Cardinal Ottaviani was
head of the Holy Office during the reign of Pope Pius XII. He,
Cardinal Bacci, and a group of Roman theologians opposed many
of the changes brought about by the Second Vatican Council, especially
in the case of the later changes to Catholic liturgy. This opposition
was not effective - Catholic liturgical practice changed throughout
25 September 1969
Most Holy Father:
Having carefully examined and presented for the
scrutiny of others the New Order of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) prepared
by the experts of the Committee for the Implementation of the
Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, and after lengthy prayer and
reflection, we feel obliged before God and Your Holiness to set
forth the following considerations:
The accompanying Critical Study is the work of a select group
of bishops, theologians, liturgists, and pastors of souls. Despite
its brevity, the study shows quite clearly that the Novus Ordo
Missae--considering the new elements widely susceptible to widely
different interpretations which are implied or taken for granted--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. The "canons" of the rite
definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier
against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery.
2. The pastoral reasons put forth to justify
such a grave break, even if such reasons could still hold good
in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem sufficient.
The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is
of perennial value finds only a minor place--if it subsists at
all--could well turn into a certainty the suspicion, already prevalent,
alas in many circles, that truths which have always been believed
by the Christian people can be changed or ignored without infidelity
to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith
is bound forever. The recent reforms have amply demonstrated that
new changes in the liturgy could not be made without leading to
complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful, who already
show signs of restiveness and an indubitable lessening of their
faith. Among the best of the clergy, the result is an agonizing
crisis of conscience, numberless instances of which come to us
3. We are certain that these considerations,
prompted by what we hear from the living voice of shepherds and
the flock, cannot but find an echo in the heart of Your Holiness,
always so profoundly solicitous for the spiritual needs of the
children of the Church. The subjects for whose benefit a law is
made have always had the right, nay the duty, to ask the legislator
to abrogate the law, should it prove to be harmful.
At a time, therefore, when the purity of the
faith and the unity of the Church suffer cruel lacerations and
still greater peril, daily and sorrowfully echoed in the words
of You, our common Father, we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness
not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse
to the integral and fruitful Missal of St. Pius V, so highly praised
by Your Holiness, and so deeply venerated by the whole Catholic
Card. Ottaviani A. Card. Bacci
Critical Study of the New Order of Mass:
A Group of Roman Theologians
In October 1967, the Synod of Bishops which met
in Rome was asked to pass judgment on an experimental celebration
of what was then called a "standard" or "normative"
Mass. This Mass, composed by the Committee for Implementing the
Constitutions on the Sacred Liturgy (Consilium), aroused very
serious misgivings among the bishops present. With 187 members
voting, the results revealed considerable opposition (43 Negative),
many substantial reservations (62 Affirmative with reservations)
and four abstentions. The international press spoke of the Synod's
"rejection" of the proposed Mass, while the progressive
wing of the religious press passed over the event in silence.
A well-known periodical, aimed at bishops and expressing their
teaching, summed up the new rite in these terms:
"They wanted to make a clean slate of the
whole theology of the Mass. It ended up in substance quite close
to the Protestant theology which destroyed the sacrifice of the
Unfortunately, we now find that the same "standard
Mass, "identical in substance, has reappeared as the New
Order of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) recently promulgated by the
Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969). In the
two years that have passed since the Synod, moreover, it appears
that the national bishops' conferences (at least as such) have
not been consulted on the matter. The Apostolic Constitution states
that the old Missal which St. Pius V promulgated on 19 July 1570--its
greater part, in fact, goes back to St. Gregory the Great and
even remoter antiquity  --was the standard for four centuries
whenever priests of the Latin Rite celebrated the Holy Sacrifice.
The Constitution adds that this Missal, taken to every corner
of the earth, "has been an abundant source of spiritual nourishment
to so many people in their devotion to God." Yet this same
Constitution, which would definitively end the use of the old
Missal, claims that the present reform is necessary because "a
deep interest in fostering the liturgy has become widespread and
strong among the Christian people." It seems that the last
claim contains a serious equivocation. If the Christian people
expressed anything at all, it was the desire (thanks to the great
St. Pius X) to discover the true and immortal treasures of the
liturgy. They never, absolutely never, asked that the liturgy
be changed or mutilated to make it easier to understand. What
the faithful did want was a better understanding of a unique and
unchangeable liturgy--a liturgy they had no desire to see changed.
Catholics everywhere, priests and laymen alike, loved and venerated
the Roman Missal of St. Pius V. It is impossible to understand
how using this Missal, along with proper religious instruction,
could prevent the faithful from participating in the liturgy more
fully or understanding it more profoundly. It is likewise impossible
to understand why the old Missal, when its many outstanding merits
are recognized, should now be deemed unworthy to continue to nourish
the liturgical piety of the faithful. Since the "standard
Mass" now reintroduced and reimposed as the New Order of
Mass was already rejected in substance at the Synod, since it
was never submitted to the collegial judgment of the national
bishop's conferences, and since the faithful (least of all in
mission lands) never asked for any reform of the Mass whatsoever,
it is impossible to understand the reasons for the new legislation--
legislation which overthrows a tradition unchanged in the Church
since the 4th and 5th centuries. Since there are no reasons, therefore,
for undertaking this reform, it appears devoid of any rational
grounds to justify it and make it acceptable to the Catholic people.
The Second Vatican Council did indeed ask that the Order of Mass
"be revised in a way that will bring out more clearly the
intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the
connection between them."  We shall now see to what extent
the recently promulgated Ordo responds to the Council's wishes--wishes
now no more than a faint memory. A point-by-point examination
of the Novus Ordo reveals changes so great that they confirm the
judgment already made on the "standard Mass"--for on
many points it has much to gladden the heart of even the most
Let us begin
with the definition of the Mass. In Article 7 of the General Instruction
which precedes the New Order of Mass, we discover the following
The Lord's Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or congregation
of the people of God gathering together, with a priest presiding,
to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.  For this reason Christ's
promise applies supremely to a local gathering together of the
Church: "Where two or three come together in my name, there
am I in their midst." (Mt. 18:20)
The definition of the Mass is thus reduced to
a "supper," a term which the General Instruction constantly
repeats.  The Instruction further characterizes this "supper"
as an assembly, presided over by a priest and held as a memorial
of the Lord to recall what He did on Holy Thursday. None of this
in the very least implies:
- The Real Presence - The reality of the Sacrifice
- The sacramental function of the priest who consecrates - The
intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independent of -
the presence of the "assembly." 
In a word, the Instruction's definition implies
none of the dogmatic values which are essential to the Mass and
which, taken together, provide its true definition. Here, deliberately
omitting these dogmatic values by "going beyond them"
amounts, at least in practice, to denying them.  The second
part of Article 7 makes this already serious equivocation even
worse. It states that Christ's promise, ( "Where two or three
come together in my name, there am I in their midst") applies
to this assembly supremely. Thus, the Instruction puts Christ's
promise (which refers only to His spiritual presence through grace)
on the same qualitative level (save for greater intensity) as
the substantial and physical reality of the sacramental Eucharistic
sacrifice. The next Article of the Instruction divides the Mass
into a "Liturgy of the Word" and a "Liturgy of
the Eucharist," and adds that the "table of God's Word"
and the "table of Christ's Body" are prepared at Mass
so that the faithful may receive "instruction and food."
As we will see later, this statement improperly joins the two
parts of the Mass, as though they possessed equal symbolic value.
The Instruction uses many different names for the Mass, such as:
- Action of Christ and the People of God. - Lord's
Supper or Mass - Paschal Banquet - Common participation in the
Table of the Lord - Eucharistic Prayer - Liturgy of the Word and
Liturgy of the Eucharistic
All these expressions are acceptable when used
relatively--but when used separately and absolutely, as they are
here, they must be completely rejected. It is obvious that the
Novus Ordo obsessively emphasizes "supper" and "memorial,"
instead of the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross.
Even the phrase in the Instruction describing the Mass as a "memorial
of the Passion and Resurrection" is inexact. The Mass is
the memorial of the unique Sacrifice, redemptive in itself; whereas
the Resurrection is the fruit which follows from that sacrifice.
 We shall see later how such equivocations are repeated and
reiterated both in the formula for the Consecration and throughout
the Novus Ordo as a whole.
We now turn
to the ends or purposes of the Mass--what it accomplishes in the
1. ULTIMATE PURPOSE.
The ultimate purpose of the Mass is the sacrifice of praise rendered
to the Most Holy Trinity. This end conforms to the primary purpose
of the Incarnation, explicitly enunciated by Christ Himself: "Coming
into the world he saith: sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst not,
but a body thou hast fitted me."  In the Novus Ordo, this
purpose has disappeared:
- From the Offertory, where the prayer "Receive,
Holy Trinity, this oblation" has been removed. - From the
conclusion of Mass, where the prayer honoring the Trinity, "May
the Tribute of my Homage, Most Holy Trinity" has been eliminated.-
From the Preface, since the Preface of the Most Holy Trinity,
formerly used on all ordinary Sundays, will henceforth be used
only on the Feast of the most Holy Trinity.
2. ORDINARY PURPOSE. The ordinary purpose of
the Mass is propitiatory sacrifice--making satisfaction to God
for sin. This end, too, has been compromised. Instead of emphasizing
remission for sins for the living and the dead, the new rite stresses
the nourishment and sanctification of those present.  At the
Last Supper, Christ instituted the Blessed Sacrament and thus
placed Himself in It as Victim, in order to unite Himself to us
as Victim. But this act of sacrificial immolation occurs before
the Blessed Sacrament is consumed and possesses beforehand full
redemptive value in relation to the bloody Sacrifice on Calvary.
The proof for this is that people who assist are not bound to
receive Communion sacramentally. 
3. IMMANENT PURPOSE. The immanent purpose of
the Mass is fundamentally that of sacrifice. It is essential that
the Sacrifice, whatever its nature, be pleasing to God and accepted
by Him. Because of original sin, however, no sacrifice other than
the Christ's Sacrifice can claim to be acceptable and pleasing
to God in its own right. The Novus Ordo alters the nature of the
sacrificial offering by turning it into a type of exchange of
gifts between God and man. Man brings the bread, and God turns
it into "the bread of life"; man brings the wine, and
God turns it into "spiritual drink":
Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for
through your goodness we have this bread (or wine) to offer, fruit
of the earth (vine) and work of human hands, It will become for
us the bread of life (spiritual drink). 
The expressions "bread of life" and
"spiritual drink," of course, are utterly vague and
could mean anything. Once again, we come up against the same basic
equivocation: According to the new definition of the Mass, Christ
is only spiritually present among His own; here, bread and wine
are only spiritually---and not substantially---changed.  In
the Preparation of the Gifts, a similar equivocal game was played.
The old Offertory contained two magnificent prayers, the "Deus
qui humanae" and the "Offerimus tibi":
- The first prayer, recited at the preparation
of the chalice, begins: "O God, by whom the dignity of human
nature was wondrously established and yet more wondrously restored."
It recalled man's innocence before the Fall of Adam and his ransom
by the blood of Christ, and it summed up the whole economy of
the Sacrifice from Adam to the present day. - The second prayer,
which accompanies the offering of the chalice, embodies the idea
of propitiation for sin: it implores God for His mercy as it asks
that the offering may ascend with a sweet fragrance in the presence
of Thy divine majesty. Like the first prayer, it admirably stresses
the economy of the Sacrifice.
In the Novus Ordo, both these prayers have been
eliminated. In the Eucharistic Prayers, moreover, the repeated
petitions to God that He accept the Sacrifice have also been suppressed;
thus, there is no longer any clear distinction between divine
and human sacrifice. Having removed the keystone, the reformers
had to put up scaffolding. Having suppressed the real purposes
of the Mass, they had to substitute fictitious purposes of their
own. This forced them to introduce actions stressing the union
between priest and faithful, or among the faithful themselves--and
led to the ridiculous attempt to superimpose offerings for the
poor and for the Church on the offering of the host to be immolated.
The fundamental uniqueness of the Victim to be sacrificed will
thus be completely obliterated. Participation in the immolation
of Christ the Victim will turn into a philanthropists' meeting
or a charity banquet.
We now consider the essence of the Sacrifice.
The New Order of Mass no longer explicitly expresses the mystery
of the Cross. It is obscured, veiled, imperceptible to the faithful.
 Here are some of the main reasons:
1. THE MEANING OF THE TERM "EUCHARISTIC
PRAYER." The meaning the Novus Ordo assigns to the so-called
"Eucharistic Prayer" is as follows:
"The entire congregation joins itself to
Christ in acknowledging the great things God has done and in offering
the sacrifice." 
Which sacrifice does this refer to? Who offers
the sacrifice? No answer is given to these questions. The definition
the Instruction provides for the "Eucharistic Prayer"
reduces it to the following:
"The center and summit of the entire celebration
begins: the Eucharistic Prayer, a prayer of thanksgiving and sanctification."
The effects of the prayer thus replace the causes.
And of the causes, moreover, not a single word is said. The explicit
mention of the purpose of the sacrificial offering, made in the
old rite with the prayer "Receive, Most Holy Trinity, This
Oblation," has been suppressed--and replaced with nothing.
The change in the formula reveals the change in doctrine.
2. OBLITERATION OF THE ROLE OF THE REAL PRESENCE.
The reason why the Sacrifice is no longer explicitly mentioned
is simple: the central role of the Real Presence has been suppressed.
It has been removed from the place it so resplendently occupied
in the old liturgy. In the General Instruction, the Real Presence
is mentioned just once--and that in a footnote which is the only
reference to the Council of Trent. Here again, the context is
that of nourishment.  The real and permanent presence of Christ
in the transubstantiated Species--Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity--is
never alluded to. The very word transubstantiation is completely
ignored. The invocation of the Holy Ghost in the Offertory--the
prayer "Come, Thou Sanctifier"--has likewise been suppressed,
with its petition that He descend upon the offering to accomplish
the miracle of the Divine Presence again, just as he once descended
into the Virgin's womb. This suppression is one more in a series
of denials and degradations of the Real Presence, both tacit and
systematic. Finally, it is impossible to ignore how ritual gestures
and usages expressing faith in the Real Presence have been abolished
or changed. The Novus Ordo eliminates:
- Genuflections. No more than three remain for
the priest, and (with certain exceptions) one of the faithful
at the moment of the Consecration - Purification of the priest's
fingers over the chalice - Preserving the priest's fingers from
all profane contact after the Consecration - Purification of sacred
vessels, which need not be done immediately nor made on the corporal
- Protecting the contents of the chalice with the pall - Gilding
for the interior of sacred vessels - Solemn consecration for movable
altars - Consecrated stones and relics of the saints in the movable
altar or on the "table" when Mass is celebrated outside
a sacred place. (The latter leads straight to "eucharistic
dinners" in private houses.) - Three cloths on the altar--reduced
to one - Thanksgiving for the Eucharist made kneeling, now replaced
by the grotesque practice of the priest and people sitting to
make their thanksgiving--a logical enough accompaniment to receiving
Communion standing. - All the ancient prescriptions observed in
the case of a host which fell, which are now reduced to a single,
nearly sarcastic direction: "It is to be picked up reverently."
All these suppressions only emphasize how outrageously
faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated.
3. THE ROLE OF THE MAIN ALTAR. The altar is nearly
always called the table:  "...the altar or the Lord's
table, which is the center of the whole eucharistic liturgy..."
 The altar must now be detached from the back wall so that
the priest can walk around it and celebrate Mass facing the people.
 The Instruction states that the altar should be at the center
of the assembled faithful, so that their attention is spontaneously
drawn to it. Comparing this Article with another, however, seems
to exclude outright the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament on
the altar where Mass is celebrated.  This will signal an irreparable
dichotomy between the presence of Christ the High Priest in the
priest celebrating the Mass and Christ's sacramental Presence.
Before, they were one and the same Presence. Before, they were
one and the same Presence.  The Instruction recommends that
the Blessed Sacrament now be kept in a place apart for private
devotion--as though It were some sort of relic. Thus, on entering
a church, one's attention will be drawn not to a tabernacle, but
to a table stripped bare. Once again, private piety is set up
against liturgical piety, and altar is set up against altar. The
Instruction urges that hosts distributed for Communion be ones
consecrated at the same Mass. It also recommends consecrating
a large wafer,  so that the priest can share a part of it
with the faithful. It is always the same disparaging attitude
towards both the tabernacle and every form of Eucharistic piety
outside of Mass. This constitutes a new and violent blow to faith
that the Real Presence continues as long as the consecrated Species
4. THE FORMULAS FOR THE CONSECRATION.
The old formula for the Consecration was a "sacramental"
formula, properly speaking, and not merely a "narrative".
This was shown above by three things:
A. The Text Employed. The Scripture text was
not used word-for-word as the formula for the Consecration in
the old Missal. St. Paul's expression, the "Mystery of Faith,"
was inserted into the text as an immediate expression of the priest's
faith in the mystery which the Church makes real through the hierarchical
B. Typography and Punctuation. In the old Missal,
a period and a new paragraph separated the words "Take ye
all of this and eat" from the words of the sacramental form,
"This is My Body." The period and the new paragraph
marked the passage from a merely "narrative" mode to
a "sacramental" and "affirmative" mode which
is proper to a true sacramental action. The words of Consecration
in the Roman Missal, moreover, were printed in larger type in
the center of the page. Often a different color ink was used.
All these things clearly detached the words from a merely historical
context, and combined to give the formula of Consecration a proper
and autonomous value.
C. The Anamnesis. The Roman Missal added the
words "As often as ye shall do these things, ye shall do
them in memory of Me" after the formula of Consecration.
This formula referred not merely to remembering Christ or a past
event, but to Christ acting in the here and now. It was an invitation
to recall not merely His Person or the Last Supper, but "to
do" what He did "in the way" that He did it. In
the Novus Ordo, the words of St. Paul, "Do this in memory
of Me," will now replace the old formula and be daily proclaimed
in the vernacular everywhere. This will inevitably cause hearers
to concentrate on the remembrance of Christ as the end of the
Eucharistic action, rather than as its beginning. The idea of
commemoration will thus soon replace the idea of the Mass as a
sacramental action.  The General Instruction emphasizes the
narrative mode further when it describes the Consecration as the
"Institution Narrative"  and when it adds that,
"in fulfillment of the command received from Christ...the
Church keeps his memorial."  All this, in short, changes
the modus significandi of the words of Consecration--how they
show forth the sacramental action taking place. The priest now
pronounces the formulas for Consecration as part of an historical
narrative, rather than as Christ's representative issuing the
affirmative judgment "This is My Body."  Furthermore,
the people's Memorial Acclamation which immediately follows the
Consecration--"Your holy death, we proclaim, O Lord...until
you come"--introduces the same ambiguity about the Real Presence
under the guise of an allusion to the Last Judgment. Without so
much as a pause, the people proclaim their expectation of Christ
at the end of time, just at the moment when He is *substantially
present* on the altar--as if Christ's real coming will occur only
at the end of time, rather than there on the altar itself. The
second optional Memorial Acclamation brings this out even more
"When we eat this bread and drink this cup,
we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory."
The juxtaposition of entirely different realities--immolation
and eating, the Real Presence and Christ's Second Coming--brings
ambiguity to a new height. 
We now consider the question of who performs
the Sacrifice. In the old rite, these were, in order: Christ,
the priest, the Church and the faithful.
1. The Role of the Faithful in the New Rite.
In the New Mass, the role attributed to the faithful is autonomous,
absolute--and hence completely false. This is obvious not only
from the new definition of the Mass ("...the sacred assembly
or congregation of the people gathering together..."), but
also from the General Instruction's observation that the priest's
opening Greeting is meant to convey to the assembled community
the presence of the Lord:
Then through his greeting the priest declares
to the assembled community that the Lord is present. This greeting
and response express the mystery of the gathered Church. 
Is this the true presence of Christ? Yes, but
only a spiritual presence. A mystery of the Church? Certainly--but
only insofar as the assembly manifests and asks for Christ's presence.
This new notion is stressed over and over again by:
- Obsessive references to the communal character
of the Mass.  - The unheard of distinction between "Mass
with a Congregation" and "Mass without a Congregation."
 - The description of the Prayer of the Faithful as a part
of the Mass where "the people exercising their priestly office,
intercede for all humanity." 
The faithful's "priestly office is presented
equivocally, as if it were autonomous, by omitting to mention
that it is subordinated to the priest, who, as consecrated mediator,
presents the people's petitions to God during the Canon of the
The Novus Ordo's Eucharistic Prayer III addresses the following
prayers to the Lord:
From age to age you gather a people to yourself,
*so that* from east to west a perfect offering may be made to
the glory of your name.
The "so that" in the passage makes
it appear that the people, rather than the priest, are the indispensable
element in the celebration. Since it is never made clear, even
here, who offers the sacrifice, the people themselves appear as
possessing autonomous priestly powers.  From this step, it
would not be surprising if, before long, the people were permitted
to join with the priest if pronouncing the words of Consecration.
Indeed, in some places this has already happened.
2. The Role of the Priest in the New Rite. The
role of the priest is minimized, changed, and falsified:
- In relation to the people, he is now a mere
president or brother, rather than the consecrated minister who
celebrates Mass "in the person of Christ." - In relation
to the Church, the priest is now merely one member among others,
someone taken from the people. In its treatment of the invocation
to the Holy Ghost in the Eucharistic Prayer (the epiclesis), the
General Instruction attributes the petitions anonymously to the
Church.  The priest's part has vanished. - In the new Penitential
Rite which begins the mass, the Confiteor has now become collective;
hence the priest is no longer judge, witness and intercessor before
God. It is logical therefore that he no longer recites the prayer
of absolution which followed it and has now been suppressed. The
priest is now "integrated" with his brothers; even the
altar boy who serves at a "Mass without a Congregation"
calls the priest "brother." - Formerly, the priest's
Communion was ritually distinct from the people's Communion. The
Novus Ordo suppresses this important distinction. This was the
moment when Christ the Eternal High Priest and the priest who
acts in the person of Christ came together in closest union and
completed the Sacrifice. - Not a word is said, moreover, about
the priest's power as "sacrificer," his consecratory
action or how as intermediary he brings about the Eucharistic
presence. he now appears to be nothing more than a Protestant
minister. - By abolishing or rendering optional many of the priestly
vestments--in some cases only an alb and stole are now required
 --the new rite obliterates the priest's conformity to Christ
even more. The priest is no longer clothed with Christ's virtues.
He is now a mere "graduate" with one or two tokens that
barely separate him from the crowd  --"a little more
a man than the rest," to quote from a modern Dominican's
unintentionally humorous definition.  Here, as when they set
up altar against altar, the reformers separated that which was
united: the one Priesthood of Christ from the Word of God.
3. The Role of the Church in the New Rite. Finally,
there is the Church's position in relation to Christ. In only
one instance--in its treatment of the form of the Mass without
a Congregation--does the General Instruction admit that the Mass
is "the action of Christ and the Church."  In the
case of Mass with a Congregation, however, the only object the
Instruction hints as it "remembering Christ" and sanctifying
those present. "The priest celebrant," it says, "...joins
the people to himself in offering the sacrifice through Christ
in the Spirit to the Father"  --instead of saying that
the people join themselves to Christ who offers Himself through
the Holy Ghost to the Father. In this context, the following points
should likewise be noted:
- The many grave omissions of the phrase "through
Christ Our Lord," a formula which guarantees that God will
hear the Church's prayers in every age.  An all-pervading
"paschalism" --an obsessive emphasis on Easter and the
Resurrection--almost as if there were no other aspects of the
communication of grace, which, while quite different, are nevertheless
equally important. - The strange and dubious "eschatologism"
--a stress upon Christ's Second Coming and the end of time--whereby
the permanent and eternal reality of the communication of grace
is reduced to something within the bonds of time. We hear of a
people of God on the march, a pilgrim Church--a Church no longer
*Militant* against the powers of darkness, but one which, having
lost its link with eternity, marches to a future envisioned in
purely temporal terms.
In Eucharistic Prayer IV the Church--as One,
Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic--is abased by eliminating the Roman
Canon's petition for all orthodox believers who keep the Catholic
and Apostolic faith. These are now merely all who seek you with
a sincere heart. The Memento of the Dead in the Canon, moreover,
is offered not as before for those who are gone before us with
the sign of faith, but merely for those who have died in the peace
of Christ. To this group--with further detriment to the notion
of the Church's unity and visibility--Eucharistic Prayer IV adds
the great crowd of "all the dead whose faith is known to
You alone." None of the three new Eucharistic Prayers, moreover,
alludes to a suffering state for those who have died; none allows
the priest to make special Mementos for the dead. All this necessarily
undermines faith in the propitiatory and redemptive nature of
the sacrifice.  Everywhere desacralizing omissions debase
the mystery of the Church. Above all, the Church's nature as a
sacred hierarchy is disregarded. The second part of the new collective
Confiteor reduces the Angels and the Saints to anonymity in the
first part, in the person of St. Michael the Archangel, they have
disappeared as witnesses and judges.  In the Preface for Eucharistic
Prayer II--and this is unprecedented--the various angelic hierarchies
have disappeared. Also suppressed, in the third prayer of the
old Canon, is the memory of the holy Pontiffs and Martyrs on whom
the Church in Rome was founded; without a doubt, these were the
saints who handed down the apostolic tradition finally completed
under Pope St. Gregory as the Roman Mass. The prayer after the
Our Father, the "Libera Nos," now suppresses the mention
of the Blessed Virgin, the holy apostles and all the Saints; their
intercession is thus no longer sought, even it times of danger.
Everywhere except in the Roman Canon, the Novus Ordo eliminates
not only the names of the Apostles Peter and Paul, founders of
the Church in Rome, but also the names of the other Apostles,
the foundation and mark of the one and universal Church. This
intolerable omission, extending even to the three new Eucharistic
Prayers, compromises the unity of the Church. The New Order of
Mass further attacks the dogma of the Communion of Saints by suppressing
the blessing and the salutation "The Lord Be with You"
when the priest says Mass without a server. It also eliminates
the "Ite Missa Est," even in Masses celebrated with
a server.  The double Confiteor at the beginning of the Mass
showed how the priest, vested as Christ's minister and bowing
profoundly, acknowledged himself unworthy of both is sublime mission
and the "tremendous mystery" he was to enact. Then,
in the prayer "Take Away Our Sins," he acknowledged
his unworthiness to enter the Holy of Holies, recommending himself
with the prayer "We Beseech Thee, O Lord" to the merits
and intercession of the martyrs whose relics were enclosed in
the altar. Both prayers have been suppressed. What was said previously
about elimination of the two-fold Confiteor and Communion rite
is equally relevant here. The outward setting of the Sacrifice,
a sign of its sacred character, has been profaned. See, for example,
the new provisions for celebrating Mass outside a church: a simple
table, containing neither a consecrated altar-stone nor relics
and covered with a single cloth, is allowed to suffice for an
altar.  Here too, all we have said previously in regard to
the Real Presence applies--disassociation of the "banquet"
and the Sacrifice of the supper from the Real Presence itself.
The process of desacralization is made complete,
thanks to the new and grotesque procedure for the Offertory Procession,
the reference to ordinary (rather than unleavened) bread, and
allowing servers (and even lay people, when receiving Communion
under both Species) to handle sacred vessels.  then there
is the distracting atmosphere created in the church: the ceaseless
comings and goings of priest, deacon, subdeacon, cantor, commentator--the
priest himself becomes a commentator, constantly encouraged to
"explain" what he is about to do-- of lectors (men and
women), of servers or laymen welcoming people at the door and
escorting them to their places, while others carry and sort offerings.
And in an era of frenzy for a "return to Scripture,"
we now find, in contradiction of both the Old Testament and St.
Paul, the presence of a "suitable woman" who for the
first time in the Church's history is authorized to proclaim the
Scripture readings and "perform other ministries outside
the sanctuary."  Finally, there is the mania for concelebration,
which will ultimately destroy the priest's Eucharistic piety by
overshadowing the central figure of Christ, sole priest and Victim,
and by dissolving Him into the collective presence presence of
We have limited ourselves above to a short study
of the Novus Ordo where it deviates most seriously from the theology
of the Catholic Mass. Our observations touch upon deviations which
are typical. To prepare a complete study of all the pitfalls,
dangers, and psychologically and spiritually destructive elements
the new rite contains, whether in texts, rubrics, or instructions,
would be a vast undertaking. We have taken no more than a passing
glance at the three new Eucharistic Prayers, since they have already
come in for repeated and authoritative criticism. The second gave
immediate scandal to the faithful due to its brevity.  Of
Eucharistic Prayer II it has well been said that a priest who
no longer believed in either Transubstantiation or the sacrificial
character of the Mass could recite it with perfect tranquillity
of conscience, and that a Protestant minister, moreover, could
use it in his own celebrations just as well. The new Missal was
introduced in Rome as an "abundant resource for pastoral
work," as "a text more pastoral than juridical,"
which national bishops' conferences could adapt, according to
circumstances, to the "spirit" of different peoples.
Section One of the new Congregation for Divine Worship, moreover,
will now be responsible "for the publication and *constant
revision* of liturgical books." This idea was echoed recently
in the official newsletter of the Liturgical Institutes of Germany,
Switzerland and Austria:
- The Latin texts must now be translated into
the languages of different nations. - The "Roman style"
must be adapted to the individuality of each local Church. - That
which was conceived in a timeless state must now be transposed
into the changing context of concrete situations, and into the
constant flux of the universal Church and its myriad congregations.
The Apostolic Constitution itself, in promulgating
the Novus Ordo Missae, deals a deathblow to the Church's universal
language when--contrary to the express wish of the Second Vatican
Council--it unequivocally states that "in great diversity
of languages, one [?] and the same prayer will ascend, more fragrant
than incense." The demise of Latin may therefore be taken
for granted, Gregorian chant--which Vatican II recognized as a
distinctive characteristic of the Roman liturgy, decreeing that
it "be given pride of place in liturgical services"
 --will logically follow, given, among other things, the freedom
of choice permitted in choosing texts for the Introit and the
Gradual. From the outset, therefore, the new rite was pluralistic
and experimental, bound to time and place. Since unity of worship
has been shattered once and for all, what basis will exist for
the unity of the faith which accompanied it and which, we were
told, was always to be defended without compromise? It is obvious
that the New Order of Mass has no intention of presenting the
Faith taught by the Council of Trent. But it is to this Faith
that the Catholic conscience is bound forever. Thus, with the
promulgation of the New Order of Mass, the true Catholic is faced
with a tragic need to choose.
The Apostolic Constitution explicitly mentions
the riches of piety and doctrine the Novus Ordo supposedly borrows
from the Eastern Churches. But the result is so removed from,
and indeed opposed to the spirit of the Eastern liturgies that
it can only leave the faithful in those rites revolted and horrified.
What do these ecumenical borrowings amount to? Basically, to introducing
multiple texts for the Eucharistic Prayer (the anaphora)--none
of which approaches their Eastern counterparts' complexity or
beauty--and to permitting Communion Under Both Species and the
use of deacons. Against this, the New Order of Mass appears to
have been deliberately shorn of every element where the Roman
liturgy came closest to the Eastern Rites.  At the same time,
by abandoning its unmistakable and immemorial Roman character,
the Novus Ordo cast off what was spiritually precious of its own.
In place of this are elements which bring the new rite closer
to certain Protestant liturgies, not even those closest to Catholicism.
At the same time, these new elements degrade the Roman liturgy
and further alienate it from the East, as did the reforms which
preceded the Novus Ordo. In compensation, the new liturgy will
delight all those groups hovering on the verge of apostasy who,
during a spiritual crisis without precedent, now wreak havoc in
the Church by poisoning Her organism and by undermining Her unity
in doctrine, worship, morals and discipline.
St. Pius V had the Roman Missal drawn up (as
the present Apostolic Constitution now recalls) as an instrument
of unity among Catholics. In conformity with the injunctions of
the Council of Trent, the Missal was to exclude all dangers, either
to liturgical worship or to the faith itself, then threatened
by the Protestant Revolt. The grave situation fully justified--and
even rendered prophetic--the saintly Pontiff's solemn warning
given in 1570 at the end of the Bull promulgating his Missal:
Should anyone presume to tamper with this, let
him know that he shall incur the wrath of God Almighty and His
holy Apostles Peter and Paul.
When the Novus Ordo was presented at the Vatican
Press Office, it was impudently asserted that conditions which
prompted the decrees of the Council of Trent no longer exist.
Not only do these decrees still apply today, but conditions now
are infinitely worse. It was precisely to repel those snares which
in every age threaten the pure Deposit of Faith,  that the
Church, under divine inspiration, set up dogmatic definitions
and doctrinal pronouncements as her defenses. These in turn immediately
influenced her worship, which became the most complete monument
to her faith. Trying to return this worship to the practices of
Christian antiquity and recreating artificially the original spontaneity
of ancient times is to engage in that "unhealthy archaeologism"
Pius XII so roundly condemned.  It is, moreover, to dismantle
all the theological ramparts erected for the protection of the
rite and to take away all the beauty which enriched it for centuries.
 And all this at one of the most critical moments--if not
the most critical moment--in the Church's history! Today, division
and schism are officially acknowledged to exist not only outside
the Church, but within her as well.  The Church's unity is
not only threatened, but has already been tragically compromised.
 Errors against the Faith are not merely insinuated, but are--as
has been likewise acknowledged--now forcibly imposed through liturgical
abuses and aberrations. To abandon a liturgical tradition which
for four centuries stood as a sign and pledge of unity in worship,
 and to replace it with another liturgy which, due to the
countless liberties it implicitly authorizes, cannot but be a
sign of division--a liturgy which teems with insinuations or manifest
errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith--is, we feel
bound in conscience to proclaim, an incalculable error.
Corpus Domini 5 June 1969
DB: Denziger-Bannwart. "Enchrindion Symbolorum."
32nd edition. Barcelona, Frieburg and Rome: Herder, 1957.
DOL: "Documents on the Liturgy, 1963-1979: Conciliar, Papal,
and Curial Texts." Translated, compiled, and arranged by
the International Committee on English in the Liturgy. Collegeville,
MN: Liturgical Press, 1982
GI: General Instruction on the Roman Missal. "Institutio
Generalis Missalis Romani." 1st edition, 6 April 1969. In
Paul VI, "Missale Romanum...Pauli VI Promulgatum: Ordo Missae,"
12-76. 2nd edition. March 1970. Translated in DOL 1391-1731, with
variants between 1975 "editio typica altera" and 1st
edition provided in footnotes.
PTL: "Papal Teachings: The Liturgy," selected and arranged
by the Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, translated by the Daughters
of St. Paul. Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1962.
SC: Vatican Council II. Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy "Sacrosanctum
Consilium," 4 December 1963. Translated in DOL 1-131.
prayers of Our Canon are found in the treatise "De Sacramentis"
(4th, 5th centuries)...Our Mass goes back without essential changes
to the epoch in which it developed for the first time from the
most ancient common liturgy. It still preserves the fragrance
of that primitive liturgy, in times when Caesar governed the world
and hoped to extinguish the Christian faith' times when our forefathers
would gather together before dawn to sing a hymn to Christ as
their God...There is not in all Christendom a rite so venerable
as that of the Roman Missal." (Rev. Adrian Fortescue). "The
Roman Canon, such as it is today, goes back to St. Gregory the
Great. Neither in East nor West is there any Eucharistic prayer
remaining in use today that can boast such antiquity. For the
Roman Church to throw it overboard would be tantamount, in the
eyes not only of the Orthodox, but also of the Anglicans and even
Protestants having still to some extent a sense of tradition,
to a denial of all claim any more to be the true Catholic Church."
(Rev. Louis Bouyer)
2. SC 50, DOL 50.
3. A footnote in the Instruction refers
us to two texts of Vatican II. But nothing in the texts justifies
the new definition, as it is evident from the following: "Through
the ministry of the bishop, God consecrates priests...In exercising
sacred functions they therefore act as the ministers of him who
in the liturgy continually fulfill his priestly office on our
behalf....By the celebration of Mass people sacramentally offer
the sacrifice of Christ." Decree on the Ministry and Life
of Priests "Presbyterum Ordinis," 7 December 1965, Section
5, DOL 260. "For in the liturgy God is speaking to his people
and Christ is still proclaiming his Gospel. And the people are
responding to God both by song and prayer. Moreover, the prayers
addressed to God "by the priest," who presides over
the assembly "in the person of Christ," are said in
the name of the entire holy people and of all present." SC
33, DOL 33. One is at a loss to explain how the Instruction's
definition could have been drawn from these texts. We note too
how the new definition of the Mass alters what Vatican II laid
down in Presbyterum Ordinis Section 5: "The Eucharistic assembly
is the center of the congregation of the faithful." Since
the center in the New Order of the Mass has been fraudulently
spirited away, the congregation has now usurped its place.
4. GI 7, DOL 1937 fn.
GI 8, DOL 1398; GI 48, DOL 1438 fn. GI 55.d, DOL 1445 fin; GI
56, DOL 1446.
6. The Council of Trent
reaffirms the Real Presence in the following words: "To begin
with, the holy council teaches and openly and straightforwardly
professes that in the blessed Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist,
after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ,
true God and man, is truly, really and substantially contained
under the perceptible species of bread and wine." DB 874.
Session 22 which interests us directly in nine canons (DB 937a-956):
1) The Mass is not a mere symbolic representation, but rather
a true, visible sacrifice, instituted "to re-present the
bloody sacrifice which [Christ] accomplished on the cross once
and for all. It was to perpetuate his memory until the end of
the world. Its salutary strength was to be applied for the remission
of the sins that we daily commit." DB 938. 2) "Declaring
himself constituted a priest forever according to the order of
Melchisedech, [Our Lord] offered his body and blood under the
species of bread and wine to God the Father and he gave his body
and blood under the same species to the apostles to receive, making
them priests of the New Testament at that time...He ordered the
apostles and their successors in the priesthood to offer this
sacrifice when he said, 'Do this in remembrance of me,' as the
Catholic Church has always understood and taught." DB 938.
The celebrant, offerer and sacrificer is the ordained priest,
and not the people of God or the assembly: "If anyone says
that by the words, 'Do this in remembrance of me,' Christ did
not make the apostles priests, or that he did not decree that
they and other priests should offer his body and blood: let him
be anathema." Canon 2, DB 949. The Sacrifice of the Mass
is a true propitiatory sacrifice, and not a simple memorial of
the sacrifice offered on the cross: "If anyone says that
the Sacrifice of the Mass is merely an offering of praise and
of thanksgiving, or that it is a simple memorial of the sacrifice
offered on the cross, and not propitiatory, or that it benefits
only those who communicate; and that it should not be offered
for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfaction,
and other necessities: let him be anathema." Canon 3, DB
950. Canon 6 should likewise be kept in mind: "If anyone
says that there are errors in the Canon of the Mass and that it
should therefore be done away with: let him be anathema."
DB 953. Likewise Canon 8: "If anyone says that Masses in
which the priest alone communicates sacramentally are illicit
and should be done away with: let him be anathema." DB 955.
7. It is perhaps superfluous to recall that,
if a single defined dogma were denied, all dogma would fall ipso
facto, insofar as the principle of the infallibility of the supreme
hierarchical magisterium, whether conciliar or papal, would thereby
8. In light of the first
prayer after the Consecration in the Roman Canon (Unde et memores),
the Ascension could also be added. The Unde et memores, however,
does not lump different realities together. It makes a clear and
fine distinction: "calling to mind...the blessed passion,
and also His rising from the dead and His glorious Ascension into
9. Ps. 50:7-9, in Heb. 10:5.
10. GI 54, DOL 1444.
This shift of emphasis occurs in the three new Eucharistic Prayers,
which eliminate the Memento of the Dead and any mention of souls
suffering in Purgatory, to whom the propitiatory Sacrifice is
12. See "Mysterium Fidei,"
in which Paul VI condemns the errors of symbolism together with
the new theories of "transignification: and "transfinalization":
"...it is not allowable...to stress the sign value of the
sacrament as if the symbolism, which to be sure all acknowledge
in the Eucharist, expresses fully and exhaustively the meaning
of Christ's presence; or to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation
without mentioning the marvelous changing of the whole substance
of the bread into the body and of the whole substance of the wine
into the blood of Christ, as stated by the Council of Trent, so
that only what is called 'transignification' or 'transfinalization'
is involved." Encyclical "Mysterium Fidei" on the
doctrine and worship of the Eucharist, 3 September 1965, Section
11, DOL 1155.
13. "Mysterium Fidei"
amply denounces and condemns introducing new formulas or expressions
which, though occurring in texts of the Fathers, the Councils,
and the Church's magisterium, are used in a univocal sense that
is not subordinated to the substance of doctrine with which they
form an inseparable whole (e.g., "spiritual nourishment,"
"spiritual food," "spiritual drink," etc.):
"Not only the integrity of the faith, but also its proper
mode of expression must be safeguarded, lest, God forbid, by the
careless use of words we introduce false notions about the most
sublime realities." He quotes St. Augustine: " 'We,
however, have the obligation to speak according to a definite
norm, lest the carelessness of our words give rise to impious
ideas about the very realities signified by these words.' "
He continues: "We must religiously respect the rule of terminology;
after centuries of effort and under the protection of the Holy
Spirit the Church has established it and confirmed it by the authority
of councils; that norm often became the watchword and the banner
of orthodox belief. Let no one arbitrarily or under the pretext
of new science presume to change it...In like manner we must not
put up with anyone's personal wish to modify the formulas in which
the Council of Trent set forth the mystery of the Eucharist for
belief." Sections 23, 24; DOL 1167-8.
Contradicting what Vatican II prescribed. (Cf. SC 48, DOL 48).
15. GI 54, DOL 1444.
GI 54, DOL 1444.
17. GI 241 fn. 69, DOL
18. GI 129, DOL 1629.
The Instruction recognizes the altar's primary function only once:
"At the altar, the sacrifice of the cross is made present
under sacramental signs." GI 259, DOL 1649. This single reference
seems insufficient to remove the equivocation resulting from the
other, more frequently used term.
GI 49, DOL 1489. Cf. GI 262, DOL 1652.
GI 262, DOL 1652.
22. GI 262, DOL 1652,
and GI 276, DOL 1666. 23.
separate tabernacle from altar is to separate two things which
by their origin and nature should remain united." Pius XII,
"Allocution to the International Congress on Pastoral Liturgy."
22 September 1956, PTL 817. See also Pius XII, Encyclical "Mediator
Dei," 20 November 1947, PTL 550, quoted below.
Rarely does the Novus Ordo use the word hostia. In liturgical
books this traditional term has a precise meaning: "victim."
Again we encounter a systematic attempt to emphasize only "supper"
25. Following their
customary practice of substituting one thing for another, the
reformers made Christ's presence in the proclaimed word equal
to the Real Presence. (See GI 7, 54; DOL 1397, 1444). But Christ's
presence when Scripture is proclaimed is of a different nature
and has no reality except when it is taking place (in usu). Christ's
Real Presence in the consecrated Host, on the other hand, is objective,
permanent and independent of the reception of the Sacrament. The
formulae "God is speaking to his people," and "Christ
is present to the faithful through his own word" (GI 33,
DOL 1423) are typically Protestant. Strictly speaking, they have
no meaning, since God's presence in the word is mediated, bound
to an individual's spiritual act or condition, and only temporary.
This formula leads to a tragic error: the conclusion, expressed
or implied, that the Real Presence continues only as long as the
Sacrament is in the process of being used--received at Communion
time, for instance--and that the Real Presence ends when the use
26. As the General Instruction describes
it, the sacramental action originated at the moment Our Lord gave
the Apostles His Body and Blood "to eat" under the appearances
of bread and wine. The sacramental action thus no longer consists
in the consecratory action and the mystical separation of the
Body from the Blood--the very essence of Eucharistic Sacrifice.
See "Mediator Dei," esp. Part II, Chapter I, PTL 551,
27. GI 55.d, DOL 1445 fn..
GI 55.d, DOL 1445.
29. As they appear
in the context of the Novus Ordo, the words of Consecration could
be valid in virtue of the priest's intention. But since their
validity no longer comes from the force of the sacramental words
themselves (ex vi verborum)--or more precisely, from the meaning
(modus significandi) the old rite of the Mass gave to the formula--the
words of Consecration in the New Order of Mass could also not
be valid. Will priests in the near future, who receive no traditional
formation and who rely on the Novus Ordo for the intention of
"doing what the Church does," validly consecrate at
Mass? One may be allowed to doubt it.
Let it not be said, following the methods of Protestant biblical
scholarship, that these phrases being in the same Scriptural context.
The Church always avoided superimposing and juxtaposing the texts,
precisely in order to avoid confusing the different realities
31. GI 28, DOL 1418
32. GI 74-152, DOL 1464-1542.
GI 209-231, DOL 1599-1621.
34. GI 45,
35. Against the Lutherans and
Calvinists who teach that all Christians are priests and offerers
of the Lord's Supper, see A. Tanquerey, "Synopsis Theologiae
Dogmaticae," (Paris, Tournai, Rome: Desclee, 1930), v. III:
"Each and every priest is, strictly speaking, a secondary
minister of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Christ Himself is the principal
minister. The faithful offer *through the intermediary of the
priest, but not in a strict sense*." Cf. Council of Trent,
Session 22, Canon 2, DB 949.
36. GI 55,
37. GI 298, DOL 1688 fn..
38. We note in passing an unthinkable innovation
which will have disastrous psychological effects; employing *red*
vestments on Good Friday instead of black (GI 308.b, DOL 1698)--as
if Good Friday were the commemoration of just another martyr,
instead of the day on which the whole Church mourns for her Founder.
(Cf. Mediator Dei, PTL 550, quoted below.)
Rev. A. M. Rouget, OP, speaking to the Dominican Sisters of Bethany
40. GI 4, DOL 1394.
Cf. "Presbyterum Ordinis," Section 13, DOL 265.
41. GI 60, DOL 1450 fn.
See Jn. 14:13-16, 23-24.
43. In some translations
of the Roman Canon, the phrase a place of refreshment, light and
peace was rendered as a simple state: "blessedness, light,
peace." What can be said then of the disappearance of every
explicit reference to the Church Suffering?
Amidst this flurry of omissions, only one element has been added:
the mention in the Confiteor of "what I have failed to do."
45. At the press conference introducing
the Novus Ordo, Rev. Joseph Lecuyer, CSSp, professing a purely
rationalist faith, discussed changing the priest's salutations
in Mass without a Congregation from plural to singular ("Pray,
brother," for example, replaces "Pray, brethren.")
His reason was "so that there would be nothing [in the Mass]
which does not correspond with the truth."
46. GI Section 260, 265; DOL 1650, 1655.
47. GI 244.C, DOL 1634.
48. GI 70, DOL 1460, fn.
49. It now seems lawful for priest to receive
Communion under both species at a concelebration, even when they
are obliged to celebrate Mass alone before or after concelebrating.
50. It has been presented as "The Canon
of Hippolytus," but only a few traces of that original text
remain in the new rite.
51. Gottesdienst no. 9 (14 May 1969).
52. SC 116, DOL 116.
53. Consider the following elements found in
the Byzantine rite: lengthy and repeated penitential prayers;
solemn vesting rites for the celebrant and deacon; the preparation
of the offerings at the "proscomidia," a complete rite
in itself; repeated invocations, even in the prayers of offering,
to the Blessed Virgin and the Saints; invocations of the choirs
of Angels at the Gospel as "invisible concelebrants,"
while the choir identifies itself with the angelic choirs in the
"Cherubicon;" the sanctuary screen (iconostasis) separating
the sanctuary from the rest of the church and the clergy from
the people; the hidden Consecration, symbolizing the divine mystery
to which the entire liturgy alludes; the position of the priest
who celebrates facing God, and never facing the people; Communion
given always and only by the celebrant; the continual marks of
adoration toward the Sacred Species; the essentially contemplative
attitude of the people. The fact that these liturgies, even in
their less solemn forms, last for over an hour and are constantly
defined as "awe-inspiring, unutterable...heavenly, life-giving
mysteries" speaks for itself. Finally, we note how in both
the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Liturgy of St.
Basil, the concept of "supper" or "banquet"
appears clearly subordinate to the concept of sacrifice --just
as it was in the Roman Mass.
54. Bull "
Quo Primum," 13 July 1570. In Session 23
(Decree on the Most Holy Eucharist), the Council of Trent announced
its intention to "uproot completely the cockle of the damnable
errors and schism which in these fateful times of ours and enemy
has sown (see Matt. 13:25) in the teaching of the faith about
the Holy Eucharist and about the use and worship of the Eucharist.
In addition to his other purpose, our Saviour left the Eucharist
in his Church as a symbol of unity and love which he desired to
unify and unite all Christians." DB 873.
55. "Keep that which is committed to thy
trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words." (1 Tim.
56. "Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable
thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the
Sacred Liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing
it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards
a more thorough and careful investigation of the texts and sacred
ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise
nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible
device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from
the right path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive
table form; were he to want black excluded as a color for liturgical
vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues
in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the
Divine Redeemer's Body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings...This
way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless
antiquarianism to which the illegal Synod of Pistoia gave rise.
It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were
responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those
resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the
Church, the ever watchful guardian of the "depositum fidei"
committed to her charge by her Divine Founder, had every right
and reason to condemn." "Mediator Dei," I.5, PTL
57. "Let us not deceive ourselves with the
suggestion that the Church, which has become great and majestic
for the glory of God as a magnificent temple of His, must be brought
to its original and smallest proportions, as though they were
the only true ones, the only good ones." Paul VI, Encyclical
"Ecclesiam Suam," 6 August 1964.
58. "A practically schismatic ferment divides,
subdivides, splits the Church." Paul VI, Homily "In
Coena Domini," 3 April 1969.
59. "There are also among us those "schisms"
and "separations" which St. Paul sadly denounces in
I Corinthians." Paul VI, ibid.
60. It is well-known how Vatican II is now being
repudiated by the very men who once gloried in being its leaders.
While the Pope declared at the Council's end that it had changed
nothing, these men came away determined to "explode"
the Council's teachings in the process of actually applying it.
Unfortunately the Holy See, with inexplicable haste, approved
and even seemingly encouraged through Consilium an ever-increasing
infidelity to the Council.. This infidelity went from changes
in mere form (Latin, Gregorian Chant, suppression of the ancient
rites, etc.) all the way to changes in substance which the Novus
Ordo sanctions. To the disastrous consequences we have attempted
to point out here, we must add those which, with an even greater
effect psychologically, will affect the Church's discipline and
teaching authority by undermining the respect and docility owed
the Holy See.