Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.
To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.
I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.
Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili,especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .
Here are just a few other Novus Ordo Messes documented:
A Typical Modern Mass:
In a typical modern parish on a Sunday, the entire service is conducted in English. The priest sits or stands facing the people throughout, and often makes spontaneous remarks to them during the course of the service. Lay people in the sanctuary add comments or proclaim the Scripture readings. Part of the service takes place at a table. The tabernacle is never on the table, but at the priest’s back, or off in a corner. The Sign of Peace is an occasion for handshaking, emotionalism, or socializing. The priest gives Communion in the hand to most people, and he is assisted by lay men and women. The priest makes few genuflections, if any. It is rare that two celebrations of the new Mass are exactly alike. They vary from priest to priest and from parish to parish. In many places some bizarre things have been incorporated into the Mass: there are “Clown Masses,” “Puppet Masses,” Balloon Masses,” and masses featuring movies, slide shows, skits, and popular music.
The Traditional Mass:
Contrast this with the traditional Latin Mass. It is celebrated in the ancient and venerable language of the Catholic Church. The priest faces Our Lord in the tabernacle throughout. He makes no spontaneous comments on his own, but recites exactly the same prayers that priests have used for centuries. The priest alone touches the Sacred Host with his hands. The people kneel for Holy Communion before their Lord and Savior, and receive Him on the tongue alone. There is no handshaking and socializing before the Blessed Sacrament. The people follow the Mass silently and reverently with Missals (Mass-books) which translate the words of the priest. The gestures of the priest are reverent and restrained, and include numerous genuflections out of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. The texts and rites of the traditional Latin Mass are the same everywhere and do not vary from priest to priest or church to church. Everything is governed by uniform and very specific rules.
Liturgy Expresses Doctrine:
Even the casual observer would conclude that the modern Mass and traditional Mass seem to send out radically different “signals” about what the Mass is, what it does, and what those present believe. The new rite leaves the impression that the Mass is a common meal or instructional service; the old rite, that it is an action primarily directed at adoring an all-holy God. This brings us to a principle which is a key to understanding why some Catholics adhere to the traditional Mass: liturgy of its nature expresses doctrine. Pope Pius XII spoke of this in his Encyclical on the liturgy:
The worship she [the Church] offers to God, all good and great, is a continuous profession of the Catholic faith…In the sacred Liturgy, we profess the Catholic faith explicitly and openly.
Liturgy not only expresses common doctrine; it also influences what people believe. Prayers and ritual gestures expressing adoration of Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist, for instance, reinforce and reaffirm our common faith in that doctrine. If you remove from public worship prayers and gestures that allude to a particular truth such as this, you can be fairly sure that in time worshippers will cease to believe in it.
The Traditional Mass & Doctrine:
Because liturgy both expresses doctrine and influences what people believe, the Church down through the centuries has closely guarded the text of the Missal, in order to insure that it accurately reflected her beliefs and excluded anything that compromised them. The Catholic Church has always first and foremost spoken of the Mass as a “sacrifice.” It is infallible teaching that Christ left a visible Sacrifice to His Church “in which that bloody sacrifice which was once offered on the Cross should be made present” (Council of Trent) The doctrine that the Mass is primarily a sacrifice offered to God is wonderfully and precisely expressed in the traditional Latin Mass. So too are Catholic teachings on countless other points, such as the Real Presence, the nature of the priesthood, purgatory, the identity of Christ’s true Church, and the intercession of the saints.
Making Catholics Protestants:
The Protestants also understood how well the Mass clearly expressed the Church’s doctrine. When they wanted to spread their new and false teachings, they changed the liturgy. In the 16th century, Luther made Catholics into Protestants by getting Catholics to worship like Protestants. From Luther’s biography:
“Next came the reform of the Liturgy, which touched the common man more intimately because it altered his daily devotions. He was being invited to drink the wine [sic] at the Sacrament, to take the elements into his own hands, to commune without previous confession, to hear the words of institution [consecration] in his own tongue, and to participate extensively in sacred song.”
Luther laid the theoretical groundwork for the most significant changes. His principle was that the Mass is not a sacrifice…(Roland Bainton, Here I Stand, Mentor ed., p.156)
Liturgical changes thus became a means for undermining the Catholic faith and spreading a doctrinal revolution. On the face of it, the liturgical practices Luther introduced in the 16th century in order to destroy the belief that the Mass is a sacrifice resemble to a remarkable degree the changes made in the Mass since the early 1960’s/ What is the explanation of this? And since worship and belief go hand in hand, what principles or beliefs were behind the 1960’s changes in worship? To answer these questions we have to speak about the Second Vatican Council.
Vatican II & Its Reforms:
The Second Vatican Council (October 11, 1962 to December 8, 1965) was called by John XXIII. He said he wanted to “open the windows” of the Church to the modern world. He said he hoped to “update” the Church, make it more relevant to the times and thus draw more people to the Church. He called the Catholic bishops together so that they could discuss sweeping changes in Catholic worship, discipline and doctrine. After the death of John XXIII, the work of this Council continued under Paul VI and resulted in many radical changes. Catholics soon found themselves faced with “reforms” in every phase of their religious life. Millions of words have been written about these “reforms.” Catholics were told time and time again: “the essentials of the faith have not been changed” and that Vatican II brought about a true “renewal” in the Church.
The Fruits of Vatican II:
However, Our Lord said that we can judge a tree by its fruits – that a good tree brings forth good fruits and a bad tree brings forth bad fruits. What have been the fruits of Vatican II? Priests and sisters abandoned their sacred calling by the tens of thousands, priestly vocations dried up (in the U.S. from 1965 to 2002, ordinations decreased by 72% and the number of seminarians by 90%), convents emptied (in the same period, the number of teaching sisters decreased by 93%), attendance at Mass dropped dramatically (from 74% of U.S. Catholics in 1958 to 17% in 2002), and the Church’s doctrines and moral teachings are openly denied or studiously ignored by clergy and laity alike (in 1997, 85% of U.S. Catholics polled denied that artificial contraception was morally wrong; in 2000, 65% believed that Catholics may divorce and remarry). Obviously, these fruits are bad. This leads straight to the conclusion that the tree that produced them – Vatican II – was bad as well.
Principles Behind Vatican II:
The “renewal” of Vatican II produced such disastrous effects because it was founded on two dangerous principles: ecumenism and modernism.
Ecumenism – Seeks to fuse Catholicism with non-Catholic religions. Doctrines or ritual practices which Protestants or other non-Catholics find objectionable must therefore be eliminated, downplayed, or rendered ambiguous.
Modernism – Teaches that truth changes from age to age, and that the Church must therefore change as well, in order to be “relevant” to the modern secular world. Modernist clergy gut traditional Catholic worship, doctrine and morality by filtering it through modern relativist philosophy and various secular “dogmas” and “values.” Modernists strip the faith of those teachings and practices the modern world deems intransigent, exclusivist, difficult, unenlightened, fanatical or embarrassing. As a result, the notion of objective religious truth disappears, religion is reduced to little more than emotions and symbols, and the principles of morality (if any) become fuzzy.
It was Vatican II’s program of ecumenism and modernism that led to the creation of the New Mass.
The Creation of the New Mass:
Since concepts and practices spurned by non-Catholics and modern secular society abounded in the traditional Mass, the innovators in the post-Vatican II church decided to jettison the old rite and create a new Mass to replace it. It would be designed to please two constituencies:
To satisfy Protestants, the new rite needed to eliminate or downplay the Catholic teaching that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice (one which makes satisfaction for sin), offered by an ordained priest, in which Christ becomes present under the appearances of bread and wine through Transubstantiation.
To placate modern man, it needed to abolish or de-emphasize ideas such as hell, penance, punishment for sin, miracles, the soul, and separation from the world.
The work of formulating such a rite was entrusted to a Vatican commission called “Consilium.” Among the participants were six Protestants: Ronald Jasper, Massey Shepard, Raymond George, Friedrich Kunneth, Eugene Brand, and Max Thurian, representing the Anglicans, the World Council of Churches, the Lutherans, and the ecumenical Taize community. Of their role, Bishop (later Cardinal) William Baum said:
They [were] not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participated fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical renewal. It wouldn’t mean much if they just listened, but they contributed. (Detroit News, 27 June 1967.)
The end result was the promulgation of the New Mass in April, 1969.
A Revealing Document
In the 1969 General Instruction which originally introduced the official text of the New Mass, its authors presented the doctrinal principles behind the rite they created. It is a very revealing document. Here are some salient points:
Definition of the Mass. The General Instruction refers to the Mass as “the Lord’s Supper” – a term favored by Protestants – and defines it as “The sacred assembly, or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.” Luther himself could have written this definition. Father Luca Brandolini, who participated in creating the New Mass, said of the passage: “It defines it [the New Mass] exactly, beginning with the assembly.”
Community Meal. The Instruction presents the Mass primarily as a community meal or a memorial, rather than a sacrifice.
Presence of Christ. The Instruction makes no mention of Christ’s Real Presence and of transubstantiation. Instead, it teaches that Christ is “present’ in the assembly, in the scriptural readings, and in the priest, and that the “Last Supper” is made present.
Role of the Priest. The congregation “offers” the Mass, and the priest merely “presides.” His role is now to be “president of the assembly.”
The Consecration. What in the old rite was called the Consecration is in the new rite called the “Institution Narrative.” This term is used by Protestants to mean that the Eucharist, instead of being a sacrifice, is merely a “retelling of the story” of the Last Supper. But when a priest recites the words of consecration as a mere narrative, his intention is considered defective and his Mass is invalid – i.e., Christ does not become truly present and the sacrifice does not occur.
When faithful Catholics sounded the alarm about how the new rite promoted these dangerous ideas, the creators of the New Mass tried to cover their tracks. In 1970 they issued a second edition of the General Instruction, one which retained most of the objectionable language but also introduced some traditional terms. The Vatican also revised this document in 1975 and again in 2001. Conservatives haled each new version as a “return to reverence” or “Rome cracking down,” but the revisions were no more effective than a Band-Aid on a cancer, since the essence of the 1969 rite itself – ecumenist and modernist – remained unchanged. This new rite is the one now used in churches throughout the world.
An Ecumenical and Modernist Rite:
When you place the prayers and ceremonies of the traditional Latin Mass side by side with those of the New Mass, it is easy to see how the foregoing principles were put into practice, and how much of the Church’s traditional doctrine was “edited out” to placate Protestants and modern man. Here are some examples:
Common Penitential Rite. The traditional Mass begins with the priest reciting personal prayers of reparation to God called “The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar.” The New Mass begins instead with a “Penitential Rite” which the priest and people recite together. Who were the first to introduce a common penitential rite? The 16th century Protestants, who wanted to promote their teaching that a priest is not different from a layman.
The Offertory. The Offertory prayers of the traditional Mass contain specific allusions to a number of Catholic teachings: that the Mass is offered to God to satisfy for sin, that the saints are to be honored, etc. The Protestants rejected these teachings and abolished the Offertory prayers. “That abomination called the Offertory,” said Luther, “and from this point almost everything stinks of oblation!” In the New Mass, the Offertory is gone – it has been replaced with a ceremony called “The Preparation of the Gifts.” The prayers offensive to Protestants have also been removed. In their place is the vague prayer “Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation,” based on Jewish grace before meals.
The Eucharistic Prayer. The traditional Mass has only one “Eucharistic Prayer,” the Roman Canon. This ancient and venerable prayer was a favorite target of Protestant diatribes. Instead of just one Canon, the New Mass has eleven Eucharistic Prayers – all but the first newly composed, including three for children that are written in theological baby-talk. All the Eucharistic Prayers now incorporate some typical Protestant practices: they are recited in a loud voice instead of silently, and they have an “Institution Narrative” instead of a Consecration. The various signs of respect toward our Lord present in the Blessed Sacrament (genuflections, signs of the cross, bells, incense, etc.) have been reduced, made optional or eliminated.
Communion in the Hand. The 16th century Protestant Martin Bucer condemned the Church’s practice of placing the Host on the tongue of the communicant as: something introduced out of a double superstition; first, the false honor they wish to show this sacrament, and secondly, the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration. The basis for the Protestants’ practice of communion in the hand, thus, is a rejection of Christ’s real Presence and the notion of sacrificing priesthood. Introducing the practice into the New Mass – a rite where Christ is “present” in the assembly and where the priest is merely a “presider” – betokens a similar rejection of Catholic doctrines. But the men who created the New Mass went the Protestants one better: a member of the laity is not only allowed to receive Communion in the hand, but also to distribute it as well – and she may very well be wearing shorts or a miniskirt. The symbolism of communion in the hand also appeals to contemporary man. He likes to think of himself as “autonomous,” “adult,” and subject to no one – notions completely at odds with the symbolism of the traditional practice.
Veneration of the Saints. The prayers of the traditional Mass frequently invoke the saints by name and beg their intercession. The Church’s veneration of the saints in her worship was another practice which Protestants dismissed as “superstition.” The New Order of the Mass dropped most invocations of the saints by name or made them optional. In the new Missal, moreover, the weekday prayers for saints’ feast days (most of which are also optional) have been rewritten for the benefit of Protestants – allusions to notions such as the merits of the saints, the triumph of the Catholic Faith, the Catholic Church as the true Church, the evils of heresy, and the conversion of non-Catholics have disappeared.
The Faithful Departed. As a Catholic, you know that when someone dies, you pray for the repose of his soul. This Catholic belief is reflected in the Prayers for the Dead in the traditional Mass – “Be merciful, O Lord, to the soul of N.” etc. The Protestants reject the teaching that we can pray for the soul of someone who has died, and modernists reject the traditional doctrines on purgatory and the soul. The New Mass provides 114 Prayers for the Dead. In all but two prayers the word soul has been removed. An oversight? Father Henry Ashworth, who helped compose the New Mass, stated in 1970 that the omissions were intentional.
“Negative” Theology. Modern man is uncomfortable with the “hard” side of the Catholic religion, and post-Vatican II theologians have done their best to explain it away. The creators of the New Mass therefore systematically suppressed from the orations of the new Missal concepts such as hell, divine judgement, God’s wrath, punishment for sin, wickedness of sin as the greatest evil, and the evil of the world. (Ask yourself when you last heard these notions even mentioned at the modern Mass.)
Our Lord’s Words. When Our Lord instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper, He said His Blood would be she “for you and for many.” This is exactly what the words of consecration say in Latin in the traditional Mass. In Vatican-approved translations of the New Mass for the major
Western languages, however, the “many” disappeared for nearly forty years. In English, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish, for instance, it was replaced with “for ALL” – a rendition of the words of consecration that had never previously appeared in any Eucharistic rite in the history of Christendom. The theoretical justification given for the change turns out to have been the writings of Joachim Jeremias – a German Protestant and modernist. The real point of the fraudulent translation, however, was to depict Our Savior as the premier ecumenist who will save “all,” no matter what they believe. In 2006 the Vatican finally told national bishops’ conferences to change the phrase back to “for many.” But the modernist and ecumenical nature of the entire rite that surrounds it is still the same.
Irreverence and Sacrilege:
Over and above promoting false doctrine, the New Mass is a sacrilege. A sacrilege is an act of omission which demeans the sacred character of something holy. Consider how the practices in the New Mass insult and demean the sacred character of the Eucharist. Christ’s own words for the consecration of the Precious Blood have been falsified. Communion in the hand, whereby hosts are placed in unconsecrated hands, is officially approved. Non-ordained men and women hand out communion. Crumbly communion breads are used, and particles fall to the floor. People casually pop the host into their mouth, as if it were a little snack. When hosts are dropped, no one bothers to purify the floor of particles. A handshaking sessions takes place when people should be quietly preparing for communion. Priests no longer purify their fingers after handling the host. Kneeling for communion is abolished nearly everywhere. Everyone now goes to communion, but next to no one now goes to confession.
Then there is the general atmosphere of irreverence in most churches where the New Mass is celebrated, all of which conveys the idea that what is going on is not really particularly holy or sacred. People carry on conversations in church before and after Mass. The priest’s way of speaking intentionally folksy and casual. Sometimes the priest behaves like a ham actor starring in an amateur dramatic performance. The laity dress informally, as they would for shopping or recreation, or even immodestly in tight or revealing clothing. The music, often accompanied by guitars, piano, and percussion, has a secular or pop-sounding tone. Churches are stripped bare of statues and sacred symbols inside, and left looking no more “holy” than an airport terminal.
All this conveys one idea: the Mass and Christ’s Real Presence are “no big deal.” As such, the New Mass degrades the most sacred act that exists on this earth – renewing in an unbloody manner the sacrifice of the Cross – and insults the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Him who won our redemption. The New Mass is therefore grossly sacrilegious. That countless Catholics of good will have been led to accept it unquestioningly is a testament to the diabolical cleverness of its creators who launched a doctrinal revolution under a false flag of obedience.
The Fruits: A Loss of Faith:
Liturgy of its nature, as we have noted, affects the beliefs of those who participate in it. The fruits of the New Mass, then, should come as no surprise. Catholics have stopped believing the central tenet of Catholic teaching on the Mass – that the bread and wine become Christ’s Body and Blood through transubstantiation. In a New York Times/CBS News Poll (April 1994) U.S. Catholics were asked whether the bread and wine at Mass were:“changed into the Body and Blood of Christ” (the traditional doctrine), or “symbolic reminders of Christ” – the classic Protestant position.
In the 18-44 age group 70% of Catholics said the bread and wine were only symbolic reminders of Christ. In the 45-64 group, 58% also said “symbolic reminders,” while only 38% chose the traditional doctrine. Even in the 65-and-above group, 45% still chose “symbolic reminders,” with only a bare majority (51%) opting for the traditional doctrine.
In past ages, Catholic martyrs chose to die rather than say that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist was nothing more than a symbolic reminder. Now the average Catholic’s beliefs about the Eucharist are indistinguishable from that of a Lutheran, a Presbyterian, or a Methodist. The principal cause for this corruption of the man in the pew’s beliefs on the Eucharist is the New Mass. He has been exposed to its doctrinal errors and sacrilegious practices every week for decades. He has gotten the message of the New Mass – and he has lost the faith.
The Practical Consequences:
In light of the foregoing, it should be easy to understand why certain Catholics will have absolutely nothing to do with the New Mass and will assist exclusively at the traditional Latin Mass. The traditional Mass is faithful to doctrines the Church has constantly held and proclaimed – while the New Mass waters down or obliterates these doctrines in order to accommodate non-Catholics. The traditional Mass treats the Blessed Sacrament with the greatest possible reverence – while the New Mass treats the host like ordinary bread. The traditional Mass is Catholic and rooted in apostolic tradition – while the New Mass is Protestant, modernist and corrupts the faith.
The practical attitude the Catholic ought to take regarding the New Mass may be summed up in two words: Stay Away.
If this sounds surprising or radical, consider this: the primary purpose of the Mass is to honor and adore God. A rite that compromises His Church’s doctrines, passes off falsehoods as truths, falsifies His Son’s words, mistreats His Son’s Body, corrupts the faith and is imbued with Protestantism and modernism cannot honor God. All it can do is dishonor Him.
No Catholic, obviously, wants to dishonor God. For this reason, Catholics who reject the errors of the New Mass and Vatican II will not go to church at all on Sunday if no traditional Mass is available to them. Rather than offend God by participating in a service that dishonors Him, they (like Catholics of 16th century England when the Protestant liturgical changes were introduced) will stay home, read their missals and unite themselves spiritually with the true Masses being said throughout the world.
“Approved” Traditional Masses:
From 1969 onwards, Catholics who rejected the Vatican II errors and the New Mass have been keeping the traditional Mass alive. Beginning in the 1980s, however, the modernist hierarchy has been trying to win these Catholics over to the Vatican II religion by allowing “approved” traditional Masses under the auspices of the diocesan bishops, and by authorizing the foundation of organizations like the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) that use the 1962 Missal and other older liturgical books.
The first step in this direction came with the 1984 “Indult.” This was followed in 1988 by the Vatican approval of the FSSP, and finally by Benedict XVI’s 2007 Motu Proprio, which authorized any priest to celebrate Mass using the 1962 Missal. Because of Indult and Motu Masses and groups like FSSP, more Catholics have been exposed to the traditional Mass, many perhaps for the first time in their lives. This certainly has a positive side to it. But this phenomenon also presents serious problems. At a Motu Mass, hosts doubtfully consecrated beforehand at the New Mass may be distributed from the tabernacle at communion. The priest from the FSSP or the local diocese who celebrates the Motu Mass is now almost always doubtfully ordained – because either he or the bishop who ordained him received Holy Orders according to the dubious post-Vatican II ordination rites. Hosts consecrated at a Motu Mass may be placed in the tabernacle and later distributed sacrilegiously in the hand at a celebration of the New Mass.
Motu Masses and groups like FSSP neutralize and compromise resistance to Vatican II and the New Mass. This is precisely why they receive official approval. Vatican guidelines issued in 1991 require priests who celebrate Indult Masses to preach and teach adherence to the Vatican II changes, as well to emphasize “their acknowledgement of the doctrinal and juridical value of the liturgy as revised after the Second Vatican Council.” A 1999 Vatican document exhorts FSSP priests to concelebrate the New Mass with diocesan bishops to “facilitate this ecclesial communion.” Motu priests and FSSP priests, then, are by definition sold men. Approval from the modernist hierarchy buys their silence about the errors of Vatican II and the evil of the New Mass, and they become (perhaps unwittingly) just a ritualist High Church wing in the one-world ecumenical super-church.
This serves the modernists’ purposes well. Resistance to the New Mass and attachment to the traditional Mass can then be portrayed as nothing more than nostalgia, aesthetics, antiquarianism, preference or warm feelings, as is evident from a 2004 interview with Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, head of the Vatican commission that regulates Indult Masses. These Masses, he said, are part of “a great variety of gifts” in the Church, in which the traditional Mass and the New Mass “proclaim the same Catholic faith, with different emphasis and expressions that are both legitimate, in full and reciprocal fraternal respect.”
Benedict XVI made this equivalence quite explicit in his 2007 Motu Proprio: he designated the New Mass the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, and the old Mass the Extraordinary Form. Thus along with the New Mass, kiddie liturgies, altar girls and communion in the hand, the “Latin Mass” then winds up as merely one more option on the post Vatican-II buffet table, where all the dishes are supposed to be treated as equally good, and where your choice is just a matter of your personal taste.
Fulfilling the Sunday Obligation:
The modern clergy sometimes claim that going to a traditional Latin Mass at a church not approved by the diocese does not fulfill the Sunday obligation or is a sin. Implicit in such a statement is the notion that a Catholic is somehow obliged to go to the New Mass. This is dead wrong. Your first obligation is to honor God and save your soul. No one can legitimately oblige you to assist at a Mass that both dishonors God through its irreverence and endangers your salvation through undermining the Catholic faith. As regards sin, if you’ve gone to the New Mass for a while, you’ve probably figured out that the modern clergy have just about managed to do away with the idea of sin. If going to the traditional Mass is a sin, it’s probably the only one the post-Vatican II clergy still believes in.
Ironically, the modern clergy’s pronouncements on the Sunday obligation have contradicted their own Code of Canon Law. The 1983 Code states that the Sunday obligation “is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite.” Our situation today is akin to that of Catholics in 16th century England. Nearly all the bishops and priests in those days had adopted new doctrines – Protestantism – and attempted to impose a heretical new Mass on the faithful. Catholics ignored the innovator’s laws and pronouncements which commanded them to fulfill their Sunday obligation at what was in fact a non-Catholic service. Instead, good Catholics sought out faithful priests who would provide them with a true Catholic Mass and with sound Catholic doctrine.
So too in our own days. Our churches and cathedrals are occupied by a clergy who promote a false doctrine and a non-Catholic form of worship. Like Catholics in 16th century England, we have no
obligation to follow the commands of a clergy that has publicly defected from the faith. However, since we have both the right and the obligation under divine law to sound doctrine and pure worship, we can and must seek out faithful Catholic priests who will provide what we need to save our souls.
Since Vatican II, Catholics throughout this country have banded together to preserve the traditional Mass and sacraments. In some areas traditional Catholics have acquired and furnished splendid churches to give their Lord and Master a home. In other areas, the Holy Sacrifice is offered in rented rooms, just as the first Mass, the Last Supper, was offered in a rented room. In either case, it is the Mass that matters, and it is the Mass, at St. Leonard said, upon which the sun rises and sets. If what we have said here has filled you with the desire to assist at the traditional Latin Mass, we invite you to join us the next time Mass is celebrated (daily).
What we have said here is necessarily only a brief exposition of the position of Catholics who “stand fast and hold the traditions” (2 Thess 2:15). For this reason, we invite you to investigate further the matter through reading and studying. There are a great number of traditional books and periodicals which offer an explanation and a defense of our position.
Finally, we invite you to pray, and to seek the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints. May you be granted the grace to be true to the one, true Faith till death.
For directions, assistance, mature questions, comments, and concerns; including Mass locations, traditional Catholic websites, books, sacramentals, and videos please e-mail TradCat4Christ@gmail.com
A 1988 pamphlet by Rev. Anthony Cekada (revised 1994, 2004, 2006, 2008)
Abridged and distributed by TradCat4Christ@gmail.com
God Bless you and your families, Blessed Virgin Mary pray for us!