Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani
Antonio Cardinal Bacci
Rome, September 25, 1969
Most Holy Father,
Having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of others, the Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium ad exequdam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, We feel it to be our bounden duty in the sight of God and towards Your Holiness, to put before you the following considerations:
1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted, which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The ďcanonsĒ of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.
2. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to Us 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 for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith. Amongst the best of the clergy the practical result is an agonizing crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come to our notice daily.
3. We are certain that these considerations, which can only reach Your Holiness by the living voice of both shepherds and flock, cannot but find an echo in Your paternal heart, always so profoundly solicitous for the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. It has always been the case that when a law meant for the good of subjects proves to be on the contrary harmful, those subjects have the right, nay the duty of asking with filial trust for the abrogation of that law.
Therefore we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness, at a time of such painful divisions and ever- increasing perils for the purity of the Faith and the unity of the Church, lamented by You our common Father, not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness and so deeply loved and venerated by the whole Catholic World.
Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani
Antonio Cardinal Bacci
The new form of Mass was substantially rejected by the Episcopal Synod, was never submitted to the collegial judgment of the Episcopal Conferences and was never asked for by the people. It has every possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants.
II. Definition of the Mass.
By a series of equivocations the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the "supper" and the "memorial" instead of on the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary.
III. Presentation of the ends.
The three ends of the Mass are altered; no distinction is allowed to remain between Divine and human sacrifice; bread and wine are only "spiritually" (not substantially) changed.
IV. Presentation of the essence.
The Real Presence of Christ is never alluded to and belief in it is implicitly repudiated.
V. Presentation of the four elements of the Sacrifice.
The position of both priest and people is falsified and the Celebrant appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister, while the true nature of the Church is intolerably misrepresented.
VI. The destruction of unity.
The abandonment of Latin sweeps away for good and all unity of worship. This may have its effect on unity of belief and the New Order has no intention of standing for the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent to which the Catholic conscience is bound. VII. The alienation of the Orthodox.
While pleasing various dissenting groups, the New Order will alienate the East.
VIII. The abandonment of defenses.
The New Order teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the purity of the Catholic religion and dismantles all defenses of the deposit of Faith.
I. History of the
1. In October 1967, the Episcopal Synod called in Rome was requested to pass a judgment on the experimental celebration of a so-called "normative Mass," devised by the Consilium for implementing the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. This Mass aroused the most serious misgivings. The voting showed considerable opposition (43 non placet), very many substantial reservations (62 juxta modum), and 4 abstentions out of 187 voters. The international press spoke of a "refusal" of the proposed "normative Mass" on the part of the Synod. Progressively- inclined papers made no mention of this.
2. In the Novus Ordo Missae lately promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, we once again find this "normative Mass", identical in substance, nor does it appear that in the intervening period the Episcopal Conferences, at least as such, were ever asked to give their views about it.
3. In the Apostolic Constitution, it is stated that the ancient Missal promulgated by St. Pius V, 14th July 1570, but going back in great part to St. Gregory the Great and to still more remote antiquity, <1> , was for four centuries the norm for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice for priests of the Latin rite, and that, taken to every part of the world, "it has moreover been an abundant source of spiritual nourishment to many holy people in their devotion to God". Yet, the present reform, putting it definitely out of use, was claimed to be necessary since "from that time the study of the Sacred Liturgy has become more widespread and intensive among Christians".
Pope Saint Pius X
Tuesday, August 4, 1903 - Thursday, August 20, 1914
4. This assertion seems to us to embody a serious equivocation. For the desire of the people was expressed, if at all, when-thanks to St. Pius X-they began to discover the true and everlasting treasures of the liturgy. The people never on any account asked for the liturgy to be changed or mutilated so as to understand it better. They asked for a better understanding of a changeless liturgy, and one which they would never have wanted changed.
Roman Missal of St. Pius V
5. The Roman Missal of St. Pius V was religiously venerated and most dear to Catholics, both priests and laity. One fails to see how its use, together with suitable catechesis, could have hindered a fuller participation in, and greater knowledge of, the Sacred Liturgy, nor why, when its many outstanding virtues are recognized, this should not have been considered worthy to continue to foster the liturgical piety of Christians.
6. Since the "normative Mass", now reintroduced and imposed as the Novus Ordo Missae, was in substance rejected by the Synod of Bishops, was never submitted to the collegial judgment of the Episcopal Conferences, nor have the people-least of all in mission lands-ever asked for any reform of Holy Mass whatsoever, one fails to comprehend the motives behind the new legislation which overthrows a tradition unchanged in the Church since the fourth and fifth centuries, as the Apostolic Constitution itself acknowledges. As no popular demand exists to support this reform, it appears devoid of any logical grounds to justify it and to make it acceptable to the Catholic people.
7. The Vatican Council did indeed express a desire for "the rite of the Mass to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as well as the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested..." <2> We shall now see how the Novus Ordo recently promulgated corresponds with this original intention.
8. An attentive examination of the Novus Ordo reveals changes of such magnitude as to justify in themselves the judgment already made with regard to the "normative Mass". Both have in many points every possibility of satisfying the most modernistic of Protestants.
II. Definition of
9. Let us begin with the definition of the Mass given in No. 7 of the "Institutio Generalis" at the beginning of the second chapter of the Novus Ordo: "De structura Missae":
11. In the second part of this paragraph 7 it is asserted, aggravating the already serious equivocation, that there holds good, "eminenter," for this assembly Christ's promise that "Ubi sunt duo vel tres congregati in nomine meo; ibi sum in medio eorum". <9> This promise, which refers only to the spiritual presence of Christ with His grace, is thus put on the same qualitative plane, save for the greater intensity, as the substantial and physical reality of the Sacramental Eucharistic Presence.
12. In no.8 a subdivision of the Mass into "liturgy of the word" and Eucharistic liturgy immediately follows, with the affirmation that in the Mass is made ready "the table of God's word" as of "the Body of Christ", so that the faithful "may be built up and refreshed"--an altogether improper assimilation of the two parts of the liturgy, as though between two points of equal symbolic value. More will be said about this point later.
13. The Mass is designated by a great many different expressions, all acceptable relatively, all unacceptable if employed, as they are, separately and in an absolute sense. We cite a few: the Action of Christ and of the People of God; the Lord's Supper or Mass; the Paschal Banquet; the Common participation in the Lord's Table; the memorial of the Lord; the Eucharistic Prayer; the Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharistic Liturgy; etc.
14. As is only too evident, the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the supper and the memorial instead of upon the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary. The formula "the Memorial of the Passion and Resurrection of the Lord" is, besides, inexact, the Mass being the memorial of the Sacrifice alone, in itself redemptive, whilst the Resurrection is the consequent fruit of it. <10>
15. We shall later see how, in the same consecratory formula, and throughout the Novus Ordo, such equivocations are renewed and reiterated.
of the Ends
16. We come now to the ends of the Mass.
17. 1. Ultimate end. This is that of the Sacrifice of praise to the Most Holy Trinity according to the explicit declaration of Christ in the primary purpose of His very Incarnation: "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not: but a body thou hast fitted to me". <11>
18. This end has disappeared: from the Offertory, with the disappearance of the prayer "Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas"; from the end of the Mass with the omission of the "Placet tibi Sancta Trinitas"; and from the Preface, which on Sunday will no longer be that of the Most Holy Trinity, as this Preface will be reserved only to the Feast of the Trinity, and so in future will be heard but once a year.
19. 2. Ordinary end. This is the propitiatory Sacrifice. It too has been deviated from; for instead of putting the stress on the remission of sins of the living and the dead it lays emphasis on the nourishment and sanctification of those present. <12> Christ certainly instituted the Sacrament of the Last Supper putting Himself in the state of Victim in order that we might be united to Him in this state but his self-immolation precedes the eating of the Victim, and has an antecedent and full redemptive value (the application of the bloody immolation). This is borne out by the fact that the faithful present are not bound to communicate, sacramentally. <13>
20. 3. Immanent end. Whatever the nature of the Sacrifice, it is absolutely necessary that it be pleasing and acceptable to God. After the Fall no sacrifice can claim to be acceptable in its own right other than the Sacrifice of Christ. The Novus Ordo changes the nature of the offering, turning it into a sort of exchange of gifts between man and God: man brings the bread, and God turns it into the "bread of life"; man brings the wine, and God turns it into a "spiritual drink".
21. "Thou art blessed Lord God of the Universe, because from thy generosity we have received the bread [or "wine"] which we offer thee, the fruit of the earth [or "vine"] and of man's labor. May it become for us the bread of life [or "spiritual drink"]." <14>
22. There is no need to comment on the utter indeterminateness of the formulae "panis vitae" [bread of life] and "potus spirtualis" [spiritual drink] which might mean anything. The same capital equivocation is repeated here, as in the definition of the Mass: there, Christ is present only spiritually among His own: here, bread and wine are only "spiritually" (not substantially) changed. <15>
23. In the preparation of the offering, a similar equivocation results from the suppression of two great prayers. The "Deus qui humanae substantiae dignitatem mirabiliter condidisti et mirabilius reformasti" was a reference to man's former condition of innocence and to his present one of being ransomed by the Blood of Christ: a recapitulation of the whole economy of the Sacrifice, from Adam to the present moment. The final propitiatory offering of the chalice, that it might ascend "cum odore suavitatis," into the presence of the divine majesty, whose clemency was implored, admirably reaffirmed this plan. By suppressing the continual reference to God in the Eucharistic prayers, there is no longer any clear distinction between divine and human sacrifice.
24. Having removed the keystone, the reformers have had to put up scaffolding; suppressing real ends, they have had to substitute fictitious ends of their own: leading to gestures intended to stress the union of priest and faithful, and of the faithful among themselves; offerings for the poor and for the church superimposed upon the Offerings of the Host to be immolated. There is a danger that the uniqueness of this offering will become blurred, so that participation in the immolation of the Victim comes to resemble a philanthropical meeting, or a charity banquet.
of the essence
25. We now pass on to the essence of the Sacrifice.
26. The mystery of the Cross is no longer explicitly expressed. It is only there obscurely, veiled, imperceptible for the people. <16>And for these reasons:
27. 1. The sense given in the Novus Ordo to the so-called "prex eucharistica" [eucharistic prayer] is: "that the whole congregation of the faithful joins Christ in proclaiming the works of God and offering the sacrifice".<17>
28. Which sacrifice is referred to? Who is the offerer? No answer is given to either of these questions. The initial definition of the "prex eucharistica" [eucharistic prayer] is as follows: "The eucharistic prayer, a prayer of thanksgiving and sanctification, is the center of the entire celebration. By an introductory dialogue the priest invites the people to lift their hearts to God in prayer and thanks...". <18>The effects thus replace the causes, of which not one single word is said. The explicit mention of the object of the offering, which was found in the "Suscipe," has not been replaced by anything. The change in formulation reveals the change in doctrine.
29. 2. The reason for this non-explicitness concerning the Sacrifice is quite simply that the Real Presence has been removed from the central position which it occupied so resplendently in the former Eucharistic liturgy. There is but a single reference to the Real Presence (a quotation--in a footnote--from the Council of Trent), and again the context is that of "nourishment". <19>
30. The Real and permanent Presence of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the transubstantiated Species is never alluded to. The very word transubstantiation is totally ignored.
31. The suppression of the invocation to the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity ("Veni Sanctificator") that He may descend upon the oblations, as once before into the womb of the Most Blessed Virgin to accomplish the miracle of the divine Presence, is yet one more instance of the systematic and tacit negation of the Real Presence.
32. Note, too, the eliminations:
32.1 of the genuflections (no more than three remain to the priest, and one, with certain exceptions, to the people, at the Consecration);
32.2 of the purification of the priest's fingers in the chalice;
32.3 of the preservation from all profane contact of the priest's fingers after the Consecration;
32.4 of the purification of the vessels, which need not be immediate, nor made on the corporal;
32.5 of the pall protecting the chalice;
32.6 of the internal gilding of sacred vessels;
32.7 of the consecration of movable altars;
32.8 of the sacred stone and relics in the movable altar or upon the "mensa"--"when celebration does not occur in sacred precincts" (this distinction leads straight to "eucharistic suppers" in private houses);
32.9 of the three altar-cloths, reduced to one only;
32.10 of thanksgiving kneeling (replaced by a thanksgiving, seated, on the part of priest and people, a logical enough complement to Communion standing);
32.11 of all the ancient prescriptions in the case of the consecrated Host falling, which are now reduced to a single, casual direction: "reverenter accipiatur" [it is to be picked up reverently]; <20>
all these things only serve to emphasize how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated.
33. 3. The function assigned to the altar. <21>The altar is almost always called the table.<22>"First the altar, the Lord's table, is prepared as the center of the eucharistic liturgy (footnote # 39)".<23>It is laid down that the altar must be detached from the walls so that it is possible to walk round it and celebration may be facing the people; <24>also that the altar must be the center of the assembly of the faithful so that their attention is drawn spontaneously toward it (ibid). But a comparison of nos. 262 and 276 would seem to suggest that the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament on this altar is excluded.<25>This will mark an irreparable dichotomy between the presence, in the celebrant, of the eternal High Priest and that same Presence brought about sacramentally. Before, they were one and the same presence. <26>
34. Now it is recommended that the Blessed Sacrament be kept in a place apart for the private devotion of the people (almost as though it were a question of devotion to a relic of some kind) so that, on going into a church, attention will no longer be focused upon the Tabernacle but upon a stripped bare table. Once again the contrast is made between private piety and liturgical piety: altar is set up against altar.
35. In the insistent recommendation to distribute in Communion the Species consecrated during the same Mass, indeed to consecrate a loaf <27>for the priest to distribute to at least some of the faithful, we find reasserted a disparaging attitude toward the Tabernacle, as toward every form of Eucharistic piety outside of the Mass. This constitutes yet another violent blow to faith in the Real Presence as long as the consecrated Species remain. <28>
36. 4. The formulae of consecration. The ancient formula of consecration was properly a sacramental not a narrative one. This was shown above all by three things:
a) The Scriptural text not taken up word for word: the Pauline insertion "mysterium fidei" was an immediate confession of the priest's faith in the mystery realized by the Church through the hierarchical priesthood.
b) The punctuation and typographical lettering: the full stop and new paragraph marking the passage from the narrative mode to the sacramental and affirmative one, the sacramental words in larger characters at the center of the page and often in a different color, clearly detached from the historical context. All combined to give the formula a proper and autonomous value.
c) The anamnesis ("Haec quotiescumque feceritis in mei memoriam facietis"), which in Greek is "eis ten emou anamnesin" (directed to my memory). This referred to Christ operating and not to the mere memory of Him, or of the event: an invitation to recall what He did ("haec...in mei memoriam facietis") in the way He did it, not only His Person, or the Supper. The Pauline formula ("Hoc facite in meam commemorationem") which will now take the place of the old--proclaimed as it will be daily in vernacular languages--will irremediably cause the hearers to concentrate on the memory of Christ as the end of the Eucharistic action, whilst it is really the beginning. The concluding idea of commemoration will certainly once again take the place of the idea of sacramental action. <29>
37. The narrative mode is now emphasized by the formula "narratio institutionis" [institution narrative] <30>and repeated by the definition of the anamnesis, in which it is said that "...the Church keeps his [Christ's] memorial...". <31>
38. In short: the theory put forward by the epiclesis, the modification of the words of Consecration and of the anamnesis, have the effect of modifying the modus significandi [manner of signifying] of the words of Consecration. The consecratory formulae are here pronounced by the priest as the constituents of an historical narrative and no longer enunciated as expressing the categorical and affirmative judgment uttered by Him in whose Person the priest acts: "Hoc est Corpus Meum" [For this is My Body] (not, "Hoc est Corpus Christi" [This is the Body of Christ])." <32>
39. Furthermore the acclamation assigned to the people immediately after the Consecration: ("we announce death, O Lord, until Thou comest") introduces yet again, under cover of eschatology, the same ambiguity concerning the Real Presence. Without interval or distinction, the expectation of Christ's Second Coming at the end of time is proclaimed just as the moment when He is substantially present on the altar, almost as though the former, and not the latter, were the true Coming.
40. This is brought out even more strongly in the formula of the third optional acclamation: "When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory", <33>where the juxtaposition of the different realities of immolation and eating, of the Real Presence and of Christ's Second Coming, reaches the height of ambiguity." <34>
Four elements of the Sacrifice
41. We now come to the realization of the Sacrifice, the four elements of which were:
1) Christ, 2) the priest, 3) the Church, 4) the faithful present.
42. In the Novus Ordo, the position attributed to the faithful is autonomous (absoluta) [absolute], hence totally false from the opening definition: "The Lord's Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord", <35>to the priest's salutation to the people which is meant to convey to the assembled community the "presence" of the Lord. <36>
43. A true presence, certainly, of Christ but only spiritual, and a mystery of the Church, but solely as assembly manifesting and soliciting such a presence.
44. This interpretation is constantly underlined: by the obsessive references to the communal character of the Mass; by the unheard of distinction between "missa cum populo" [mass with a congregation] <37>and "missa sine populo" [mass without a congregation] <38>by the definition of the prayer of the faithful <39>, where once more we find stressed the "sacerdotal office" of the people <40>presented in an equivocal way because its subordination to that of the priest is not mentioned, and all the more since the priest, as consecrated mediator, makes himself the interpreter of all the intentions of the people in the Te igitur and the two Memento.
45. In "Prex eucharistica III" [Eucharistic Prayer III] the following words are addressed to the Lord: "From age to age you gather a people to yourself, in order that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name", <41>the in order that making it appear that the people, rather than the priest, <42>are the indispensable element in the celebration; and since not even here is it made clear who the offerer is, the people themselves appear to be invested with autonomous priestly powers. From this step it would not be surprising if, before long, the people were authorized to join the priest in pronouncing the consecrating formulae (which actually seems here and there to have already occurred).
46. The priest's position is minimized, changed and falsified. Firstly in relation to the people for whom he is, for the most part, a mere president, or brother, instead of the consecrated minister celebrating in persona Christi [in the Person of Christ]. Secondly in relation to the Church, as a "quidam de populo" [someone taken from the people]. In the definition of the epiclesis, the invocations are attributed anonymously to the Church. <43>The part of the priest has vanished.
47. In the Confiteor which has now become collective, he is no longer judge, witness and intercessor with God; so it is logical that he is no longer empowered to give the absolution, which has been suppressed. He is integrated with the fratres [his brothers]. Even the server addresses him as such in the Confiteor of the "Missa sine populo" [Mass without a congregation].
48. Already, prior to this latest reform, the significant distinction between the Communion of the priest, the moment in which the Eternal High Priest and the one acting in His Person were brought together in closest union, and the Communion of the faithful had been suppressed.
49. Not a word do we now find as to the priest's power to sacrifice, or about his act of consecration, the bringing about through him of the Eucharistic Presence. He now appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister.
50. The disappearance, or optional use, of many sacred vestments (in certain cases the alb and stole are sufficient) <44>obliterates even more the original conformity with Christ: the priest is no more clothed with all His virtues, becoming merely a "graduate" whom one or two signs may distinguish from the mass of people <45>: "a little more a man than the rest," to quote the involuntarily humorous definition by a Dominican preacher. <46>Again, as with the "table" and the Altar, there is separated what God has united: the sole Priesthood of the Word of God.
51. Finally, there is the Church's position in relation to Christ. In one case, namely the "missa sine populo" [mass without a congregation] is the Mass acknowledged to be "Actio Christi et Ecclesiae" [the action of Christ and the Church], <47> whereas in the case of the "missa cum populo" [mass with a congregation] this is not referred to except for the purpose of "remembering Christ" and sanctifying those present. The words used are: "In offering the sacrifice through Christ in the Holy Ghost to God the Father, the priest associates the people with himself" <48>instead of words which would associate the people with Christ Who offers Himself "per Spiritum Sanctum Deo Patri" [through the Holy Ghost to God the Father].
52. In this context the following are to be noted:
1) the very serious omission of the phrase "Per Christum Dominum Nostrum" [through Christ Our Lord], the guarantee of being heard given to the Church in every age; <49>
2) the all-pervading "paschalism," almost as though there were no other, quite different and equally important, aspects of the communication of grace;
3) the very strange and dubious eschatologism whereby the communication of supernatural grace, a reality which is permanent and eternal, is brought down to the dimensions of time: we hear of a people on the march, a pilgrim Church--no longer militant against the Potestas tenebrarum--looking toward a future which having lost its link with eternity is conceived in purely temporal terms.
53. The Church--One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic--is diminished as such in the formula that, in the "Prex Eucharistica IV" [Eucharistic Prayer IV] has taken the place of the prayer of the Roman Canon "on behalf of all orthodox believers of the Catholic and Apostolic faith." Now they are no more nor less than: "all men to seek and find you". <50>
54. Again, in the Memento of the dead, these have no longer passed on "with the sign of faith and sleep the sleep of peace" but only "who have died in the peace of thy Christ," and to them are added, with further obvious detriment to the concept of visible unity, the host of all the dead "whose faith is known to you alone."
55. Furthermore, in none of the three new Eucharistic Prayers is there any reference, as has already been said, to the state of suffering of those who have died, in none the possibility of a particular Memento: all of this, again, must undermine faith in the propitiatory and redemptive nature of the Sacrifice. <51>
56. Desacralizing omissions everywhere debase the mystery of the Church. She is not presented above all as a sacred hierarchy: Angels and Saints are reduced to anonymity in the second part of the collective Confiteor: they have disappeared, as witnesses and judges, in the person of St. Michael, from the first. <52> The various hierarchies of angels have also disappeared (and this is without precedent) from the new Preface of "Prex II." In the Communicantes the reminder of the Pontiffs and holy martyrs on whom the Church of Rome is founded and who were, without doubt, the transmitters of the apostolic traditions, destined to be completed in what became, with St. Gregory, the Roman Mass, has been suppressed. In the Libera nos the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and all the Saints are no longer mentioned: her and their intercession is thus no longer asked, even in time of peril.
57. The unity of the Church is gravely compromised by the wholly intolerable omission from the entire Ordo, including the three new Eucharistic Prayers, of the names of the Apostles Peter and Paul, Founders of the Church of Rome, and the names of the other Apostles, foundation and mark of the one and universal Church, the only remaining mention being in the Communicantes of the Roman Canon.
58. A clear attack upon the dogma of the Communion of Saints is the omission, when the priest is celebrating without a server, of all the salutations, and the final Blessing, not to speak of the Ite Missa est <53>now not even said in Masses celebrated with a server.
59. The double Confiteor showed how the priest--in his capacity of Christ's Minister, bowing down deeply and acknowledging himself unworthy of his sublime mission, of the "tremendum mysterium" about to be accomplished by him and of even (in the Aufer a nobis) entering into the Holy of Holies--invoked the intercession (in the Oramus te, Domine) of the merits of the martyrs whose relics were sealed in the altar. Both these prayers have been suppressed; what has been said previously in respect of the double Confiteor and the double Communion is equally relevant here.
60. The outward setting of the Sacrifice, evidence of its sacred character, has been profaned. See, for example, what is laid down for celebration outside sacred precincts, in which the altar may be replaced by a simple table without consecrated stone or relics, and with a single cloth . <54>Here too all that has been previously said with regard to the Real Presence applies, the disassociation of the "convivium" and of the sacrifice of the supper from the Real Presence Itself.
61. The process of desacralization is completed thanks to the new procedures for the offering: the reference to ordinary not unleavened bread; altar-servers (and lay people at Communion sub utraque specie) being allowed to handle sacred vessels <55> ; the distracting atmosphere created by the ceaseless coming and going of priest, deacon, subdeacon, psalmist, commentator (the priest becomes a commentator himself from his constantly being required to "explain" what he is about to accomplish)--of readers (men and women), of servers or laymen welcoming people at the door and escorting them to their places whilst others carry and sort offerings. And in the midst of all this prescribed activity, the "mulier idonea" [suitable woman] (anti-scriptural and anti-Pauline) who for the first time in the tradition of the Church will be authorized to read the lessons and also perform other "ministeria quae extra presbyterium peraguntur" [perform other ministries outside the sanctuary]. <56>Finally, there is the concelebration mania, which will end by destroying Eucharistic piety in the priest, by overshadowing the central figure of Christ, sole Priest and Victim, in a collective presence of concelebrants. <57>
VI. The destruction
62. We have limited ourselves to a summary evaluation of the new Ordo where it deviates most seriously from the Theology of the Catholic Mass and our observations touch only those deviations that are typical. A complete evaluation of all the pitfalls, the dangers, the spiritually and psychologically destructive elements contained in the document--whether in text, rubrics or instructions--would be a vast undertaking.
63. No more than a passing glance has been taken at the three new Canons, since these have already come in for repeated and authoritative criticism, both as to form and substance. The second of them <58>gave immediate scandal to the faithful on account of its brevity. Of Canon II it has been well said, amongst other things, that it could be recited with perfect tranquility of conscience by a priest who no longer believes either in Transubstantiation or in the sacrificial character of the Mass--hence even by a Protestant minister.
64. The new Missal was introduced in Rome as "a text of ample pastoral matter," and "more pastoral than juridical," which the Episcopal Conferences would be able to utilize according to the varying circumstances and genius of different peoples. In this same Apostolic Constitution we read: "we have introduced into the new missal legitimate variations and adaptations." Besides, Section I of the new Congregation for Divine Worship will be responsible "for the publication and constant revision of the liturgical books." The last official bulletin of the Liturgical Institutes of Germany, Switzerland and Austria says: "The Latin texts will now have to be translated into the languages of the various peoples; the 'Roman' style will have to be adapted to the individuality of the local Churches: that which was conceived beyond time must be transposed into the changing context of concrete situations in the constant flux of the Universal Church and of its myriad congregations." <59>
65. The Apostolic Constitution itself gives the coup de grace to the to the Church's universal language (contrary to the express will of Vatican Council II) with the bland affirmation that "one (?) and the same prayer in a great diversity of languages will ascend, more fragrant than any incense, to our heavenly Father..." <60>
66. The demise of Latin may therefore be taken for granted; that of Gregorian chant, which even the Council recognized as "liturgiae romanae proprium" [specially suited to the Roman liturgy] <61>ordering that "principem locum obtineat" [it should be given pride of place in liturgical services], <62>will logically follow, with the freedom of choice, amongst other things, of the texts of Introit and Gradual.
67. From the outset therefore the new rite is launched as pluralistic and experimental, bound to time and place. Unity of worship, thus swept away for good and all, what will now become of the unity of faith that went with it, and which, we were always told, was to be defended without compromise?
68. It is evident that the Novus Ordo has no intention of presenting the Faith as taught by the Council 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 most tragic alternative.
VII. The alienation
of the Orthodox
69. The Apostolic Constitution makes explicit reference to a wealth of piety and teaching in the Novus Ordo borrowed from the Eastern Churches. The result--utterly remote from and even opposed to the inspiration of the oriental Liturgies--can only repel the faithful of the Eastern Rites. What, in truth, do these ecumenical options amount to? Basically to the multiplicity of anaphora (but nothing approaching their beauty and complexity), to the presence of the deacons, to Communion sub utraque specie. Against this the Ordo would appear to have been deliberately shorn of everything which in the Liturgy of Rome came close to those of the East. <63>; Moreover, in abandoning its unmistakable and immemorial Roman character, the Ordo lost what was spiritually precious of its own. Its place has been taken by elements which bring it closer only to certain other reformed liturgies (not even to those closest to Catholicism) and which debase it at the same time. The East will be ever more alienated, as it already has been by the preceding liturgical reforms.
70. By way of compensation the new Liturgy will be the delight of the various groups who, hovering on the verge of apostasy, are wreaking havoc in the Church of God, poisoning her organism and undermining her unity of doctrine, worship, morals and discipline in a spiritual crisis without precedent.
VIII. The abandonment
71. St. Pius V had the Roman Missal drawn up (as the present Apostolic Constitution itself recalls) so that it might be an instrument of unity among Catholics. In conformity with the injunctions of the Council of Trent it was to exclude all danger, in liturgical worship, of errors against the Faith, then threatened by the Protestant Reformation. The gravity of the situation fully justified, and even rendered prophetic, the saintly Pontiff's solemn warning given at the end of the Bull promulgating his Missal: "Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul." <64>
72. When the Novus Ordo was presented at the Vatican Press Office, it was asserted with great audacity that the reasons which prompted the Tridentine decrees are no longer valid. Not only do they still apply, but there also exist, as we do not hesitate to affirm, very much more serious ones [i.e., reasons] today. It was precisely in order to ward off the dangers which in every century threaten the purity of the deposit of faith ("depositum custodi, devitans profanas vocum novitates." <65> that the Church has had to erect under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost the defenses of her dogmatic definitions and doctrinal pronouncements. These were immediately reflected in her worship, which became the most complete monument of her faith. To try to bring the Church's worship back at all cost to the ancient practice by refashioning, artificially and with that "unhealthy archeologism" so roundly condemned by Pius XII, <66>what in earlier times had the grace of original spontaneity means--as we see today only too clearly--to dismantle all the theological ramparts erected for the protection of the Rite and to take away all the beauty by which it was enriched over the centuries. <67>
73. And all this at one of the most critical moments--if not the most critical moment--of the Church's history! Today, division and schism are officially acknowledged to exist not only outside of but within the Church. <68>; Her unity is not only threatened but already tragically compromised. <69>Errors against the Faith are not merely insinuated but positively imposed by means of liturgical abuses and aberrations which have been equally acknowledged. <70>To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries was both the sign and the pledge of unity of worship <71>(and to replace it with another which cannot but be a sign of division by virtue of the countless liberties implicitly authorized, and which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic religion) is, we feel in conscience bound to proclaim, an incalculable error.
Some of the hyperlinks given
are no longer functional.)
(Please Note: The Roman Theologians most probably used copies of original papal and conciliar documents-in Latin-as their sources. The sources given below are given as a courtesy for those who wish to examine these same Latin sources which the Roman Theologians used, but which have been translated into English.)
CT = The Council of Trent, Canons and Decrees, Edited By J. Waterworth, (Chicago, 1848), - Scanned by Hanover College students, 1995.
Taken from the Internet
CCT = The Catechism
of the Council of Trent
Taken from the Internet at:
ES-L = Henry Denzinger Enchiridion Symbolorum, 32nd edition in Latin, Herder, 1957.
GIN = "The General Instruction and the New Order of Mass", International Committee on English in the Liturgy, 1969.
GRIM = Documents on "The General Instruction of the Roman Missal".
Taken from the Internet
MD = Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.
PT = "Papal Teachings: The Liturgy", selected and arranged by the Benedictine Monks of Solesmes; translated by the Daughters of St. Paul, St. Paul Editions, 1962.
QPT = Pope Saint Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570.
V2-PO = "Documents
of Vatican II", Editor, Walter M. Abbott, S.J., Decree on the Ministry
and Life of Priests, Presbyterorum Ordinis, December 7, 1965.
Taken from the Internet at:
It will also be
V2-SC = "Documents of Vatican II", Editor, Walter M. Abbott, S.J., Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Consilium, December 4, 1963.
<1> "The prayers of our Canon are found in the treatise De Sacramentis (4th-5th centuries)...Our Mass goes back, without essential change, 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 to their God...(cf. Pl. jr., Ep. 96)...There is not in all Christendom a rite so venerable as that of the Roman Missal." (A. 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 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." (Fr. Louis Bouyer)
The first text referred to runs as follows:
"...through the ministry of the bishop, God consecrates priests, that being made sharers by special title in the priesthood of Christ, they might act as His ministers in performing sacred functions. In the liturgy they continue to carry on His priestly office by the action of His Spirit..and especially by the celebration of Mass they offer sacramentally the Sacrifice of Christ." (V2-PO, Chapter II, The Ministry of Priests, Section I, Priest's Functions, # 5.)
The second text runs thus:
"For in the liturgy God speaks to his people, and Christ is still proclaiming his Gospel. And the people reply to God both by song and prayer. Moreover the prayers addressed to God by the priest who, in the person of Christ, presides over the assembly, are said in the name of the entire holy people and of all present" (V2-SC, Chapter I General Principles for the Restoration and Promotion of the Sacred Liturgy, III. The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy, C. Norms Based on the Educative and Pastoral Nature of the Liturgy, # 33).
One is at a loss to explain how, from such texts as these, the above definition could have been drawn.
We note. too, the radical alteration, in this definition of the Mass, of that laid down by Vatican II: "Thus the Eucharistic Action, over which the priest presides, is the very heart of the congregation" (V2-PO, Chapter II The Ministry of Priests, Section 1 Priests' Functions, # 5). The centrum [center] having been spirited away, in the Novus Ordo the congregatio [congregation] itself has usurped its place.
1. Chapter II, Structure, Elements and Parts of the Mass, I General Structure of the Mass, # 8.
2. Chapter II, Structure, Elements and Parts of the Mass, III Individual Parts of the Mass, C) Liturgy of the Eucharist, # 48.
3. Chapter II, Structure, Elements and Parts of the Mass, III Individual Parts of the Mass, C) Liturgy of the Eucharist, Eucharistic Prayer, # 55d.
4. Chapter II, Structure, Elements and Parts of the Mass, III Individual Parts of the Mass, C) Liturgy of the Eucharist, Communion Rite, # 56.
"Principio docet Sancta Synodus et aperte et simpliciter profitetur in almo Sanctae Eucharistiae sacramento post panis et vini, consacrationem Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum verum Deum atque hominem vere, realiter ac substantialiter (can. I) sub specie illarum rerum sensibilium contineri" (ES-L, # 874).
"In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august 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 [canon 1] contained under the species of those sensible things." CT, Session XIII, October 11, 1551, Decree on the Most Holy Eucharist, Chapter 1, The Real Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.]In session XXII, which interests us directly (De sanctissimo Missae Sacrificio), the approved doctrine [of the entire Session] is clearly synthesized in nine canons.
1. The Mass is a true and visible Sacrifice, not a symbolic representation: "quo cruentum illud semel in cruce peragendum repraesentaretur atque illius salutaris virtus in remissionem eorum, quae a nobis quotidie committuntur peccatorum applicaretur" (ES-L, # 938).
"...whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be represented, and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit..." CT, Session XXII, September 17, 1562, The Doctrine on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Chapter 1, The Institution of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.]2. Jesus Christ Our Lord "sacerdotem secundum ordinem Melchisedech ac in aeternum (Psalm 109:4) constitutum declarans, corpus et sanguinem suum sub specibus panis et vini Dec Patri obtulit ac sub earundem rerum symbolis Apostolis (quos tunc Novi Testamenti sacerdotes constituebat). ut sumerent. tradidit, et eisdem eorumque in sacerdotio successoribus, ut offerent, praecepit per haec verba: 'Hoc facite in meam commemorationem' (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24) ut semper catholica Ecciesia intellexit et docuit" (ES-L, # 938).
"...declaring Himself constituted a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech (Genesis 14:18; Psalm 109:4; Hebrews 7:11), He offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine; and, under the symbols of those same things, He delivered (His own body and blood) to be received by His apostles, whom He then constituted priests of the New Testament; and by those words, Do this in commemoration of Me (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24) He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood, to offer (them); even as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught...." CT, Session XXII, September 17, 1562, The Doctrine on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Chapter 1, The Institution of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.]The celebrant, the offerer, the sacrificer is the priest. consecrated for this, not the people of God. the assembly. "Si quis dixerit. illis verbis: 'Hoc facite' etc. Christum non istituisse Apostolos sacredotes, aut non ordinasse. ut ipsi aliique sacredotes offerent corpus et sanguinem suum: anathema sit" (ES-L, # 949).
"CANON II. If any one saith, that by those words, 'Do this for the commemoration of me' (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema." CT, Session XXII, September 17, 1562, The Doctrine on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canons on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 2.]3. The Sacrifice of the Mass is a true propitiatory Sacrifice and NOT a "bare commemoration of the sacrifice accomplished on the Cross". "Si quis dixerit: Missae sacrificium tantum esse laudis et gratiarum actiones aut nudam commemorationem sacrificii in cruce peracti, non autem propitiatorium; vel soli prodesse sumenti, neque pro vivis et defunctis, pro peccatis, poenis, satisfactionibus et aliis necessitatibus offeri debere, anathema sit" (ES-L, # 949).
"CANON III. If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema." CT, Session XXII, September 17, 1562, The Doctrine on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canons on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 3.]Canon 6 will also be recalled: "Si quis dixerit Canon Missae errores continere ideoque abrongandum esse, anathema sit" (ES-L, # 953): and Canon 8: "Si quis dixerit Missae. in quibus solus sacerdos sacramentaliter communicat, illicitas esse, ideoque abrogandas, anathema sit" (ES-L, # 955).
"CANON VI. If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema." CT, Session XXII, September 17, 1562, The Doctrine on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canons on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 6.][Editorís Note/Commentary/Analysis/Translation/etc.:
"CANON VIII. If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema." CT, Session XXII, September 17, 1562, The Doctrine on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canons on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 8.][Editorís Note/Commentary/Analysis/Translation/etc.: It is well worth while recalling Canon 9 as well:
"CANON IX. If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema." CT, Session XXII, September 17, 1562, The Doctrine on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canons on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 9.]<8> It is superfluous to assert that if a single defined dogma were denied, all dogma would ipso facto fall, insofar as the very principle of the infallibility of the supreme hierarchical Magisterium, whether papal or conciliar, would thereby be destroyed.
<10> The Ascension should be added if one wished to recall the "Unde et memores" which furthermore does not associate but clearly and finely distinguishes: "...tam beatae Passioni, nec non ab inferis Resurrectionis, sed et in caelum gloriosae Ascensionis."
"calling to mind...the blessed passion, not only His rising from the dead, but also His glorious Ascension into Heaven."]<11> Hebrews 10:5 (cf. Psalm 39:7).
<13> This shift of emphasis is met with also in the surprising elimination, in the new Canons, of the Memento of the dead and of any mention of the sufferings of the souls in Purgatory, to whom the propitiatory Sacrifice was applied.
<14> Cf. Mysterium Fidei in which Paul VI condemns the errors of symbolism together with the new theories of "transignification" and "transfinalization": "To confirm what we have said by examples, it is not allowable to emphasize what is called the "communal" Mass to the disparagement of Masses celebrated in private, or to exaggerate the element of sacramental sign as if the symbolism, which all certainly admit in the Eucharist, expresses fully and exhausts completely the mode of Christ's presence in this sacrament. Nor is it allowable to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning what the Council of Trent stated about the marvelous conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ, speaking rather only of what is called "transignification" and transfiguration," or finally to propose and act upon the opinion according to which, in the Consecrated Hosts which remain after the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ Our Lord is no longer present" (Paul VI, Encyclical "Mysterium Fidei", On the doctrine and worship of the Eucharist, September 3, 1965, # 10).
<15> The introduction of new formulae, or expressions, which, though occurring in texts of the Fathers and Councils, and of the Church's magisterium, are used in a univocal sense not subordinated to the substance of doctrine with which they form an inseparable whole (e.g., "spiritualis alimonia" [spiritual nourishment]; "cibus spiritualis" [spiritual food]; "potus spiritualis", [spiritual drink]; etc.) is amply denounced and condemned in Mysterium Fidei. Paul VI states that:
"'The philosophers', he says, 'speak freely without fear of offending religious listeners on subjects quite difficult to understand. We, on the other hand, must speak according to a fixed norm, lest the lack of restraint in our speech result in some impious opinion even about the things signified by the words themselves.' [De Civit. Dei X, 23 - The City of God, 10, 23; P.L. 41,300.]"
"The Church, therefore, with the long labor of centuries, and, not without the help of the Holy Spirit, has established a rule of language and confirmed it with the authority of the councils. This rule, which has more than once been the watchword and banner of Orthodox faith, must be religiously preserved, and let no one presume to change it at his own pleasure or under the pretext of new science. Who would ever tolerate that the dogmatic formulas used by ecumenical councils for the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation be judged as no longer appropriate for men of our times and therefore that others be rashly substituted for them? In the same way it cannot be tolerated that any individual should on his own authority modify the formulas which were used by the Council of Trent to express belief in the Eucharistic Mystery. For these formulas, like the others which the Church uses to propose the dogmas of faith, express concepts which are not tied to a certain form of human culture, nor to a specific phase of human culture, nor to one or other theological school" (Paul VI, Encyclical "Mysterium Fidei", On the doctrine and worship of the Eucharist, September 3, 1965, # 23-25).
<22> The altar's primary function is recognized once: "The altar, where the sacrifice of Christ is made present under sacramental signs...'' [GIN, # 259]. This single reference does not seem to remove to any extent the equivocations of the other repeated designation.
[Editorís Note/Commentary/Analysis/Translation/etc.: By "the other repeated designation" is meant "the table of the Lord".
This would have been made more clear if the Roman Theologians had given the FULL text which reads:
"The altar, where the sacrifice of Christ is made present under sacramental signs, is also the table of the Lord." Therefore, the Roman Theologians themselves are guilty of deliberate ambiguity at least and equivocation at worst. One is left to wonder: Why did the Roman Theologians do this? One possible explanation is that the translated text has been corrupted and the original is somewhat different. But if the original text of the Ottaviani Intervention as published by the Roman Theologians omits the final clause-which We have added because it is found in GIN, # 259-then such an act was either: a) accidental; b) deliberate. If deliberate, then this is a grave fault on the part of the Roman Theologians which no excuses can mitigate. Unfortunately, this is not their only error, some of which We point out in other "notes"!]<23> GIN, # 49. "'Inter Oecumenici', no. 91; Instruction 'Eucharisticum mysterius', no 24" (GIN, # 39). Cf. GIN, # 262.
<26> "To separate tabernacle from altar is to separate two things which by their origin and their nature should remain united" (PT # 817, Pope Pius XII, "Allocution to the International Congress on Pastoral Liturgy", September 22, 1956).
[Editorís Note/Commentary/Analysis/Translation/etc.: Further data germane to the subject of altar/table is found here:
"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 straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the 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; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See."] ["This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council 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 'deposit of faith' committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn. For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls' salvation" (MD, # 62, 64).]<27> Rarely in the Novus Ordo is the word "hostia" used, a traditional one in liturgical books with its precise significance of "Victim." This. needless to say, is part of the reformers' plan to emphasize only the aspects "supper," "food."
<28> In accordance with the customary habit of the reformers of substituting and exchanging one thing for another, the Real Presence is made equivalent to the Presence in the word (GIN, # 7; GIN, # 54). But this latter presence is really of quite another nature, having no reality except in usu [literally-in use; i.e., when it is taking place ]; whilst the former is in a stable manner, objective and independent of the communication that is made of it in the Sacrament. The formulae "God speaks to his people... Christ is present by his word in the midst of the faithful" (GIN, # 33), are typically Protestant ones, which strictly speaking, have no meaning, as the presence of God in the word is mediated, bound to an act of the spirit, to the spiritual condition of the individual and limited in time. This error has the most serious consequences; the affirmation (or insinuation) that the Real Presence is bound to the usus, and ends together with it.
"...in the liturgy God speaks to his people" (V2-SC, # 33).][Editorís Note/Commentary/Analysis/Translation/etc.:
"Christ...is present in his word" (V2-SC, # 7).]<29> The sacramental action of the institution is emphasized as having come about in Our Lord's giving the Apostles His Body and Blood "to eat" under the species of bread and wine, not in the act of consecration and in the mystical separation therein accomplished of the Body from the Blood, essence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. (Cf. MD # 66.)
"The mystery of the most Holy Eucharist which Christ, the High Priest instituted, and which He commands to be continually renewed in the Church by His ministers, is the culmination and center, as it were, of the Christian religion. We consider it opportune in speaking about the crowning act of the sacred liturgy, to delay for a little while and call your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this most important subject" (MD # 66).]<30> GIN # 55d.
<32> The words of Consecration as inserted in the context of the Novus Ordo can be valid by virtue of the minister's intention. They could also not be valid because they are no longer so ex vi verborum [from the force of the sacramental words themselves], or, more precisely. by virtue of the modus significandi [manner of signifying, i.e., from the meaning] they had in the Mass up to the present time.
[Editorís Note/Commentary/Analysis/Translation/etc.: The Novus Ordo Rite of Mass is per se INVALID in any language, including Latin, because this liturgical rite does NOT contain the ontological essence and the metaphysical essence of the Mass as Jesus Christ, the Eternal High Priest, instituted it. The "Roman Theologians" who wrote this "Critical Study" apparently either forgot about the requirements of the ontological essence and the metaphysical essence of the Mass or were ignorant of them! Irregardless, in plain English this simply means that it is IMPOSSIBLE for ANYONE, irregardless whether or not they have the required proper Valid Intention, to effect ANY Transubstantiation, whether of the bread or of the wine or of both!]
Will priests of the near future who have not received the traditional formation, and who rely on the Novus Ordo with the intention of "doing what the Church does," consecrate validly? One may be allowed to doubt it.
[Editorís Note/Commentary/Analysis/Translation/etc.: The ontological essence and the metaphysical essence of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass requires much more than merely the proper Valid Intention to effect ANY Transubstantiation, whether of the bread or of the wine or of both! Put another way, even IF a valid Celebrant of Mass did in fact have a valid intention, there is no way his valid intention could effect any transubstantiation in any of the following liturgical rites of "mass" or supper/meal service or gospel service or pseudo- Christian service: Anglican; Lutheran; Baptist; Presbyterian; Congregational; Methodist; United Brethren; Disciples of Christ; Mormon; Salvation Army; Christian Science; Four- Square Gospel; etc. Why? Because not one of these Protestant services, a.k.a. liturgical rites, has a valid rite of Mass. It would be a strange sight to see someone trying to transubstantiate, WITH a valid intention, in a Four-Square Gospel service! The same is true also, then, of the Novus Ordo Rite because it, too, is a PROTESTANT supper or meal service, made up by six Protestants and those heretical apostate Catholics who were the members of the Concilium which merely updated the PROTESTANT "mass" rites of the Anglicans, Lutherans, etc. in that Satanic synthesis Paul VI calls the Novus Ordo Missae!]
<34> Let it not be said, according to the well-known Protestant critical procedure, that these phrases belong to the same scriptural context. The Church has always avoided their juxtaposition and superimposition precisely in order to avoid any confusion of the different realities here expressed.
<36> "After the entrance song, the priest and the congregation make the sign of the cross. Then the priest expresses the presence of the Lord in the assembled community by means of a greeting. This greeting and the people's response manifest the mystery of the Church's unity" (GIN, # 28).
<40> "In the general intercessions or prayer of the faithful, the people exercise their priestly function by interceding for all mankind. It is appropriate that this prayer be included in all Masses celebrated with a congregation, so that intercession may be made for the Church, for civil authorities, for those oppressed by various needs, for all mankind, and for the salvation of the world " (GIN # 45) .
<42> As against the Lutherans who affirmed that all Christians are priests and hence offerers of the Supper, see A. Tanquerey: "Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae," [Synopsis of dogmatic theology], vol. III, Desclee, Paris, Tournai, Rome, 1930: "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 the strict sense."
"CANON II. If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema" (CT, Session 22, September 17, 1562, Canon 2).][Editorís Note/Commentary/Analysis/Translation/etc.: Christ functions at every Mass as the Eternal High Priest, hence as the Principal Offerer, the agent of Whom is the secondary offerer, the Mass Celebrant, and also as the Infinite Victim. However, this is true of only VALID Rites of Mass. It does NOT apply in any way to INVALID Rites of Mass, e.g., the Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, and all other Protestant rites/services, including the Novus Ordo Missae! This is a very important distinction!]
<45> We note in passing an incredible innovation which is sure to have the most serious psychological effects: the Good Friday liturgy in red vestments instead of black (GIN # 308b), the commemoration, that is, of any martyr instead of the mourning of the whole Church for her Founder.
"...one would be straying from the straight path were he to... want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments..." (MD, # 62).]<46> Fr. A. M. Rouget, O.P., speaking to the Dominican Sisters of Bethany at Plessit-Chenet.
"...hence the daily celebration of Mass is strongly urged, since even if there cannot be present a number of the faithful, it is still an act of Christ and of the Church" (V2-PO, # 13).
"Within the community of believers, the presbyter is another who possesses the power of orders to offer sacrifice in the person of Christ. He therefore presides over the assembly and leads its prayer, proclaims the message of salvation, joins the people to himself in offering the sacrifice to the Father through Christ in the Spirit, gives them the bread of eternal life, and shares in it with them" (GRIM, "General Instruction of the Roman Missal", 4th edition, issued by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship on March 27, 1975. # 60).
<51> In some translations of the Roman Canon, the "locus refrigerii, lucis et pacis" [a place of refreshment, light and peace] was rendered as a simple state ("blessedness, light, peace"). What is to be said, then, of the disappearance of every explicit reference to the Church suffering?
<52> In all this welter of curtailment a single enrichment only: the mention of omission in the accusation of sins at the Confiteor: "in what I have failed to do" (GIN, The Order of Mass with a Congregation, # 3a).
<53> At the press conference introducing the [Novus] Ordo, Fr. Joseph Lecuyer, CSSp, in what appears to be, objectively speaking, a profession of purely rationalistic faith, spoke of converting the salutationes [salutations] in the "Missa sine populo" [Mass without a congregation] from the plural to the singular. "Dominus tecum," ["The Lord be with you" - only one person, to replace "Dominus vobiscum", "The Lord be with you" - more than one person]; "Ora, frater" ["Pray, brother", to replace "Orate, fratres", "Pray, brethren."], etc. His reason was "so that there would be nothing [in the Mass] which does not correspond with the truth."
Ite Missa est
[Editorís Note/Commentary/Analysis/Translation/etc.: Liturgically, Saint Michael the Archangel is the ďAngelĒ to whom the Angelic Doctor refers in his explanation of the Ite, Missa Est before the Prayer before the Last Blessing in the Holy Mass where he writes in part:
ďThe Deacon on festival days dismisses the people at the end of the Mass, by saying: Ite, [Go,] Missa est, that is, the Victim [of the Mass, i.e. Christ] has been sent [Missa est] to God through [by] the Angel, so that it may be accepted by GodĒ (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P. [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. Wednesday, March 7, 1274 A.D., in Fossa Nuova, Italy], Doctor of the Church, Summa Theologica, Part III, Question 83, Article 4, Reply to Objection 9).In other words, the correct theological translation of Ite, Missa est in English is: ďGo [Ite], the Victim [i.e. Jesus Christ] has been sent [Missa est] to God through the hands of His Holy Angel [i.e. Saint Michael the Archangel] so that the Infinite, Perfect Victim [i.e. Jesus Christ] may be accepted by God on the Great Holy Altar in Heaven.Ē(Apocalypse 9:13).]
<57> We note in this connection that it seems lawful for priests obliged to celebrate alone either before or after concelebration to communicate again sub utraque specie [under both species] during concelebration.
<61> ["The Church recognizes Gregorian chant as being specially suited to the Roman liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services. Other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action as laid down in Article 30."] V2-SC, # 116.
1) its reiterated and lengthy penitential prayers;
2) the solemn rites of vesting of the celebrant and deacon;
3) the preparation of the offerings at the proscomidia, a complete rite in itself;
4) the continual presence in the prayers, even those of the offerings, of the Blessed Virgin, the Saints and Choirs of Angels (who are actually invoked, at the entrance with Gospel, as "invisibly concelebrating";
5) the choir identifying itself with them in the Cherubicon);
6) the iconostasis [sanctuary screen] which divides the sanctuary from the rest of the church, the clergy from the people;
7) the hidden Consecration, symbolizing the divine mystery to which the entire liturgy alludes;
8) the celebrant's position versus ad Deum never versus ad populum;
9) Communion given always and only by the celebrant;
10) the continual marks of profound adoration shown to the Sacred Species;
11) 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 "tremendous and unutterable...celestial, life-giving mysteries..." need no elaborating.
It is finally worth noting how, in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, and in that of St. Basil, the concept of "supper" or "banquet" appears clearly subordinate to that of sacrifice, as it did in the Roman Mass.
<64> "Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree and prohibition. Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul." (QPT, # 9)
In Session XIII, (Decree on the Most Holy Eucharist), the Council of Trent manifested its intention: "Ut stirpitus convelleret zizania execrabilium errorum et schismatum, quae inimicus homo...in doctrina fidei usu et cultu Sacrosanctae Eucharistiae superseminavit--Mt. 13:25 et seq.--quam alioqui Salvator noster in Ecclesia sua tamquam symbolum reliquit eius unitatis et caritatis, qua Christianos omnes inter se coniunctos et copulatos, esse voluit." (ES-L, # 873a).
"That It might pluck up by the roots those tares of execrable errors and schisms, with which the enemy hath, in these our calamitous times, oversown [Matthew 13:25, ff.] the doctrine of the faith, in the use and worship of the sacred and holy Eucharist, which our Saviour, notwithstanding, left in His Church as a symbol of that unity and charity, with which He would fain have all Christians be mentally joined and united together" (CT, Session 13, October 11, 1551, Decree on the Most Holy Eucharist).<65> "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20).
<66> "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 significance of feast-days, and of the meaning 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 straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the 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 Council 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 "deposit of faith" committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn" (MD, # 62; # 64).
<67> "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," August 6, 1964).
<70> 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.
Here is one example of how Vatican II is now being repudiated by the very men who once gloried in being its leaders, or at least by one of its very own peritus:
"It is clear that the Church is facing a grave crisis. Under the name of ďthe new Church,Ē ďthe post-conciliar Church,Ē a different Church from that of Jesus Christ is now trying to establish itself; an anthropocentric society threatened with immanentist apostasy which is allowing itself to be swept along in a movement of general abdication under the pretext of renewal, ecumenicism [sic], or adaptation." (Henri Cardinal de Lubac, S.J., speaking at the Institute on Renewal in the Church, University of Toronto, August, 1967.)Because of this fact, it seems most appropriate, and to some extent, estremely important in order to better understand how mentally degranged / disordered some of the NEW Theology Theologians really are, to briefly examine a few more details concerning Cardinal de Lubac, S.J.
Cardinal Henri-Marie De Lubac, S.J.
[b. at Cambrai, Northern France, on February 20, 1896 - d. on September 4, 1991]
Like most, perhaps all?, of Nouvelle Théologie - the NEW Theology - a.k.a. neo-Modernist theologians, who had some, or all, of their teachings and/or writings condemned as heresy, whether in the 1920's, and/or 1930's, and/or 1940's, and/or 1950's, De Lubac was no exception because in 1950, he was forbidden by his Jesuit Superiors to teach or to publish after doctrinal objections were raised against his book Surnaturel.
After the Modernist Heretics and Nouvelle Théologie - the NEW Theology - a.k.a. neo-Modernist theologians took over the Vatican, as well as various Religious Orders, e.g. the Dominicans, Jesuits, etc., as was to be expected, this ban was lifted in 1959.
So it was no surprise that De Lubac played a major role in the arguments, deliberations, and documents of Synod Vatican 2.
His involvement with Synod Vatican 2 began in August, 1960, when Pope Roncalli (2nd John 23rd) appointed De Lubac as a consultant to the Preparatory Theological Commission for the upcoming Synod.
Likewise, it was no surprise when he was also made a peritus, a theological expert who advised the Bishops at Synod Vatican 2.
After the death of Pope Roncalli (2nd John 23rd), Pope Montini (Paul 6), made De Lubac not only a member of Synod Vatican 2's Theological Commission, but also of two Synod Vatican 2 secretariats.
Because of his behind-the-scenes involvement and influence, De Lubac left no precise audit trail, so to speak, of exactly some of what he did at Synod Vatican 2. Nevertheless, in the public arena, what is clear is that his heretical writings were certainly an influence during and after Synod Vatican 2.
For example, this is found in his Ecclesiology in which he considered the Church to be the community of the whole people of God and which said Ecclesiology also contains a concomitant antithesis regarding the Clergy (D. Grumett, De Lubac: A Guide for the Perplexed, London, T & T Clark, 2007, pp. 51-52).
De Lubac reminds one of what happens when the blind lead the blind!!!
It should be noted that community of the whole people of God is a Nouvelle Théologie - the NEW Theology - a.k.a. neo-Modernist term, which not only ignores the Church as being the Mystical Body of Christ, but, also, again according to Nouvelle Théologie - the NEW Theology - a.k.a. neo-Modernism, in effect it makes the Laity members of the Clergy!
Ironically, despite his active role, especially in private, at Synod Vatican 2, it was after Synod Vatican 2 [Thursday, October 11, 1962 - Wednesday, December 8, 1965] that De Lubac became disappointed by what he perceived as the ensuing ambiguity.
WHY was he surprised?
De Lubac helped to firmly establish
this confusion, this chaos, this disorder during Synod Vatican 2!
Does one not reap what they sow???
De Lubac wrote various works attempting to explain the true teachings of Synod Vatican 2. He also condemned the confusion, chaos, and disorder that now pervades the theological minds of the Nouvelle Théologie - the NEW Theology - a.k.a. neo-Modernist theologians.
De Lubac failed to recognize the logical cause and effect relationship of the wholesale, continual, and deliberate use of vague, equivocal, ambiguous, confused, psycho-babble terminology, which is one of the primary tools used extensively by the Nouvelle Théologie - the NEW Theology - a.k.a. neo-Modernist theologians, which had led to this cacophony of ignorance, error, heresy, and wholesale apostasy due to the absence of the clear, precise, exact, definite, certain, accurate terminology which is found in what De Lubac, and all of the other Nouvelle Théologie -the NEW Theology - a.k.a. neo-Modernist theologians hate, despise, and eschew - namely Scholastic Philosophy and Thomistic Theology - which possess nothing less than laser-sharp definitions and terminology - the antithiesis of, and an anti-dote against, the blatant heresies of the NEW Theology Theologians.
In other words, De Lubac saw the effects of, but either did not recognize, or was in denial concerning, the cause of, the rampant Heresy of Modernism which found expression in its repackaged Nouvelle Théologie - the NEW Theology - a.k.a. neo-Modernism at Synod Vatican 2 and its infamous aftermath!
De Lubac stubbornly preferred the heresies of Nouvelle Théologie - the NEW Theology - a.k.a. neo-Modernism - to the Truth.
For example, when Father Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. exposed De Lubac's errors in Where is the New Theology Leading Us? in 1946 in which this great Thomist of the 20th Century pointed out that the NEW Theology is just a re-hash of the Heresy of Modernism, De Lubac's insidious response consisted of insults and mockery, accusing Father Garrigou-Lagrange of having simplistic views on the absoluteness of truth.
Another example is found in 1950 when the Roman Catholic Pope Pius XII condemned De Lubac's theology in his Encyclical Humani Generis, On Human Origin, Concerning Some False Opinions Threatening to Undermine The Foundations of Catholic Doctrine, on Wednesday, April 12, 1950, especially in paragraphs 29, 30, 32, and 34 of the Encyclical.
De Lubac's rejoinder was that this was highly one-sided ... it doesn't concern me - talk about an acute case of being in denial and also of affected ignorance!
For the record:
"Affected ignorance does not excuse from guilt, but rather aggravates it since it shows that a man is so strongly attached to sin that he wishes to incur ignorance lest he avoid sinning. The Jews therefore sinned, as crucifiers not only of the Man-Christ, but also as of God" (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. Wednesday, March 7, 1274 A.D. in Fossa Nuova, Italy], Doctor of the Church, Summa Theologica, Part III, Question 47, Article 5, Reply to Objection 3).Some Readers may object by pointing out that De Lubac was a great expert on the Fathers of the Catholic Church.
On the contrary, Father David Greenstock, writing in The Thomist , warned that the only reason that the leaders of Nouvelle Théologie - the NEW Theology - a.k.a. neo-Modernism overwhelm their readers with some of the Greek Fathers of the Church is in order to circumvent the Angelic Doctor, Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P.
Nouvelle Théologie - the NEW Theology - a.k.a. neo-Modernist theologians actually disdain Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., no matter how much they may ostentatiously pledge their devotion to the Angelic Doctor, because they know that Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., the Great Scholastic, confutes and exposes their errors which are anti-Scholastic!
If De Lubac's Nouvelle Théologie - the NEW Theology - a.k.a. neo-Modernism is taken to its logical conclusion, such Modernism would mean that either Jesus Christ is not God, or that man is Divine (Cardinal Siri, Gethsemane, 1981).
This is simply another way of saying Nouvelle Théologie -the NEW Theology - a.k.a. neo-Modernism ultimately leads to pantheism (the heresy that God can be identified with the universe, or that the universe is a manifestation of God)!
Both Modernist Heretic and Nouvelle Théologie - the NEW Theology - a.k.a. neo-Modernist Popes, Pope Montini (Paul 6, a.k.a. P-6, a.k.a. Paul VI, Giovanni Battista Montini [Friday, June 21, 1963 - Sunday, August 6, 1978]), and Pope Wyotya (John-Paul 2, a.k.a. JP-2, Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 - Friday, April 1, 2005]), admired De Lubac's heresies so much that Pope Montini wanted to make De Lubac a Cardinal in 1969, but De Lubac refused because he did not want to be made a Bishop - something Pope Roncalli required of all Cardinals in 1962.
De Lubac told P-6 that to make him a Cardinal would be an abuse of an apostolic office. Instead, P-6 made De Lubac's younger colleague, Jean Daniélou, a Cardinal in that consistory insofar as P-6 had pledged to grant the Cardinalate to a Jesuit theologian.
In 1983, JP-2 also offered De Lubac the Cardinalate, but with it came a dispensation from Episcopal Consecration. Thus De Lubac accepted and became the first Cardinal after 1962 who was not also a Bishop, in the Consistory of February 2, 1983, being created Cardinal Deacon of Santa Maria in Domnica.
At the end of his life, De Lubac began to wonder about the fact that just maybe mhe had strayed into error!
For example, he wrote in part:
"This period is as full of error as any.... maybe I should have concentrated more on essentials [like the essentials of real, Infallible Roman Catholic Dogma?] ... for the last seven or eight years I have been paralyzed by the fear of confronting head on, in concrete fashion, the essential problems in their scolding reality. Out of wisdom or weakness? Was I right or wrong?"Of course by that time the seeds of his heresies in Nouvelle Théologie - the NEW Theology - a.k.a. neo-Modernism, the neo-Modernist heresies, had already over-run the fields of the Roman Catholic Faith, Mass, and Sacraments, choking them with his weeds of the heresies of Modernism and Nouvelle Théologie - the NEW Theology - a.k.a. neo-Modernism.
In addition, if, as De Lubac claims, he was paralyzed by the fear of confronting head on, in concrete fashion, the essential problems in their scolding reality, one can only imagine how, when De Lubac died, he was REALLY paralyzed by the fear of giving an account of his stewardship to the Just Judge, Jesus Christ, Who sits upon His great white throne (Apocalypse 20:11) of blinding white light,mthe white light of which is brighter than a million suns combined!!! Since this is only His Throne, you can only imagine how much brighter than this Christ is by comparison! We speak of this from personal experience!
"...Do not let us 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 back to its original and smallest proportions,
as though they were the only true ones, the only good ones..." (Paul VI,
ďANATHEMA then appears as the more solemn form of pronouncing or declaring excommunicationĒ (Rev. P. Chas. Augustine, O.S.B., D.D., A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Volume 8, Canons 2255 & 2256, p. 170.)
ANATHEMA: A thing or person struck by Godís malediction and intended for ruin. Cf. I Cor. 12:13; Rom. 9:3; Gal. l:8-9. Anathema, in actual Church discipline, is the term used for IPSO FACTO excommunication incurred by those denying a solemnly defined Truth, as is concluded principally from the dogmatic canons of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent and the Vatican Council, (i.e. the Roman Catholic Council Vatican I). (Parente, Piolanti, Garofalo, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, ďAnathemaĒ.)
It is of the greatest importance that in order to gain assured knowledge of things, to rely on exact acquaintance with facts, rather than on the uncertain testimony of public rumor; and then what we have proved for certain we may proclaim without hesitation.
(Saint Bernard of Clairvaux [b. Castle Fontaines, near Dijon, France in 1090 A.D. - d. at Clairvaux, France on Friday, August 21, 1153 A.D.], Abbot of Clairvaux, Doctor of the Church, Letters).
wherein the Priest alone
and are, therefore,
to be abrogated [abolished];
let him be anathema.
(Roman Catholic Council of Trent,