Form of Consecration are not essential; changes in them do not make the Mass invalid (Half-truth; note 11).
2. The Novus Ordo Missae in invalid if the celebrant does not have the Faith
(Irrelevant; notes 10 & 12).
a. He does not know what the Church does and therefore cannot intend to do it. (False; note 12).
b. Conciliar seminaries do not teach what a Mass is or what a priest is (Irrelevant; note 12).
c. Conciliar bishops do not know what a priest is (Irrelevant; note 12).
C. Confessors must consider the good or bad will of those who celebrate the Novus Ordo Miasae or attend it (Irrelevant; note 13).
III. Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II are true popes (False; notes 14 & 19).
Answers to objections:
A. Paul VI was a liberal and therefore excused from responsibility for his attacks on the Church (False; notes 15 through 21).
1. Terrible demolition of the Church took place under his pontificate (True).
2. Some say Paul VI was not a pope because be signed heretical documents (True; notes 18 & 19). The truth about heretical popes is not so simple (False; note 20).
a. A pope can be heretical as a private individual, but not as a teacher of the Universal Church (Half-truth; note 21).
b. We must determine whether Paul VI wished to speak infallibly (Irrelevant;
note 21).
3. Paul VI was a Liberal rather than a heretic (False; note 18). He evaded
responsibility by contradicting himself and speaking equivocally (False; notes 15-18).
4. A Liberal can be a pope (Irrelevant; notes 19 & 20).
B. The Conclaves of 1978 were valid (False; note 22).
1. They were not made invalid by secret preparatory meetings and by exclusion of aged Cardinals (Irrelevant; note 22).
2. In any case, they have become valid because the Conciliar Cardinals and Roman clergy accept them (False; note 23).
C. If Paul VI and his successors are not popes, the Church has ceased to exist
(False; note 24).
1. The Church would be invisible for decades (False; note 24).
2. No genuine pope could be elected (False; note 25).
3. Those who call these men antipopes are schismatics (False; note 26).
IV. All members of the Society of St. Pius X henceforth recognize John Paul II as pope and accept the Novus Ordo Missae as a valid Mass (True; notes 1, 27, & 28).
V. Conclusion: We must be missionaries, restore all things in Christ, and give witness to the truth (Half-truth; note 29).
NOTES
1. (I) With what authority does Archbishop Lefèbvre speak? First, the Statutes of the Society of St. Pius X place no limits on his authority as Superior General for a twelve-year period (1970-1982). Whatever he says officially in the name of the Society must be accepted as said by the Society itself.
2. (I) Does the title "Archbishop" always imply a share in the Church's teaching authority? No. Bishops are, indeed, "under the authority of the Roman Pontiff, true teachers of the faithful entrusted to their care" (Canon 1326). But no souls are entrusted to a titular (i.e., honorary) archbishop, and he has therefore no share in the Church's teaching authority. Catholics will believe or disbelieve his words at their own risk, simply according to the good or bad opinion they have of his learning and truthfulness.
3. (IA) Archbishop Lefèbvre has not, as he claims, always "breathed with the spirit of the Church." That Spirit, who is the Holy Ghost, speaks first of all in official pronouncements of popes and Ecumenical Councils, to whom (and not to theologians Christ said, "He that heareth you heareth Me." Most of these pronouncements have been summarized, arranged in rational order, provided with numbers for easy reference, and officially promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in the Code of Canon Law, to become effective in 1918.
4. (IA) Archbishop Lefèbvre relies rather on the opinions of "theologians", usually unnamed, without giving any preference to those whom popes have honored with the title of doctor. See notes, 19, 20, 23.
5. (IB) The Archbishop's views have changed radically, in particular on the Novus Ordo and the Conciliar Church. For example:
"I will never say that the new Ordo Missae is heretical. I will never say that it cannot bea Sacrifice." (Priests for Tomorrow, ]973.,
"The Conciliar Church is schismatic, because it has taken, as a basis for itsupdating, principles opposed to those of the Catholic Church, such as the newconcept of the Mass." (Reflections on Suspension a Divinis July 29, 1976)
"It is therefore no longer a real Mass which affirms the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ." (Lilie, August 29, 1976)
"I do not say that the new Mass is heretical; I have never said that. Neither have I ever said that it is invalid in itself." (The Church after the Council, June 6, 1977)
"We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church to which we have no wish to belong ...To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church." (Reflections on Suspension a Divinis July 29, 1976)
Just one month later (August 29, 1976, at Lilie), the Archbishop spoke as a member of the Conciliar Church and made his sacrilegious proposal to celebrate the true Mass under its apostate head, Paul VI, and under its apostate bishops: "It would be so simple if each bishop in his diocese placed one church at our disposal...That is what I shall ask of the Holy Father..."
6. (IIA) The Novus Ordo Missae is, indeed, illicit (forbidden by the Church), as the Archbishop concedes (IIA). But he blunts the force of his concession in two ways:
1) He expresses it only indirectly ("the absurd idea that we are free to attend it"). And
2) he omits all reference to the principal proof: namely, to the Bull Quo Primum, in which St. Pius V forbade forever any change in the Mass. See notes 3 & 4.
7. (II 2) The proof he does give is unsound, namely that the Novus Ordo Missae shows a rapprochement a cozying up to Protestants, as though Catholicism were simply opposition to Protestantism. On the contrary, our rule must be to obey Catholic decrees such as those of Trent and St. Pius V's Quo Priccum, Catholic rubrics of the Mass, and Catholic Tradition. We avoid acting like Protestants only because and only insofar as they fail to behave as Catholics.
8. (IIA 2) Resemblances of the Novus Ordo with Protestant worship fail naturally into two groups:
1) what is lacking and
2) what is added.
What is lacking is several essential notes without which there can be no Mass at all. Since the Novus Ordo is not necessarily celebrated by a priest, is not a Sacrifice, and does not involve the Real Presence or propitiation, it is by its nature no Mass at all; or, in technical language, the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid. Quite true, as the Archbishop well knows; but his purpose is to place the Society of St. Pius X on record as officially denying this truth (IV, note 27). Cannily, therefore, he avoids the ordinary term essential notes replacing it with a coinage of his own, "fundamental dogmas", which sounds just as impressive but is not so awkwardly clear.
9. (IIA3) The Novus Ordo Missae is indeed, sacrilegious, because it is a systematic mockery of the true Mass. Further, under the guise of worship, it asserts the blasphemous falsehood that Christ foolishly died for all men, including those who refuse to apply His Sacrifice to themselves, and hence that all men will be saved.
A point that Archbishop Lefèbvre omits to mention is that even the right Mass in the wrong Church is sacrilegious. In the Te igitur of the true Tridentine Mass, his priests must henceforth commit a falsehood, praying for God's Holy Catholic Church... "together with Thy servant our Pope John Paul" (una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N.). See note 27.
A sacrilegious act of either kind (the Novus Ordo Missa or the true Mass in the Conciliar Church) is an act of irreligion. By falsely calling the Novus Ordo Missae an act of natural religion, the Archbishop artfully plants the notion that it is somehow respectable, like an American non-denominational Thanksgiving observance.
It is true, of course, that neither of these sacrileges fulfills the Sunday obligation to attend a Catholic Mass, and that both are forbidden under Canon 1258 because advertised by non-Catholics as their religious functions.
10. (IIB1a) Although be has just furnished proof that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid (IIA2a, note 8), Archbishop Lefèbvre blandly and falsely maintains that it may be valid because all the requisites for validity are present.
In truth, the Novus Ordo is always invalid in any language through its defective intention, namely, to celebrate merely a memorial meal (Par. 7 of the General Introduction to Paul VI's decree Missale Romanum, April 3, 1969. It is always invalid in English through a change in the form (for all men instead of for many) imposed throughout the United States since 1967 (Louis A. Post, "Mass Deception," June 16, 1969). It is very often invalid through use of the wrong matter ("cake, cookies, bagels, hotdog buns"; The Angelus, January 1980, p. 8). It is invalid through lack of priestly ordination if the celebrant was ordained by the new invalid rite permitted since August
15, 1968 and obligatory since April 6, 1969. See our "Novus Ordo Miseae: An Anti-Mass", pp. 5 -8.
II. (IIB1b) It is true that words outside the Form of Consecration are not essential to the Mass. They are said, however to remind us of the intention for which the Mass is offered, and a change in them may show a defective intention. Thus, the Offertory prayer "Suscipe, sancte Pater..." is suppressed because, in the new rite, no Victim is offered for the sins of the celebrant and congregation, or for the faithful living and dead; so that the words "This is My Body," etc. are intended as a mere narrative not as an effective Form of Consecration. So also, Paul VI's heretical definition of the Mass (note 10), though not recited in the Novus Ordo rite, shows nevertheless an intention to celebrate a meal rather than a Mass.
12 (IIB) The validity of a Masà (or any Sacrament) does not depend on the minister's faith or morals. The Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas explains (Summa Th., 3 q. 64, a. 9) that the minister acts, not by his own goodness or power, but by Christ's and through the Faith of the Church. Despite his unbelief, he can intend to do whatever the Church does in the Sacrament, "even if he considers it to be nothing. And this intention suffices..."
Hence, Pope Leo XIII laid down his famous rule: A Catholic rite correctly celebrated is presumably valid, whereas a non-Catholic rite is evidently invalid.
"Now if, in order to effect and confer a sacrament, a person has seriously and correctly used the due matter and form, he is for that very reason presumed to have intended to do what the Church does. This principle is the basis of the doctrine that a sacrament is truly a sacrament even if it is conferred through the ministry of a heretic or unbaptized person, provided the Catholic rite is used.
"But if, on the contrary, the rite is changed with the manifest purpose of introducing another rite which is not accepted by the Church, and of repudiating what in fact the Church does and by Christ's institution belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is evident, not only that the intention necessary for a sacrament is lacking, but even that an intention is present which is adverse to and incompatible with the Sacrament." (Apostolicae Curae, 1896).
13. (IIC) The Archbishop's advice to confessors is sound for Catholic priests:
Consider subjective factors such as lack of deliberation and inculpable ignorance. However, he is writing precisely to declare that all priests of his Society are henceforth Conciliar priests, recognizing a non-Catholic as pope and accepting a false Mass as valid (IV, note 27). Such priests, of course, are non-Catholics and cannot have the Catholic jurisdiction mentioned in Canon 872: "For valid absolution of sins, there is required in the minister, in addition to the power of Orders, a power of jurisdiction either ordinary or delegated, overt the penitent." Such priests have n' business in the confessional, unless as penitents; and those who confess to them, far from receiving absolution, incur the guilt of participating in a non-Catholic religious function (Canon 1258).
This same advice to confessors also tends to foster in lay people a misunderstanding of Christ's admonition, "Judge not, that you may not be judged." (Matth. 7,1). What is forbidden is judging with a view to punishment when we have no right to do so. Judges, parents, confessors, superiors in general have the duty (and therefore the right) so to judge. And every human being has the right and duty to make prudential judgments, judgments by which to regulate his own behavior toward others. As we judge whether to choose or reject a school, frequent or shun a place of amusement, and vote for or against a political candidate, so must we judge of our conduct in religious matters that are not clearly determined by law or by legitimate religious superiors.
14. (III) The Archbishop next tries to establish that Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II are popes. However, he neither formally states this, nor does he give any positive proof for it. He merely states objections to it, incompletely and somewhat inaccurately, and gives rambling, equivocal, and invalid answers to some of them.
15. (IIIA) First come two charges against Paul VI, that he demolished the Church and professed heresy, so that he could no longer be a pope. The Archbishop seems to admit the first charge, but neither admits nor denies the charge of heresy. In any case, he absolves Paul VI of both charges on the curious ground that the man was a Liberal (IIIA 3 & 4) and therefore free to evade responsibility for his words through selfcontradiction and equivocations.
16. (IIIA3) This defense, however, is worse than none; for it demotes Paul VI from the rank of man (a rational animal) to that of a dumb beast, inconsistent by nature and not merely by accident. Like an idiot or maniac, or more accurately, like a dog or cat, Archbishop Lefèbvre's Liberal could not even accept the papal office, much less discharge its duties.
17. (IIIA1) In fact, however, it seems clear that Paul VI was inconsistent neither by nature nor by accident, but by design. His self-contradictions and equivocations are the same Modernist tactic and clever artifice (Callidissimum artificium) which St. Pius X condemned in 1907 in his Pascendi Dominici Gregis. par. 4. Archbishop Lefèbvre is naturally tolerant of this tactic since he uses it himself in this very essay, giving proofs, for example, that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid, yet concluding therefrom that it may be valid (notes 8 & 10).
18. Indeed, twaddle about Liberalism and Paul VI's supposed mental problems looks like a trick to divert attention from the main issue, which is this: Paul VI and his two successors have, as a matter of record, publicly professed heresy; and the Church's law consequently excludes them from the papacy or any other office, whatever their mental condition.
Heresy 1: That non-Catholic religions are means of salvation (Decree on Ecumenism, par. 3; promulgated Nov. 21, 1964)
True Doctrine: There is one universal Church of the Faithful, outside which no one at all is saved (IVth Lateran Council, 1215) -.
Heresy 2: It is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics should join in prayer with their seperated brethren (Decree on Ecumenism, par. 8)
True Doctrine: It is in no wise allowable for the faithful, in any active way, to attend or take part in the religious functions of non-Catholics. (Canon 1258)
Heresy 3: The human person has a right to religious freedom (Declaration on Religious Freedom, par. 2; promulgated Dec. 7, 1965)
Catholic Pope Pius IX: "... that erroneous opinion, most pernicious to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls, which was called by our Predecessor, Greory XVI, insanity, namely, that liberty of conscience and of worship is the inalienable right of every man..." (Quanta Cura, Oct. 8, 1864)
Heresy 4: "The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred assembly or gathering of the people of God coming together, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord." (Paul VI, Missale Romanum, General Introduction, par. 7; April 3, 1969)
Council of Trent "If anyone says that the Sacrifice of the Mass is merely one of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the Sacrifice realized on the Cross, but not a Sacrifice of propitiation..., let him be anathema. (Canon 3 on the Mass; Denzinger 950) . . .
Heresy 5: "This is the cup of my blood ...It will be shed for you and for all men, so that sins may be forgiven." (Eucharistic Prayer in the Vernacular Novus Ordo Miasae, imposed throughout the world by Paul VI and his successors).
Catechism of the Council of Trent: "For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all but to many of the human race." . ..
19. (III) Whoever professes any heresy publicly, as Paul VI and his successors did or do these five, automatically loses all office, in virtue of Canon 188, n. 4, of which Archbishop Lefèbvre says not a word:
"Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: ...n. 4. Has publicly forsaken the Catholic Faith." (See our essay on "Canon 188 n. 4 or Where Is The Church?")
20. (IIIA2) The truth about a heretical pope is as simple as Canon 188. The law was written simply and clearly, as a law should be, to settle all doubt and cut through any objection, through the authority of Pope Benedict XV, who promulgated the 1918 Code of Canon Law. It is not to Archbishop Lefèbvre or to any theologian, but to the popes that Christ has said, "He that heareth you, heareth me." (Luke 10,16)
21. (IIIA2) In regard to Paul VI's heresies, the Archbishop distinguishes private and public profession of heresy but confuses the two different issues of infallibility and loss of office He. also omits the second of three conceivable cases:
1) A heresy professed privately has nothing to do with either issue.
2) A heresy professed publicly but unofficially entails loss of office, by Canon 188, but has nothing to do with infallibility.
3) A heresy professed publicly and officially by a genuine pope would contradict the defined doctrine of papal infallibility and violate Christ's promise to be with His Church; it cannpt happen.
Yet it does seem to have happened. For Paul VI spoke as "Paul, Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God", which means as pope. At the end of each decree of Vatican II appear his words "we, by the apostolic authority granted to us by Christ, approve, decree and establish it". (A. Flannery, Vatican Council II, Collegeville, Minn., 1975, p, xx)
Either, therefore, he evaded engaging his infallibility by calling the Council pastoral (though it did teach doctrine, heretical doctrine) or he was not a genuine pope even before signing and promulgating the heretical decrees. The first alternative, a pastoral (i.e., non-doctrinal) Council which teaches, makes no sense; and even so, all who signed its heretical decrees resigned ipso facto any office they may have had.The second alternative is quite possible for two reasons;
1) Paul VI's election, like that of John XXIII, is doubtful because both elections seem to have been part of a plot to destroy the Church through a Masonic pope, a plot known since the reign of Pope Leo XII (1823-1829).
2) In January, l964, he went to Jerusalem to get from Jews the ephod and rational of judgment described in Exodus, ch. 28; he wore them habitually and publicly until his death. St. Thomas explains that any Jewish observance, though once good and holy, is now a mortal sin of heresy, a wordless profession of faith that the Messiah has not come but is to come (Summa Th., 1-2, q. 103, a. 4). It seems, therefore, that by wearing these emblems publicly but unofficially, Paul VI tacitly resigned the papacy shortly after January, 1964, even if validly elected, professing himself a Jew and/or a Mason.
22. (IIIB) The pretended elections of John Paul I and John Paul II in the Conclaves of 1978 were invalid for a simple reason not mentioned by the Archbishop: No Catholic was admitted to either Conclave; all participants had publicly professed the heresies of Vatican II and accepted the Novus Ordo Missae. A Catholic pope obviously cannot be elected in a totally non-Catholic assembly. There is, therefore, no need to consider either the plots hatched beforehand or the exclusion of aged Cardinals.
23. (IIIB2) The Cardinals and Roman clergy who have accepted these elections as valid are also members of the Conciliar Church, hence non-Catholics. It is absurd to suppose with Archbishop Lefèbvre that anything non-Catholics do can have any juridical effect within the Catholic Church. Even if these clerics had been Catholics, they could not have made popes of heretics excluded by Canon 188 from any office, as Luciani and Wojtyla were. Further, Pope Paul IV, in his Bull Cum ex apostolatus par. 6, (Feb. 15, 1559), expressly decreed that any pope's election is invalid if it comes to light that he had previously strayed from the Faith; and that it cannot be made valid "by his enthronement, the homage paid him, or obedience given him by everyone, throughout any period of time whatever."
24. (IIIC) According to the Archbishop, the Church cannot exist without a pope; if Paul VI and his successors are antipopes, she has ceased to exist. He passes over in silence an objection: Whenever a pope dies, the Church does exist pending election of his successor.
It is true that the Church suffers from such a vacancy in the papal office, especially if long continued. But there seems to be no basis in Canon Law or in theology for setting any definite time limit after which this vacancy will have destroyed the Church; nor does the Archbishop mention any such basis.
Vacancy in the papal office (and apparently in all her offices) has not, in fact, made invisible those Catholics who refuse the antipopes. These are the Church; and if they were not, their example still shows the possibility of remaining visible without a pope.
25. (IIIC2) How can another pope be elected without Catholic cardinals? That is a question that needs public discussion. But it does not follow that such election is or always will be impossible. For.more than a thousand years, popes were elected, not by cardinals, but by the clergy of the diocese of Rome, or by its clergy and people. Again, some think he could and should be elected by an "Imperfect General Council", like the Council of Pisa which, with the Council of Constance, ended the Great Schism of the West.
26. (IIIC3) The Archbishop argues quaintly that John Paul II is a pope because all who refuse him allegiance are schismatical. But why are we schismatics? The reasoning is circular: We are schismatics because we do not recognize John Paul II; and John Paul II is pope because we do not recognize him.
Quite as unreasonable is the Archbishop's attempt to tar us by mentioning Palmar de Troya and the Eglise Latine de Toulouse, without establishing that we all belong to these sects - as we do not.
27. (IV) At last we come to the punch line, the gist of the Archbishop's declaration: "... the Society of St. Pius X ... cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid."
"Praying for the Pope" when there is no pope quite clearly means recognizing as pope the antipope, John Paul II, who long ago tacitly resigned all office by publicly adhering to the heresies of Vatican II and to the Novus Ordo Missae (notes 10, 18, 19). It also apparently means introducing this lie into the Canon of the true Mass, where it is sacrilegious (note 9). Finally, it means membership in John Paul II's non-Catholic Conciliar Church, so that no Catholic may henceforth worship in common with a member of the Society of St. Pius X, attend his Mass, or receive the Sacraments from him (notes 9, 13).
28. (IV) The Archbishop has every right to speak thus for his priests. He founded the Society in November, 1970, and his term of office as Superior General runs for twelve years. The Statutes of the Society place no limits on his power. A member who wishes to remain Catholic has, therefore, no recourse except to terminate his membership.
29. (V) The Archbishop's conclusion is worthy of the Conciliar Church in which he has placed himself and his Society. He will "restore all things in Christ" by joining hands with Christ's enemies. He calls Christ to witness as truth his two untruths, that John Paul II is a pope and that the Novus Ordo Missae can be a valid Mass.
30. As our own conclusion, we recall a truth too often forgotten. A true Catholic, by the very fact of adhering to Christ's Catholic Church, cuts himself off, excommunicates himself from all non-Catholic Churches. He fears no excommunication by an antipope and seeks no trial before the tribunal of a non-Catholic sat. He is not concerned with quarrels among conservative, radical, and moderate factions within the Conciliar Anti-Church. He remembers, rather, that there is no salvation through any of these factions, not even the conservative faction of Archbishop Lefèbvre, or anywhere else outside the Holy Catholic Church.
N.B. For a fuller and more orderly treatment of the antipopes and the Anti-Mass, without reference to Archbishop Lefèbvre, see our two essays entitled "Canon 188, n. 4 or Where La The Church?" and "Novus Ordo Missae: An Anti-Mass." They are available from B.F. Dryden, Route 1, Cave City, Arkansas 72521.
|
