NOVUS ORDO MISSAE: AN ANTI-MASS
by
Benjamin Frederick Dryden
SUMMARY
Introduction: The Novus Ordo Missae ist not a Mass; it is invalid, illicit. sacrilegious.
I. Invalid. For a valid Mass, we must have the right matter, form, intention and priestly ordination in the celebrant.
A. The right matter is bread of wheat and wine from grapes.
B. The right form must mean the same as the form used in the Latin Rite: "For this is My Body" and "For this is the Chalice of My Blood of the new and eternal Testament, the Mystery of Faith, which for you and for many shall be shed unto the remission of sins."
1. For all men does not mean the same as for many. a. This substitution makes the Mass invalid - i.e., no Mass at all.
b. For all men in the Consecration means that all men will be saved and there is no hell - a heresy. Hence these words were expressly rejected four centuries ago.
2. "For this is the Chalice of My Blood" is insufficient. It signifies Transsubstantiation, but does not accomplish it without further words expressing 1) Sacrifice
2) propitiation and
3) the unity of the Church. The Mystery of Faith is the Mystery of Redemption by the shedding of Christ's Blood - the same as propitiation.
3.The Latin Novus Ordo has pro multis (for many, not for all men) Nevertheless, it is invalid through defect of intention.
C. The Minister's intention to do what Christ and the Church do is necessary for the validity of any Sacrament (including the Mass).
1. By the rule of Pope Leo XIII, this right intention is presumed to be present when a rite approved by the Church is used; otherwise, the intention is evidently insufficient, especially in a rite invented to replace a Catholic rite. 2. The Novus Ordo, as explained by its promulgator, Paul VI, is not a Mass, but rather a mere memorial meal. a. By calling this a Mass, Paul VI publicly professed a heresy.
b. Worldwide protest brought, not a repudiation of the heretical definition of the Mass, but a longer and less clear wording expressly declared to mean the same as the former wording.
3. The Novus Ordo is therefore invalid through defect of intention. a. Paul VI, by defining the Mass as a mere memorial meal, proclaimed his intention not to do what the Church does
b. By Pope Leo's rule, the Novus Ordo is invalid because it was invented to replace a Catholic rite.
D. "Priestly ordination in the celebrant" means that only a validly ordained priest can say a valid Mass. The so-called "priests" ordained since August 15, 1968, by Paul VI's new invalid rite are not real priests, and therefore cannot say a valid Mass.
1. Catholic rites confer "the dignity of the priesthood", which means putting a man in the second rank of the clergy and giving him permanent power (the priestly character) to bless and consecrate, to offer Mass for the living and the dead, and to give absolution for sins. a. These three powers are expressly mentioned in the Latin rite.
b. They are not explicitly mentioned in Oriental rites. Hence doubt arose as to the validity of Oriental ordinations.
c. Pope Pius XII decreed that the powers need not be listed for validity.
2. Paul VI replaced the traditional and clearly valid Latin ordination rite with a designedly dubious new rite. It is invalid through defect of form and intention, like the Anglican ordinations which Pope Leo XIII declared invalid for these reasons. a. The form seems valid by authority of Pope Pius XII, but is made invalid by voiding the term "priest" of the reality which Christ instituted. 1) Paul VI referred to the decred of Pius XII to suggest that the new rite is valid.
2) At the same time, he published his heretical definition of the Mass, which represents the priest merely as presiding over a memorial meal.
3) Pope Leo XIII, in 1896, declared Anglican ordinations invalid for this very reason, because the words "priest" and "bishop", in that Church, are "voided of the reality which Christ instituted."
b. The intention behind the new ordination rite cannot have been to confer the power to say valid Masses; for the contrary intention - to destroy the true Mass - is abundantly demonstrated from the history of the Conciliar Church.
II. The Novus Ordo is illicit - i.e., forbidden by the Church's law. Participants in itcommit a sin of disobedience, and therefore receive no grace from it.
A. Pope St. Pius V published an authentic edition of the Roman Missal in 1570, and accompanied it with a Bull, Quo Primum, forbidding anyone to add to or change anything in this Missal. Quo Primum has never been revoked and is, therefore, still binding.
B. Paul VI lied brazenly when he said, May 24, 1976, that, in imposing the new rite he was acting in the same way and by the same authority as Pope St. Pius V.
1. Paul VI's authority, if it ever existed, had already been tacitly resigned under Canon 188, n. 4, by public profession of these heresies: a. That non-Catholic religions are means of salvation.
b. That common worship with non-Catholics is "allowable, indeed desirable."
c. That everyone has a right to profess a false religion.
d. That the Mass is a commemorative meal - without mention of Sacrifice, propitiation for sin, Transsubstantiation, the real and physical Presence of Christ with His Body and Blodd, Soul and Divinity.
e. That all men will be saved.
2. The purpose of St. Pius V was to preserve unchanged the Mass instituted by Christ. Paul VI's purpose was to replace the true Mass with a newly concocted, invalid rite. 3. The manner was different. Genuine Pope St. Pius V commanded use of his Missal and forbade any change in it. Usurper Paul VI dared not abrogate this decree in proper form; he used deceit to impose his new rite.
III. Paul VI's Anti-Mass is sacrilegious; for it commits falsehodd in the very act of worship, affirming unity of Christ and of His Mystical Body with Christ's enemies.
A. The right Mass in the wrong Church falsely affirms this unity in Christ's Sacramental Presence.
B. The wrong Mass (Novus Ordo) anywhere and at any time affirms these untruths, not in His Sacramental Presence, but more systematically and deliberately.
***
The Novus Ordo Missae is not a Mass, but an anti-Mass, a weapon used by the Conciliar Anti-Church against the true Church. For it is invalid illicit and sacrilegious and is substituted for the true Mass, which is the central mystery of our Faith. "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me; and I in him." (John 6:57)
I. THE NOVUS ORDO IS INVALID
What are the requirements for a valid Mass? Let us hear Pope St. Pius V: "For whichever of these is lacking, namely, the right matter, the form with intention and priestly ordination in the celbrant, the Sacrament is not accomplished." (Decree De Defectibus p. xc in the Missal of St. Pius V, published July 19, 1570)
Right Matter
"For it is required that the bread be of wheat and the wine from the vine; and that such matter for consecration be before the priest in the act of consecration (Ibid., p. xc).
Form
"The words of consecration which are the form of this Sacrament are these: Hoc est enim Corpus meum (For this is My Body) And: Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum (For this is the Chalice of My Blodd, of the new and eternal Testament, the Mystery of Faith, which for you and for many shall be shed unto the remission of sins.) If anyone should take away or change anything in the form of consecration of the Body and Blood, and in this change of wording the words should not mean the same, he would not accomplish the Sacrament. If he should add anything that does not change the meaning, he would accomplish (the Sacrament), indeed, but would sin most gravely." (Ibid., pp. xci-xcii)
For all men furthermore, makes of the words of consecration a heresy, stating, namely, that Christ not only willed all men to be saved and made reparation sufficient for the whole world's sins, but also (and here is the heresy) actually applied it unto remission of the sins, repented and unrepented, even of men who do not wish their sins forgiven or do not wish it on the terms required by Christ. That is, all men will be saved; and Hell is abolished.
Warning against this very heresy is given by the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which expounds the Words "for you and for many" as follows: "They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. 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. When therefore (our Lord) said: For you he meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.
"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. And this is the purport of the Apostle (Heb. 9:28) when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John (17:9): I pray for them; I pray not for the world but for them whom thou has given me; because they are thine." (Translation by McHugh and Callan, Marian Publicstions, 1976; pp. 227-228)
But why is more required for valid consecration than the words, "This is the Chalice of My Blood"? For the same reason, we answer, that valid baptism requires more than the words "I baptize thee"; it requires, namely, the rest of the form, "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost", by which Catholic Baptism is distinguished from Jewish ablutions; from St. John the Baptist's baptism of penance; from the heretical Arian baptism "in the name of the Father who is greater and of the Son who is lesser ..."; etc. The truncated form signifies the Sacrament of Baptism but does not accomplish it until the meaning is completed.
So also, in all rites approved by the Catholic Church, Transsubstantiation of the wine is, indeed, signified by words equivalent to "This is the Chalice of My Blood" or "This is My Blood"; but it is not accomplished until the meaning is completed by three additions:
1) words signifying Sacrifice (which shall be shed);
2) words signifying true propitiation for sin, obtainable only through the Blood of Christ, not the blood of animals, etc.; and
3) words signifying the unity of the Church outside which there is no salvation ("for many", "for you and for many", but never "for all men").
The words "the Mystery of Faith" which are lacking in several Oriental rites, are placed by St. Thomas Aquinas (3, q. 78; a. 3 c) under propitiation, which is applied through faith in Christ's redeeming Sacrifice on Calvary. Thus St. Paul wrote to the Romans (3: 25-26): "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to the showing of his justice, for the remission of former sins, through the forbearance of God, for the shewing of his justice in this time; that he himself may be just and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ."
The Latin Novus Ordo
But is not the Latin original of Paul VI's formula of Consecration valid, since it reads pro multis (for many)? And do not the words "For this is My Body", whether in Our answer to these questions is based on St. Pius V's third requisite for validity, namely, intention which we have not yet explained.
We may say here, however, first, that this Latin original, promulgated on April 3, 1969, serves not practical purpose but to provide an official record containing the words pro multis, to which defenders of the Novus Ordo may point; for a vernacular mistranslation containing the words for all men had already for some years been enforced nearly, if not quite, everywhere; and the vernacular mistranslation is still enforced by John Paul II.
Secondly, in promulgating the new rite, Paul VI referred to the Institutio Generalis, a general introduction to his new missal. Paragraph 7 of this Institutio defines "the Lord' supper or Mass" simply as a memorial meal, without reference to Transsubstantiation, sacramental effect, or anything else to which the terms form, consecration, and validity could be related. Paul VI therefore speaks, not as Catholics speak, of form or consecration, but, as a Protestant, simply of "the Lord's words" (verba dominica); quite indiscriminately, he quotes some words used in the Catholic form of consecration, omits or displaces some, and adds other words that are not part of the form. Here is Paul VI's directive: "However, whether out of regard for reasons called pastoral or in order that concelebration might proceed more smoothly, We have commanded that the Lord's words in any form of the Canon be precisely the same. Hence in any Eucharistic Prayer We wish them to be pronounced thus: Over the bread: Take ye all and eat of this: For this is My Body, which shall be delivered for you; and over the chalice: Take ye all and drink of this; For this is the chalice of My Blood of the new and eternal Testament, which for you and for many shall be shed unto the remission of sind. This do in commemoration of Me. But the words "Mystery of Faith", taken out of the context of the Lord Christ's words and pronounced by the priest, open the door, as it were, to the acclamation of the faithful."
Wah tare the alleged "pastoral reasons behind this capricious unfaithfulness to Catholic Tradition, this replacement of a form of Consecration with a plain narrative of "the Lord's Supper"? How does it help concelebration (forbidden, in any case, by Canon 803 except at ordinations)? Not other real motive appears than that of Luther in making very nearly the same changes: sacrilegious contempt for the Tradition of the Holy Catholic Church and for the Catholic concept of the Holy Mass and Eucharist, which alone gives a meaning to the terms form, consecration and validity
Intention in the Sacraments
The Mass, like any other Sacrament, is principally the work of Christ, who, however, uses in it a human instrument, the minister of the Sacrament. This minister is not a mere toll, like the carpenter's hammer or saw, but has free will; unless he intends to do what Christ and the Church do, the Sacrament is invalid through defect of intention. Thus Pope Leo XIII in 1896, in the Bull Apostolicae Curae found the Sacrament of Holy Orders in the Anglican Church invalid, not only through a defect in the form of words used by the Anglican bishops, but also through their defective intention. His principles are quite general and can therefore be applied to any Sacrament, including the Mass. Pope Leo states: "Then with this intrinsic defect of form has been combined a defect of intention - of that intnetion which is equally necessary for the existence of a Sacrament. Concerning the mind or intention, in as much as it is primarily something interior, the Church does not pass judgment; but in so far as it is externally manifested, she is bound to judge of it.
"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 she intention necessary for a sacrament is lacking, but even that an intention is present which is adverse to and incompatible with the sacrament." (Acta Sanctae Sedis Vol. XIX, 1896-7, pp. 198-201. Translation form Francis Clark, S.J., Anglican Orders and Defect of Intention, Longmans, Green, and Co., 1956)
What does this mean in practical terms, as applied to the Mass? When we do not have other external ways of knowing a priest's intention, we are to presume that it is correct and that his Mass is valid if he uses a Catholic rite. If, however, he uses a rite invented to do away with the Catholic rite, then it is evident that his intention is insufficient, even opposed to Christ's purpose; and his Mass is invalid for that reason, if for no other.
Leaving aside licitness, for the moment, the Tridentine Mass, correctly celebrated by a validly ordained priest, is always to be presumed valid, whether the priest is a good or a bad man, sound or heretical in his preaching. Presumably valid, also, is the Mass celebrated by priests of the Eastern Churches, schismatic or uniate, according to their own rites, which are recognized as valid by the Catholic Church. The Protestant "Communion Service" and the Novus Ordo Massae, on the other hand, are invalid because they were invented, intended to replace the Catholic Mass.
Intention in the Novus Ordo Missae
Here is the description of his new rite published by Paul VI in aricle 7 of the Institutio Generalis, or General Introduction to his new Roman Missal: "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. Henc the promise of Christ is particularly true of the local gathering of the Holy Church: 'Where there are two or three gathered togehter in My name, there am I in the midst of them.'"
Calling this a Mass is a heresy; for it contains no reference to Christ's Sacrifice on Calvary or to any repetition thereof; none to His Real and physical Presence, as distinguished from His spiritual presence in a gathering held as a memorial to Him, none to St. Pius V's requisites for validity.
Heresy, we say, and not error; for the heretic, Paul VI, though quickly admonished by a worldwide outcry of protest, caused or permitted Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, Secretary of Paul's Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, to publish in the Congregation's organ, Notitiae May, 1970, that after examination of the "Introduction" of the new rite, "the fathers and experts of the Consilium found in it no doctrinal error, and no reason to make any changes"; but that, nevertheless, without adding "anything new", "a new version was made in order to make clearer certain expressions". In reading the new version, it is well to remember two points:
1) Any seeming rectification of error in the original text is disclaimed in advance; the new version is said to mean the same as the original defintion of the Novus Ordo.
2) The Latin word seu, translated or, is used between two names for one and the same thing; its use between an unsatisfactory or ambiguous term, and the strictly correct one is a pretense that the two terms are synonymous. Says Bugnini: "In the Mass or Lord' Supper, the people of God are called togehter into one place, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celbrate the memorial of the Lord or Eucharistic Sacrifice. Hence the promise of Christ is particularly true of such a local meeting of the Holy Church: 'Where two or three are gathered togehter in my name, there am I in the midst of them.' (Matt. XVIII, 20) For in the celebration of the Mass, in which the Sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated, Christ is really present in the assembly itself, which has gathered in His name; in there person of the minister; in His word; and, indeed, sbstantially and continually under the Eucharistic Species."
The original version expresses clearly, in Protestant terms, a Protestant intention to celebrate merely a memorial meal. As promised by Bugnini, this new version expresses the same intention in the same terms; but Catholic terms, of quite different meaning, have been added as synonymous with the Protestant ones: Mass equals Lord's Supper, and memorial of the Lord equals Eucharistic Sacrifice The Sacrifice of Christ is, indeed, mentioned; not, however, as mystically and really repeated, but as celebrated and perpetuated through the assembly, i.e., merely commemorated. The Real Presence of Christ is not clearly physical, in Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, but spiritual in the assembly, the minister, the sermon. In view of Bugnini's assurance that nothing new is added, nothing of the original text corrected, the substantial and continual presence of Christ "under the Eucharistic Species" must be understood in a Protestant sense, as resulting from the assembly and lasting "continually" only while the assembly is in session. The priest "acts in the person of Christ"; but we have no hint as to what his action is, whether or how it differs from that of laymen in the assembly.
In either version, then, of Paul VI's official definition - the original, which has never been repudiated, or the new, which is equivalent to it, thought less cliar - the Novus Ordo is not a Mass; its declared purpose is to celebrate a memorial meal. Paul VI, though well admonished, remained obstinate in his heresy, that this is a Mass. By Pope Leo's rule, the intention of anyone celebrating this rite is evidently that of Paul VI, who promulgated it as a substitute for the Mass of the Catholic Church. All such celebrations are invalid, not only through a defect in the form but also through a defect of intention.
Priestly Ordination in the Celebrant.
The fourth requisite for the validity of a Mass, "priestly ordination" in the celebrant, is, in St. Pius V's Latin, ordo sacerdotalis - literally, priestly class or rank conferred in the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Says Canon 948, "Ordo" (i.e., the Sacrament of Holy Orders) "by institution of Christ, sets clerics apart from lay folk in the Church for government of the Faithful and the ministry of divine worship." The Pontificale Rotnanum of 1873, in its ordination rite for priests, beautifully expresses their duties; their rank, second to the bishop whom they are to assist; and their powers of blessing and consecrating, offering Mass for the living and the dead, and giving absolution for sins.
Since, however, some Oriental rites, approved by the Catholic Church as valid, are less explicit, doubt arose as to the validity of Oriental ordinations. Pope Pius XII decreed, therefore, in his Sacramentum Ordinis (November 30, 1947), that the following words are the form sufficient for a valid ordination: "Give, we pray, Almighty Father, to this Thy servant the dignity of the priesthood (Presbyterii dignitatem); renew within him the Spirit of holiness, that he may receive from Thee and hold rank of the second degree (secundi meriti munus) and instil sound morals through the example of his own conduct."
The Roman ordination rite makes it quite clear what the dignity of the priesthood is, by expressly conferring power to bless, offer Mass, and absolve:
"Deign, 0 Lord to consecrate and sanctify these hands, through this anointing andour blesing. Amen.
"That whatever they bless may be blessed, and whatever they consecrate may be consecrated and sanctified, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
"... Receive the power to offer Sacrifice to God, to celebrate Masses both for the living and the dead, in the Lord's name.
"...Receive the Holy Ghost; whose sins thou shalt forgive, they are forgiven; and whose thou shalt retain, they are retained."
Conciliar Ordination as to Form
On June 18, 1968, in a document called Pontificalis Romani Recognitio (Revision of the Roman Pontifical), Paul VI "approved" a new and designedly dubious ordination rite, which his Sacred Congregation of Rites, on August 15, 1968, decreed permissible immediately and obligatory as of April 6, 1969. Just three days before this latter date, namely on April 3, 1969, Paul published his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, describing the Novus Ordo Missae and mentioning the priest, as we have senn, merely as presiding over a memorial meal. These dates suffice, of themselves, to suggest some connection between the two new rites, one to replace the Catholic priesthood and the other to replace the Catholic Mass, which can be validly celebrated only by a validly ordained priest.
Why do we say that this nw ordination rite is designedly dubious? because, on the one hand, it is shorn of the authentic Roman rite's express conferrals of power to bless, offer Mass, and absolve, which, like the beams of theree powerful searchlights, illumine the meaning of the basic phrase, dignity of the priesthood; and this shearing away, this snuffing out of the sources of light gives the lie to Paul VI's sole professed purpose: "to restore the entire rite, which has been divided into several parts, to greater unity and to express in sharper light the central part of the ordination, that is, the imposition of the hands and consecratory prayer." The new rite confers nothing at all save presbyterii dignitas, the dignity of the priesthood in whatever sense it may please the Concil Church to understand that dignity - presumably as nothing more than the paltry dignity of presiding over the assembly at a memorial meal.
On the other hand, Paul VI expressly refers to Pius XlI's Sacramentum Ordinis and keeps the form which is therein declared sufficient for validity. He conventiently neglects to tell us that Pius XII was speaking, not of a new rite invented to replace the Catholic rite, but of "Ordinations conferred by the Greek rite", approved by the Church many centuries ago, and used among Eastern Catholics in Rome itself or among schismatics who share the Catholic concept of the priesthood.
Paul VI also omits - hardly through ignorance - all mention of the Constitution Apostolicae Curae (1896), in which Pope Leo XIII, among reasons for considering Anglican ordinations invalid, notes that the same form of words which may be valid among Catholics become invalid under circumstances that change the meaning of those words: "... Nor have the words for the office and work of a priest or bishop etc. any longer their validity, being now mere names, vided of the reality which Christ instituted."
The form of Paul VI's new ordination rite, then, is meant to appear valid on the authority of Pope Pius XII, while being really invalid through a change in the meaning of the term priesthood It is designedly dubious, meant to be accepted by Protestants and, with some misgivings, by Catholics.
Conciliar Ordination as to Intention
If, however, we consider the intention implicit in it, the new ordination rite is clearly invalid on the same grounds as Anglican orders. First of all, the pretense of restoring a primitive rite corrupted by the Roman Church is not only a studied irreverence and insult to that Church, but also a hollow sham. For the various expressions used to convey one and the same meaning in the various Catholic rites resulted from the peculiar circumstances of Catholics in the first four or five centuries. The Canon of the Mass and the forms of other Sacraments, in those ages of persecution, were secret, not written, but handed down orally; and perfect uniformity was impossible also because communications were difficult and infrequent among the various Catholic communities. Nevertheless, all have prese r ved substantially the same meaning, without which the Catholic Church would have rejected them. (See Addis and Arnold's Catholic Dictionary Herder, 195°, s.v. Liturgy.)
The Anglican and Conciliar rites, on the contrary, resulted from other causes in an age when the printer's art and ease of communications made uniformity easy to maintain. These rites were concocted expressly, not to preserve put to replace a Catholic rite; and this very act, by Pope Leo XIII's rule, is clear evidence of an intention "which is adverse to and incompatible with the sacrament"
Further, the intention to destroy the true Mass, for which genuine priests are ordaine had long been notorious in Paul VI and his Conciliar Church; and such an intention precludes any intention validly to ordain priests for that Mass.
Sept. 26, 1964: The Sacred Congregation of Rites, in Inter Oecumenici art. 4, warns that wrecking operations must be done cautiously: "The general reform of the liturgy will be better received by the faithful if it is accomplished gradually, and if it is proposed and explained to them properly by their pastors."
July, 1965: Yves Dupont writes, in his World Trends No. 6, pp.4-5: "The new Mass in the vernacular (which is being repeatedly modified) has aroused opposition in England, France, American and other countries ... The liturgical changes have not been, and cannot be justified ... The sad fact is that the Church is now drawing nearer to Protestantism..."
October, 1967: The Episcopal Synod called in Rome rejects a "normative Mass" identical in substance with the Novus Ordo Missae which was imposed two years later. (Ottaviani Intervention, art.1)
Also in Fall, 1967: The American bishops impose a vernacular mistranslation of the Roman Canon, including, among other heresies, "for all men", which makes the Mass invalid (Louis A. Post, Mass Deception June 16, 1969; published by Americans for Public Morality Box 145, Norwood, Mass. o2o62)
June 18, 1968: The mutilated ordination rite of which we have spoken is announced, evidently with the knowledge that the rejected "normative Mass", soon to be promulgated as Novus Ordo Missae, changes the meaning of priesthood on which depends the ordination rite's validity.
August 15, 1968: Three new Canons are introduced. "Canon II can be recited, with a clear conscience, by priest who believes neither in transsubstantiation nor in the sacrificial nature of the Mass." (R.H. Richens in the Tablet reprinted in World Trends, March, I970, pp. 5-8)
August 15, 1968: On this same day, the mutilated ordination rite becomes permissible immediately, obligatory as of April 6, 1969.
April 3, 1969: The Novus Ordo Missae is described and touted in Paul VI's Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum. He speaks of "having commanded" (iussimus) but commands nothing, for fear of the consequences. Nevertheless, a date is set, Nov. 30, 1969, when "what we have commanded will become effective." A false impression of legal force is also given in the conclusion: "We will that these our statutes and commands be now and henceforth firm and effective .. ."
April 6, 1969: The mutilated ordination rite becomes obligatory henceforth, no priests may be ordained for the true Mass. Implicit is the hope that the last validly Ordained priest will one day die; and all Masses will thereafter be invalid through lack of "priestly ordiantion in the celebrant."
September 25, 1969: In The Ottaviani Intervention a group of Roman theologians examine not the vernacular mistranslations only imposed on the faithful, but Paul VI's own Latin Novus Ordo. "It is evident," they say in art. 6, "that the Novus Ordo has no intention of presenting the Faith, as taught by the Concil of Trent, to which, nonetheless the Catholic conscience is bound forever. With the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, the loyal Catholic is thus faced with a moat tragic alternative."
October, 1969: Msgr. Marcel Lefèbvre founds a seminary in Fribourg, Switzerland, because no other seminary can be found to give a priestly formation rather than deformation (Rev. Peter J. Morgan, "The Seminary of the True Faith" in World Trends No 23, August, 1971; Msgr. Lefèbvre, "Priests or Tomorrow", March 29, 1973)
Nov. 27, 1971: Bishop A. de Castro Mayer, of Campos, Brazil in a radio address notes that the effective date, nov. 28, 1969, for forbidding the traditional Mass of St. Pius V was first postponed two years until Nov. 28, 1971; that this new date was then never again mentioned in official documents; and that there is a good reason: "Canon 30 provides that a custom of more than one hundred years ... cannot be abrogated unless in an explicit manner". But celebration of the Mass of St Pius V is a custom dating back at least to the 6th Century. "Therefore ... no one can censure a priest for celebrating it."
Oct. 28, 1974: Paul VI's Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship permits and incites the newbishops' conferences to ban the Mass of St. Pius V in defiance of the decree Quo Primum and of Canon 30: "When an episcopal conference has determined that a vernacular version of the Roman Missal - or a part of it such as the Order of the Mass - must be used in its territory, from then on Mass must not be celebrated, whether in Latin or the vernacular, save according to the rite of the Roman Missal promulgated by the authority of Paul VI on 3 April, 1969 ... What has been said does not apply to officially recognized non-Roman rites; but it does apply against any pretext of even an immemorial custom."
May 24, 1976: The imminent valid ordination of priests for the true Mass, to
be performed by Msgr. Lefèbvre at Ecône, stings Paul VI into forbidding the true Mass personally, in a form still not canonically correct and binding, but scandalously clear and available to the laity throughout the world: "Today's authority is rejected in the name of yesterday's ... Is it for this group, not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecumenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith? ... The adoption of the Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful... With the same supreme authority that comes from Christ Jesus, we call for the same obedience to all the other liturgical, disciplinary, and pastoral reforms which have matured in these years in the implementation of the Council decrees." (Paul VI, Custos Quid de Nocte? - an address to the Consistory; The Wanderer, June 10, 1976, p. 6., col. 5)
June 22, 1976: An anonymous document informs Msgr. Lefèbvre that Paul VI has suspended him a divinis for having ordained priests the preceding June 29. (Text in Itinéraires No. 206, Sept. 1976, pp. 271-2; pertinent correspondance, ibid., pp. 239-246)
October 11, 1976: Paul VI rejects Msgr. Lefèbre's request that the Tridentine Mass be tolerated in some churches and traditional training of priests in some seminaries. The suspension a divinis will not be lifted until Msgr. Lefèbvre accepts all decrees of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo and turns over to Paul VI all his seminaries and other works. (Itinéraires No. 2o8, Dec. 1976, pp. 181, 190-194)
Such is the record of an intention well manifested and realized in deed, and declared in words that were, at first, equivocal but finally quite clear: to ban the true Mass and replace it with "mere names voided of the reality which Christ instituted". Among the names so voided are those of Mass, priest, priesthood, seminary, and ordination; the Catholic realities they express will not be tolerated in the Conciliar Church. Invalid, therefore, by defect of intention, if not also through its designedly dubious form is the Conciliar ordination rite. And anyone claiming to have been ordained a priest since April 6, 1969 - unless, indeed, in defiance of Paul VI, the Catholic rite was used - must be considered a mere layman, without power to bless and consecrate, to say valid Masses, or absolve from sin.
|
