II. THE NOVUS ORDO IS ILLICIT
Independently of its validity, Paul VI's Novus Ordo Missae is illicit - i.e., forbidden by the Church's law; participant's in it commit a sin of disobedience to the authority which Christ vested in St. Peter and his successors, and in particular to that of St. Pius V in his decree Quo Primum (July 19, 1570). Adrian Fortescue wrote in 1908, in the Catholic Encyclopedia (vol. III, pp. 260-261, s.v. Canon of the Mass) as follows:
"From the time of St. Gregory I (590-604). - Certainly from the time when St. Gregory became pope our Canon was already fixed in its present order. There are scarcely any changes to note in its history since then. 'No pope has added to or changed the Canon since St. Gregory,' says Benedict XIV (De SS. Missae Sacr.,162) ...
"From the tenth century people took all manner of liberties with the text of the Missal. It was the time of farced Kyries and Glorias, of dramatic and even theatrical ritual, of endlessly varying and lenghty prefaces, into which interminable accounts of ritual, of endlessly varying and lengthy prefaces, into which interminable accounts of stories from Bible history and lives of saints were introduced. This tendency did not even spare the Canon ... The Council of Trent (1545-63) restrained this tendency and ordered that 'the holy Canon composed many centuries ago' should be kept pure and unchanged; it also condemned those who say that the 'Canon of the Mass contains errors and should be abolished.' (Sess. XXII., cap.IV, can.VI; Denzinger 819,830). Pope Pius V (1566-72) published an authentic edition of the Roman Missal in 1570, and accompanied it with a Bull forbidding anyone to either add, or in any way change any part of it. This Missal is to be the only one used in the West, and everyone is to conform to it, except that local uses which can be proved to have existed for more than 200 years are to be kept ... Since Pius V our Canon, then, has been brought back to its original simplicity ...
"... So that of all liturgical prayers in the Christian world no one is more ancient nor more venerable than the Canon of the Roman Mass."
Paul VI, therefore, lied brazenly when he said, in Custos Quid de Nocte?,
May 24, 1976: "The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority following the Council of Trent.
"With the same authority that comes from Christ Jesus, we call for the same obedience .. ."
There are notable differences in the "way" of St. Pius V and that of Paul VI:
1) The authority of Pius was genuine, and never abused. That of Paul VI rested on an election whose validity is suspect, having been managed quite possibly by Masonic conspirators. If genuine at first, it was quickly forfeited through public profession of heresy, under Canon 188, n. 4, when he publicly approved heretical decrees of Vatican II (On Ecumenism teaching, in par. 3, salvation through non-Catholic religions and, in par. 8, common worship with non-Catholics; Declaration on Religious Liberty teaching a natural right to profess a false religion). Or again in the Novus Ordo itself, teaching that all men will be saved and that the Mass is merely a memorial meal
2) St. Pius V's purpose was to honor the Church's most venerable tradition and to preserve through the ages and throughout the world her unity of worship. Paul's purpose was just the opposite, to propagate an invalid Protestant rite, in a newly concocted form, as a replacement for what Pius V strove to preserve.
3) St. Pius V, in clear and proper form, commanded use of his traditional Missal and forbade use of any other that had not been in use at least 200 years. Paul VI never, in proper form, commanded use of his new rite, but imposed it in practice through a pretense of having commanded it, and by persecuting those who remained faithful to the Catholic Mass.
This last difference in the actions of the genuine Pontiff and those of the usurper has an immediate bearing of licitness, which we are considering here. St. Pius V canononized the ancient Roman Missal, making it "unlawfull henceforth and forever" to use any other, in virtue of his own genuine authority as Pope, and under pain of the displeasure of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. Paul VI could not officially and in proper form abrogate such a decree without drawing attention to his own lack of genuine authority. Had any influential person called the world's attention to Canon 188, n. 4, according to which no herectic such as Paul VI and his underlings can posses authority in the Catholic Church, a general clamor would have arisen for the election of a true pope; and usurpation of the Church's offices by her enemies would have come to an end. Paul's fear of being revealed as an antipope (which indeed he was) left and still leaves the decree Quo Primum free of any possible legal challenge, even with the Conciliar Church itself; and the Novus Ordo Missae is illicit in that Church, as it is in the Catholic Church.
Whoever participates in the new rite, then, commits a sin of disobedience to the authority conferred by Christ on St. Pius V, successor to St. Peter. And sin is an impediment which turns away grace, even the grace of a valid sacrament, from its recipient. The Novus Ordo Missae confers not grace not only because it is invalid through defects of form and intention, but also because it is illicit
III. THE NOVUS ORDO IS SACRILEGIOUS
Have we now said all that need be said against Paul VI's Anti-Mass? Not yet; for disobedience is not the only sin it involves. Other sins are common worship with non-Catholics and sacrilege against the Holy Mass and Eucharist instituted by Christ, as we may infer from St. Thomas Aquinas's explanation of unworthy Communions:
"In this Sacrament, as in others, the Sacrament is, in essence, a sign of the res sacramenti (value of the sacrament). But this Sacrament has a twofold value (res), as stated above (q. 60, a. 3, Sed contra; q 73, a. 6): one which is signified and contained in it, namely, Christ Himself; and another which is signified but not contained, namely, Christ's Mystical Body, which is the fellowship of the saints. Whoever, therefore, receives this Sacrament signifies, by that very fact, that he is united to Christ and incorporated with His members. But this is accomplished through faith informed with charity (per fidem formatam), which no one can have together with mortal sin. Hence it is clear that whoever receives this Sacrament with mortal sin, commits a falsehood in this Sacrament. And he therefore incurs sacrilege, as a violator of the Sacrament. For that reason, he sins mortally." (Summa Theologiae 3, q. 80, a 4 c)
St. Thomas's words, though meant to refer to any unworthy reception of the Holy Eucharist, are applicable with particular force to two practices that are widespread in our own time:
1) The right Mass in the wrong Church; that is, the valid Tridentine Mass and reception of Christ's true Body from a priest or in a group belonging to the Conciliar Anti-Church, which is neither the Catholic Church nor any part thereof. Thus is falsely signified that the members of a conspiracy organized to destroy Christ's Mystical Body are themselves united to Christ and incorporated in that Mystical Body - not only a flasehood, but a sacrilegious falsehood violating the Real Presence of Christ, physical and sacramental.
2) The wrong "Mass" the Novus Ordo Missae, anywhere and at any time, signifies these same untruths - not indeed in Christ's Real and Sacramental Presence, but in a more deliberate and systematic denial and mockery of it, twisting Christ's own words, "for many" into an assertion that all men, His mockers included, will be united with Him forever. The rite itself is sacrilegious and all who participate in it vilely affront the true Sacrafice and Sacrament of the Mass. That is, they commit a sacrilege against it.
B. F. Dryden
Route I
Cave City Arkansas 72521
U.S.A.
|
