[After quoting Our Lord's words in Matthew 16:18-19, 28:19-20; Luke 22:31-32; and John 17:15-21 I asked the following question]

Can anyone honestly say that an officially promulgated Mass that was either illicit, doubtfully valid, sacrilegeously valid, or even an invalid Mass (in essence a Mass that was a true "abomination") would not be representative of the gates of hell prevailing over the Church???

Absolutely someone could say that. After all, the gates of hell would not be prevailing over the Church but, rather, over the Pope promulgating the illicit, doubtfully valid, sacrilegiously valid, or even invalid, Mass, and over those poor misguided souls who either attend it, or say it, or defend it.

As Bishop Vincent Gasser noted at Vatican I, "we cannot separate the pope from the consent of the Church because this consent can never be lacking to him." Thus the actions of the Pope promulgating a defective liturgy would indeed make the whole Church susceptible and the gates of hell would indeed prevail in this instance.

In the first place, the Church has never taught that the Pope is infallible when he promulgates a Mass (for further information on this, see Appendix II).

Sigh, some people just do not understand the most fundamental matters. I already devoted other sections of my treatise to covering in precise theological formulation what is and is not both infallible teaching and also what is covered by the charism of infallibility.

In the second place, the Church does teach that there are limitations to what the Pope can do to a Mass - for example, he cannot change the Divinely instituted elements of the Mass, as Pope Pius XII explained (and which Shawn forgot to mention).

The divinely instituted elements have not been changed. The Tridentine Missal looks very different from the Mass of the Apostles and their successors through the first 5 centuries. Those claiming that these divine elements have been removed xneed to demonstrate that they have the credentials to be competent to make such a declaration. Until they do that, it is just more "trad" hot air I am afraid.

In the third place, the Latin Rite itself could, theoretically, perish from the face of the earth completely, and yet the gates of Hell would not have prevailed, after all there are other rites out there with valid and non-sacrilegious Sacraments. The point is, the majority can become heretical — or semi-heretical -, as happened during the Arian crisis.

And the ignorance of these guys continues. The laity was overwhelmingly orthodox and hated Arianism. Most of the Episcopate was ORTHODOX during the post Nicaea period (about 90% in fact). It also happens that the majority of the episcopate (70% or so) was orthodox but opposed to the old heretical symbol homoousian and did not actively support it. The other 20% who were orthodox actively supported it while the Arian faction made up 10% of the episcopate and vigorously opposed it. The reason the Arians were so effective is because they had the Emperors on their side (more or less: Constantine acted like Pope Honorius on the matter and his son was vigorously Arian), the Senate, the rich Roman Aristocracy, and (most importantly) the Roman Army.

As St. Athanasius said

"Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the trueChurch of Jesus Christ." (Saint Athanasius)

As St. Athanasius the Great said:

"[T]he word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicaea, abides for ever." [1]

"ARE THEY NOT THEN COMMITTING A CRIME, in their very thought to gainsay so great and ecumenical a Council? [2]

The point is, even if the vast majority of Catholics are heretical, as long as there are a few who hold to the Truth, the gates of Hell have not prevailed. Did not Christ say that the gate that leads to Heaven is narrow, and few there are that even find it (Matthew 7:14)?

Our Lord (whose authority FAR surpasses that of St. Athanasius the Great) claimed that Peter’s faith would not fail (Luke 22:32). Peter in the person of Pope Paul VI promulgated to the Universal Church a restored liturgy. If it is invalid then Peter HAS failed. Our opponents are claiming that Peter has failed except they want to utilize cheap lawyers technicalities to labourously explain away where their position logically carries them. What I cannot understand is how their statements are in any different then that of the Protestant "reformers" who claimed that the Church fell away but that they were among the "few" who held to the Truth. It really is amazing that these self-styled "traditionalists" (better referred to as Integrists) are so blind that the eerie parallels between "traditionalism" and Protestantism cannot be noticed by them. I outlined several of them in url 3 of my treatise but then they obviously did not see that part. Heck, they did not even read all of the original url 2 before composing this so-called "superb prescription" (if their response is "superb" then I would hate to see what they think is "fairly good" or "average").

If they did not deliberately overlook the Addendums originally included in that section, then it was disingenuous on the parts of our opponents to duck my Addendums in their analysis. (They have since been formulated into an essay which was included in this project in the Appendix sections.) However, if they did overlook them accidentally then they are merely sloppy in their research and their work. Based on the error count thus far it is most likely that these "trads" are predominantly sloppy with some disingenuousness thrown in for good measure. I would not say this but the deceiving pictures and side antics they utilize remind me far too much of those used by anti-Catholic Protestant apologists. I have said this time and again (and undoubtedly will emphasize it many more times after this) but since Universal promulgation of doctrines and directives directly connected to faith and morals are protected by the charism of infallibility from containing errors, those who claim the Pauline Rite is invalid are undeniably (if not proximate to heresy then still) in serious error. Again I cite the Catholic Encyclopedia: but first an important point. The Roman See cannot and will not either promulgate or be party to a heresy at any time. So the Athanasius example is a non-sequitur.
 

Can anyone honestly claim that Our Lord who promised to be with the Church "all days unto the consummation of the world" is not with the Church now???

This does not effect the fact that the vast majority of Catholics could fall into error, as we explained above.

But you have to PROVE this has happened and cannot just assume it. Then you have to show how you are competent to make this determination. These authors have done neither of these things and in fact they cannot possibly prove the second criteria even if they wanted to since to do so is to assume the mantle of Protestant private judgment of the Magisterium.

And furthermore, Christ’s Presence in the Church today is very well shown by the fact that not all Catholics have fallen for the new errors, but there are still many who are holding out. For example, the very Society of Saint Pius X that you mention above "... now has around 380 priest members and many priest friends as well as Religious communities, operating in 27 countries, with around 100 nuns, 50 Brothers, 53 oblates, 200 seminarians, 130 priories serving regularly over 600 Mass centres, with 2 universities, 12 other major schools, 50 primary schools and nine retreat houses." (9)

Of course, the Society is not the entire group in the Traditional Movement. There are many more Priests, Brothers, Sisters, Oblates, priories, and so forth, in the Traditional Movement than are mentioned above.

The Old Catholics, Novatians, and Jansentists had their own Bishops and clergy too.

If the Mass was truly a "blasphemy" then this is evidence that Our Lord abiding with His Church permitted the Church to bind error in heaven and further, that as He is with the Church all days is an accessory to this "abomination" of which the SSPX claims that the Pauline Rite Mass is.

In the first place, the Traditional Movement has never said that the Mass was a blasphemy. We have said that the Novus Ordo Missae (the New Order of Mass) is a blasphemy, and is sacrilegious.

Acting like Protestants again I see. Calvin would be proud.

But never that THE Mass is a blasphemy and sacrilegious. In the second place, not everything the Pope does falls under the ability to bind and to loose. If Shawn had any comprehension of the authority of the Pope, he would have seen that the Pope has no authority to bind error.

Binding and loosing are rabbinical jargon for forbidding and permitting and they apply to pastoral directives as well as doctrine. An example is what happened in the third century when Pope Callistus I changed the norms for the sacrament of penance (or in "trad-speak" he instituted a "new sacrament of penance") and the "traditionalist" Tertullian got very angry and lambasted him for it in writing (for going against "tradition" in essence).

Hence, if the Novus Ordo Missae is erroneous, blasphemous, and sacrilegious, the anything the Pope may have done to promulgate it, or bind anyone to say/attend it, would be null and void, for the Pope cannot bind anyone to commit a sin.

They have it completely backwards.

Hence, Shawn’s above argument falls to pieces. In the third place, I recommend that Shawn read Vatican I on the infallibility of the Pope, and it’s limitations, as well as Appendix II.

I HAVE read Vatican I on more then one occasion. The problem with our opponents is that they are looking at things clinically and not organically. A liturgy promulgated to the Universal Church by the Pope and college of Bishops is infallible by virtue of not containing any doctrinal errors. It IS a matter of teaching and thus it is protected. Of course CATHOLICS do not talk like Protestants about the Pope "binding people to commit a sin" because they take Our Lord at His word that such would not happen. They also note that Our Lord said "Thou art the Rock (Ar. Keepa) and upon this Rock (Ar. Keepa) I will build my Church and the gates of sheol shall not draw (upon it). I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and WHATOSEVER thou shalt bind on earth SHALT BE BOUND IN HEAVEN and WHATSOEVER thou shalt loose on earth shalt be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:18-19). Our Lord by his very words indicates not only that Shimon Keepa would be the foundation which the Lord built His Church upon but also that the gates of hell (sheol) would not prevail against the Church. Then the Lord tells Shimon that "WHATSOEVER you bind/loose on earth is bound/loosed in heaven." He does NOT say "what you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven unless of course you try to bind error." The very implication is that Shimon would be protected from his faith failing and he would be thus able to not only strengthen the brethren (Lk. 22:32) but also feed and tend the Lord’s sheep (John 21:15-17). Our opponents demonstrate in no uncertain terms that they do not believe Our Lord at all or else this very idea of the Pope even being able to bind error on the Universal Church would not be brought up. That they brought it up shows that our opponents have no faith at all.
 

In the first place, Our Lord’s prayer does not mean that Popes cannot 1) make a mistake,

I agree.

2) commit sin and blasphemy,

I agree.

3) promulgate blasphemous and sacrilegious liturgies.

I disagree:

[T]he unity and the solidarity is not possible without the right Faith. Peter is therefore also the supreme teacher of the Faith. As such he must be infallible in the official promulgation of Faith, in his own person and in his successors since by Christ’s decree the Church is to continue for all time. Again, Christ bestowed upon Peter (and on his successors) a comprehensive power of binding and loosing. As in Rabbinical speech one understood by binding and loosing also the authentic declaration of the law of the New Covenant, the Gospel. God in Heaven will confirm the Pope’s judgment. This supposes that, in his official capacity as Doctor of the Faith, he is preserved from error. [3]

Of the first two, there is quite a bit of proof that Popes have made mistakes and committed sin (and lived in sin) and so forth.

I agree.

Of the latter, there is no proof that a Pope is not capable of doing it.

How do you prove a universal negative??? As for proof there is only 20 centuries of it never happening. How much more ‘proof’ do you need???

Lastly, the Church has always kept open the possibility of a Pope falling into formal heresy.

Very remote yes but it has also been admitted that this would be impossible to occur in practice the way it does in theory (if I recall this determination was made in Pope Leo XIII’s time when the discussion of the theories of Bellarmine and Ligouri came up).

Further, the Father failed to grant the request of His Son who asked that the Apostles and their successors be "sanctified in truth" and that the Father should "keep them from evil." In short, why does the Society (and other radical self-styled "traditionalists") believe in the credibility of Jesus Christ at all if He cannot do what He says He will do???

In the first place, what we are seeing here is nothing more than what protestants do, private interpretation of Scripture. If what Shawn is saying here is true, then every Pope and Bishop is "sanctified in truth" and "kept from evil." Of course, this is utterly ridiculous!

No I am saying that as a UNITED teaching body they Bishops cannot err. When legislating Univerally in union with the Pope they cannot err in matters of faith, morals, or areas intimately connected to the two. When the Pope legislates Universally he cannot err in matters of faith, morals, or areas intimately connected to the two. I have already substantially covered this and will also do so in refuting Fr. Wathen’s errors in Appendix 2 of their ‘superb’ essay (falsely so-called).

Bishop Arius was a heretic!

Ah but he claimed Nicaea was wrong much as "trads" do with Vatican II!!! Why using the same principles as these ‘trads’ was Arius wrong and these ‘trads’ right???

The Bishops of England went into schism and apostatized from the Church, also falling into heresy!

Again I am speaking of teaching the Universal Church. Your examples are non-sequiturs.

The Eastern Bishops also fell into heresy and schism! Does this mean that Christ’s requests weren’t granted by the Father? And that Christ is not credible? Of course not! This means that we have free will, and that we can go against better judgment - and God help those who do. What Shawn is here proposing, is that every Pope and Bishop are basically "spiritual zombies," who cannot - no matter what they do - fall into heresy, sin, blasphemy, and so forth. This is a certain rejection of the Church’s doctrine of Free Will.

I am merely saying that when legislating Universally (such as promulgating to the Universal Church a liturgy, catechism, or revised sacramental norms) that the Magisterium is protected because these are areas intimately connected to faith and morals. That is all and that is what Our Lord promised. Nothing more and nothing less.

SSPX: "Now in the Catholic religion it is the priest who celebrates Mass; it is he who offers the bread and wine. The notion of "president" has been borrowed directly from Protestantism…"

Justin Martyr:

Chapter LXV -- Administration Of The Sacraments.

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE BRETHREN bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen.

I thought Protestantism came around in the 16th century not the 2nd.

In the first place, what the Archbishop is referring to is the "notion" of President, not the use of the term "president" itself. If Shawn had read the article, he would have seen this! As a matter of fact, let me quote the preceding the statement cited by Shawn:

This tendency is connected with what we have discovered concerning the Real Presence: if there is no longer a sacrifice, there is no longer any need for a victim. The victim is present in view of the sacrifice. To make of the Mass a memorial of fraternal meal is the Protestant error.

Only if the Sacrifice of the Mass is ignored or impugned. To make of the Mass solely a sacrifice and not recognize the duel metaphors of sacrifice and the participation of the people at the marriage feast of the Lamb (Rev. 19:7-9) is the "traditionalist" error. But then again most "trads" are woefully ignorant of Scripture anyway and thus are ignorant of Christ (to quote St. Jerome).

What happened in the sixteenth century? Precisely what is taking place today? Preciselywhat is taking place today.Right from the start they replaced the altar by a table, removed the crucifix from it, and made the ‘president of the assembly’ turn around to face the congregation. The setting of the Protestant Lord’s Supper is found in Pierres Vivantes, the prayer book prepared by the bishops in France which all children attending catechism are obliged to use....

Indeed, this notion of presidency did come around in the sixteenth century, and not the second century. As the Random House College Dictionary defines the term "notion," "a general, vague, or imperfect conception or idea." (p. 910) And the protestant conception, or idea, of the term "president" has nothing to do with any Catholic interpretation which might be applied to the term, and certainly has nothing to do with what Justin Martyr was talking about.

The Catholic Church was adopting Justin’s understanding of the term and Vatican II makes this very clear (see LG 21). If these historical ignoramuses bothered to get an education they would know that the term ‘presider’ happens to be Eastern in orientation and of very ancient usage. It refers in the masculine to the Bishop who sits in the first chair at the eucharistic assembly and is the president of his church. Or it also refers to the bishop’s delegate taking his place in leading the assembly. In short the term ‘presider’ refers to either a bishop or his delegated presbyter in the position of primacy in the assembly as the alter Christus. But then it requires actually KNOWING what you are talking about before you open your mouth. This is unfortunately the problem with people like our opponents: they have no idea what they are talking about and commit numerous stupid and elementary blunders in history and dogmatics. And in demonstrating their folly we have only just begun but take a look at their horrendous track record thus far (over 62 errors). It will only get worse for them I assure you.

This is why the Archbishops comments were absurd because he of course presumes the worst rather then asking what the rationale behind a change in policy or a designation of a term is. Besides, read Vatican II, Mysterium Fidei (included in this project as Appendix B), and the writings of the last two popes (and the teachings of the Universal Catechism). Every one of these sources decisively refutes the misunderstandings of the schismatic Archbishop of Econe (who made many of these comments when he was in an advanced age and may have been suffering from some mental imbalance: may God bring him to everlasting life). Also, I have already soundly destroyed the notion that the priest facing the people and celebrating Mass on a altar-table (with the lack of a crucifix) first "came about in the 16th century". Actually Masses before the seventh century had every one of those elements to them especially facing the people — the normative position until practically the second millennium. Our opponents continue to display their profound ignorance of Church history.

Nevertheless, this should be sufficient to show the historical ignorance and schismatic tendencies of those within the SSPX.

I fail to see how Shawn has proven this, as I’m sure the reader can as well.

No the reader if they are honest with themselves can see who is the party that are a bunch of "blind guides who strain the gnat but swallow the camel" (Matt. 23:23-24) and it is clearly these three "trad" authors. But then if these "trad" authors could see this they would not be blind…

After all, he was mis-interpreting the statement of the Archbishop above - as well as many of those mentioned further up -, fabricated at least three citations - allegedly from the Archbishop, at least the last one could be found in his book -, and made such ridiculous statements which showed his historical ignorance such as "the Tridentine Rite was the "Novus Ordo" of the 14th-16th centuries.

It was no more historically ignorant then the Pauline Rite being a "New Order Mass." Did my comments annoy you guys??? Well GOOD because this constant ignorant babbling about "Novus Ordo" Masses annoys me because that is PRECISELY what it is…historical ignorance (and Pope Paul VI noted that the Mass was exactly the same also but then what would he know right???). Yes Pope St. Pius V undertook a restoration of the Tridentine Mass in the sixteenth century but since that time we have found documents that go back much further then the Gelastium Sacramentary and the earlier Leonine Sacramentary. The Pauline Rite was a restoration to the earlier simpler liturgy of predominantly the pre-fourth century liturgies although some of the basic structure of the Mass and many of the later prayers (Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, Nicene Creed, etc) were retained. This is not the place to go into detail on the matter but I have written an essay on this very topic based on the material from the Addendum that these guys did not address in their rebuttal of my work). Suffice to say though it is no more ignorant to call the Tridentine Mass the "Novus Ordo" of the fourteenth-sixteenth century (based on the restoration of Pope St. Pius V) then to call the Pauline Rite a "Novus Ordo" Mass when it was based also on a restoration going back even earlier then that of the sixtenth century Tridentine restoration.

" Of course, no citation was given by Shawn in any of the sections where he dealt with the historicity of the Mass, and no source was given here as well - for no credible book would make such an absurd statement.

I reinforced these arguments with later Addendums in the old url 2 that our opponents ‘conveniently’ overlooked. However, in the revised treatise I combined url’s 1 and 2 and added additional documentation up front to substantiate my points which seriously undermine’s the positions of our opponents. One of my main sources in fact was the well-respected English liturgical historian Fr. Adrian Fortescue whom Mr. Michael Davies (a predominant source used by our opponents) likes to selectively quote. I have no problem liberally quoting the work of Fr. Fortescue and his contemporary the equally well-respected Rt. Rev. Dom Fernand Cabrol. Rev. Cabrol was the main source of the original Addendum section and along with Fr. Fortescue was used extensively in both subsequent treatise revisions of the Mass sections. (The original Addendum material was incorporated into a smaller essay on the Pauline Rite which I included in this project as Appendix A.)

Both Fortescue and Cabrol were two of the more respected liturgical historians of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. I used them because they predated Vatican II by several decades and therefore self-styled ‘traditionalists’ like our opponents cannot claim that they are ‘post-conciliar’ and thus dismiss their testimony. They both soundly refute much of the nonsense of our opponents worthless sources (including much of Mr. Davies’ so-called ‘facts’). Other then Fr. Fortescue there is not a quality source in the bunch except maybe some parts of Michael Davies’ work. But Mr. Davies is no historian at all and his prejudices against the Pauline Mass cloud his writings. As I will continue to point out with QUALITY sources (as will Matt and Art in their respective sections), Mr. Davies’ arguments are so often ‘weighed in the scales and found wanting’ as far as accuracy goes (Dan. 5:27). To his credit Mr. Davies is a much better source then Fr. O’Brien, Fr. Wathen, or the other sources used by our opponents (except Fr. Fortescue of course). But that is only because O’Brien and Wathen are batting .000 as far accuracy goes. In that company Davies cannot help but stand out from the crowd.

II. Examining the Pauline Rite Mass:

The best thing to do is to reproduce the text of the Pauline Rite Liturgy and see if it is in substantial conformity to the Tridentine Rite in structure if not exact details.

Of course the Novus Ordo is not like the Traditional Mass, for even Shawn admits that the Novus Ordo was an "overhaul" of the Traditional Mass, and even Pope Paul VI admitted the Novus Ordo Missae is a "new rite."

It was a restoration of the ancient rite. My terminology should have been better then it was but I demonstrate without ambiguity using the work of Rt. Reverend Dom Fernand Cabrol and Fr. Adrian Fortescue that the Pauline Mass is a true restoration of the liturgy. But space constraints prevents me from going into that here.

The following Pauline Rite Liturgy text is courtesy of Larry Nolte's online apologetics site. I got the text from the Tridentine Rite from another web site. Because the Pauline Rite Liturgy did not have the rubrics included at Mr. Nolte's site, I removed them from the text obtained at the Una Voce site for the purposes of a fair treatment of both sides so that the texts can be analyzed section by section for similarities of structure and content.

It’s important to note that the word "similar," does not mean that it is the same, but, rather, that it means "having likeness or resemblance, in a general way," (Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, p. 1328) while the word "same" means "identical with what is about to be, or has just been mentioned" (ibid., p. 1264). Hence, we see that something can be similar, and yet not the same. Hence, the words and phrases used in the Novus Ordo Missae can be very similar, but that does not mean to say that they mean the same thing as those used in the Traditional Mass.

Back tracking now I see. First it is a new rite and they are "not like" one another. Now these authors are saying that they are "similar." Which one is it??? Similar means "marked by correspondence or resemblance", "akin", "alike", "comparable", "parallel." There are many different meanings of the term. Kindly stop being disingenuous please, it is unbecoming of someone who claims to be a Christian (especially one who claims to be Catholic and ESPECIALLY a self-righteous self-anointed "traditionalist" Catholic: an oxymoron if I have ever seen one).

Also what needs to be asked is this: WHO makes these determinations??? The Pope claims that nothing has changed doctrinally and only he is the formal judge of these matters. Not you. Again I reiterate: promulgating a Missal universally (not to mention universal sacramental norms) is without question the Pope acting as a Doctor of the Faith. How can they not be???

I also used my Pauline Rite Sunday Missal to add the parts that Mr. Nolte's article did not have in it. This section and the next are a "macro" look at the similarities and differences between the older Tridentine Rite and the Revised Missal (which I call the Pauline Rite) which replaced the Tridentine Ritual on November 30, 1969 as the principle rite in the Western Church.

Before we begin a line by line examination of the Novus Ordo Missae, I am going to present some preliminary arguments against the Novus Ordo Missae, and prove that it is most certainly based upon heresy, and that it’s very foundation is heresy.

And I will refute every argument our opponents make. Let us us expose the arbitrary declarations and faulty reasoning of these "Protestants of the right" who utilize their own private judgment of the Church’s teachings.

Definition of Sacrilege ?

A sacrilege is the violation, profanation, or desecration of any person, place, or thing which is sacred and consecrated to God.

Obviously the adoration of God is sacred, and of the utmost importance, and as the Mass is the most perfect way in which one can adore Him (being, as it is, the unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary), to desecrate or profane it is certainly a sacrilege, as we're sure the reader will agree. But is the Novus Ordo Mass sacrilegious? Let us examine it closer: IF there were something inherently offensive to God in the Novus Ordo (we're not talking about the sinfulness and/or extra-rubrical actions of the priest, we're talking about those things which are inherent in the Novus Ordo itself), it would then be sacrilegious as the Mass, which is supposed to be the highest, most perfect and sacred act of adoration which man can perform, would then be profaned.

Who will make the judgment as to when the Pauline Rite is or is not conforming to this criteria though??? And where is their competence to make this determination??? You cannot accuse me of practicing private interpretation of the Scriptures and then turn around and practice private interpretation of what is and is not sacrilegious. This is acting like a Pharisee.

Regardless of whether or not there is a valid consecration, if there were something inherently offensive to God in the Mass it would be sacrilegious. For instance, in a Satanic Black Mass there is a valid consecration: but all agree that to attend such a travesty would be the grossest act of sacrilege imaginable.

But does the New Mass contain such "offenses" to God? Let’s see...

Definition of Heresy ?

Heresy is the denial of divinely established Truth, and/or the affirmation of error in place of that Truth.

Our Blessed Lord has declared in the plainest language in Sacred Scripture that He is the Truth (10). Consequently, as heresy is the denial of Truth, heresy is a denial of Christ. Our Blessed Savior has further declared that, if anyone denies Him, He will deny them before His Father in Heaven.(11)

Now who is engaging in private interpretation of Scripture??? Either you three retract your accusation of me doing that or every time you quote Scripture your condemnation on me will be thrown back in your face!!! I cannot believe how brazenly blasphemous these so-called ‘Catholics’ are. Maybe I should retitle this project ‘Detection and Overthrow of the ‘CATHOLICS’ Falsely So-Called’!!! No one who was actually a faithful Catholic would dare make this kind of inference. I rebuke these false Catholics in the name of Christ for this blasphemy.

Everyone, including the Protestant, agrees that the denial of Christ is evil, and undoubtedly offensive to God. If one were to attempt to worship and adore God while at the same time denying Him, one would be engaging in the fruitless effort of making a "house divided against itself" stand, something which Jesus assures us is impossible;(12) such a thing would be the grossest hypocrisy, and a grave sin on the part of those who participate in the denial. The adoration, by the act of denial of Christ, would then be profaned and desecrated.

Only if they did so culpably. That is for God to judge not you.
 

It is a fact, and we shall prove it here, that the New Mass is founded upon heresy, contains heresy, and is conducive to nothing but heresy. Thus, as heresy is a denial of Christ, and as the denial of Christ is a great sin, and as to deny Him while "adoring" Him is clearly a profanation and violation of the most perfect act of worship man can perform (i.e., the Mass), we must conclude that the New Mass is a sacrilegious event, and consequently mortally sinful for those who attend it.

Then you sign your death warrants as heretics once and for all. In the Middle Ages you would be burned at the stake if you failed to repent of your crimes. Lucky for you times have changed and I will try to save you from yourselves by addressing your ignorant babblings. Meanwhile you three have committed well over 66 errors to your credit (whereas in my treatise to this point I committed 2). Some "refutation" this is turning out to be…

? The Foundation ?

Keeping that in mind, let us proceed. The fact that the very foundation of the New Mass is the product of at least three condemned heresies is incontestible.

Prove it. PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!

Assuredly there will be those of bad-will and dishonest tendencies who will disagree with this premise, but we are confident that there is no one who can refute the arguments presented here - including Shawn -, we invite them to try, however.

And how will we know when we have "refuted" their argument??? The argument could be refuted and these authors might just refuse to see it. Your whole program is suspicious at the outset since what proves or disproves your argument is what is acceptable to you. THIS WHOLE CHARADE OF YOURS IS A RUSE BECAUSE NO MATTER WHAT I SAY (or Matt or Art in other sections) YOU ARE GOING TO CLAIM THAT IT IS WRONG BECAUSE IT CONDEMNS YOUR POSITION. THUS YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH AT ALL IF IT CONDEMNS YOUR POSITION WHICH IT MOST CERTAINLY DOES. I have and will continue to prove this. So will Matt and Art. The choice is up to the readers if they want to follow these insolent "trad" authors down the trail of schism, heresy, and an express pass to hell where these "trad" philosophies of overt rebellion against God will take them if they refuse to repent of their crimes.

These authors have committed 66+ errors already in either history, doctrine, or fact (the number is actually well over 70 but I am not about to reconfigure the count that I made in my initial draft…call it an act of charity on my part). They are so deluded that they are unlikely to even listen to anything I say in the next section (or anything previously stated). That will be to their own destruction. I cannot however let these blasphemies go unanswered because if I do then souls will undoubtedly be led to their ruin by these unwitting agents of evil masquerading as "loyal Catholics." Whether I like it or not the watchman must warn the evil man of the sword coming upon the land lest he perish by it and the blood be at the watchman’s hand (Ezekiel 33:1-20).

Besides, why should anyone listen to three authors such as these who have committed over 6 dozen plus errors already and have proven to be utterly incompetent when it comes to Tradition, infallibility, history, and every other topic thus far discussed???

Modernism ?

The Heresy of Modernism holds that truth and the doctrines of the Church change with the times, are subject to changing interpretations, and that new doctrines and understandings can and do arise from man’s intellect and will, regardless of what God has revealed. Condemned: First Vatican Council; (13) Pope St. Pius X (14)

The doctrines have not changed!!! Pope Paul VI was very explicit on this on many occasions. There is no other competent authority then the Pope on these matters and Pope Paul has already stated this. You stand refuted.

Proof: "Revising the pre-existing text [of the Mass] becomes more delicate when faced with the need to update content or language, and when all this affects not only the form, but also doctrinal reality. This [revision] is called for in light of the new view of human values, considered in relation to and as a way to supernatural goods... Expressions recalling positions or struggles of the past are no longer in harmony with the Church’s new positions. An entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology has superseded devotional points of view or a particular way of venerating and invoking the Saints. Retouching the text [of the Mass], moreover, was deemed necessary to bring to light new values and new perspectives" (15)

It does not matter what Bungini’s evil intentions were (if he even had evil intentions of course). Whatever his intentions were, the Lord can reveal the truth through evil men (Balaam and Caiphus come to mind) and the same is true with the liturgy. It is the position of the Church that counts and she has constantly emphasized that nothing has changed.

In other words, with the New Mass the innovators are clearly attempting to "overwrite" Catholicism with Modernism.

The intention of innovators does not matter. What does is is the intention of the Pope and college of bishops. They have stated that nothing has changed doctrinally in the Pauline Rite so nothing has. It is as simple as that.

The "content" of the Mass has been "updated" to reflect the new "doctrinal reality" of the Modernists.

Words can mean different things depending on who is saying them. Homoousian was heretical before Nicaea and orthodox afterwards. Ut Unim Sint was understood in a heretical sense before Vatican II because it was the rallying cry of Pan-Christians. After Vatican II (which I might add defined the term ecumenical movement and outlined acceptable guidelines for evangelization) the term now has an orthodox sense of understanding. The same goes for the intentions of a few people involved in the liturgical committee. The Pope and Bishops claim that the Pauline Rite expresses sound doctrine and so it does. We can discuss ambiguities in spots later on; my only point is that the rite is valid by the only authority that can make that determination: The Magisterium in union with the Apostolic See.

Now, the focus has been shifted from God to "new human values". No longer does the Mass represent a strong fortress against the errors of the Protestants and other heretics; now, the Mass has been altered, and those statements which are offensive to non-Catholics, or "which no longer are in harmony with the Church’s new positions" have been sliced off. And, what is even more frightening, with the New Mass is introduced "an entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology!" How brazen the heretics are!

Pope Paul VI in Mysterium Fidei emphasized the exact opposite of this assertion. So did Tanquerey and Ott earlier. Thus our opponents are in error again (71 errors plus and counting).

If nothing else, this alone should convince the reader that, as this is the foundation upon which the New Mass was built and created, the pillar upon which it stands, it certainly could not have come from the "pillar and ground of Truth", but must of come from the "the father of lies".

No what it shows is that there are evil men in the world even in the hierarchy and that despite their intentions the Church transcends them. It also shows that you have no faith whatsoever in the promises of Our Lord, a defective understanding of infallibility, and in general need to do a lot more reading up from quality sources. Wathen, O’Brien, and company are not quality sources (they are trash) although Fortescue is a good source. Davies is okay in spots but must be read with a grain of salt because he has severe theological deficiencies in much of his earlier work (such as the stuff our opponents are quoting in their sad excuse for Internet bandwidth masquerading as a "superb" work.

Finally, as Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci observed in their "Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass": "The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place--if it subsists at all--could well turn into a certainty the suspicion, already prevalent, alas in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound forever." (16)

This is just speculation. Why must theologians and doctors have more authority in the eyes of the "trad" then the Pope and united Magisterium??? This is how Protestants act.

This is a perfect description of Modernism: truths that have always been believed can be changed or ignored.

Again, nowhere has the Church taught or even inferred this. In fact, she has spoken against it.

The Heresy of Americanism ?

The heresy of Americanism attempts to "water down" the "hard sayings" of Christ and His Church, so as to make them less "threatening" or offensive to non-Catholics. Condemned: Pope Leo XIII (17)

Proof: "We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants " (18)

If the author of a certain book were to approach you and say: "We must strip from our books and articles everything which can be a shadow of a stumbling block for those who don’t patronize our works", we can rest assured that this author certainly intends to incorporate this view into his own writings. Of course, even had Bugnini, the author of the New Mass, never uttered this statement, the fact that everything in the Mass which is a stumbling block for "our separated brethren" HAS been removed, speaks volumes. It is for this reason that Bro. Max Thurian, one of the six Protestant divines who participated in concocting the New Mass, was able to say:

"With the new liturgy, non-Catholic communities will be able to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with the SAME PRAYERS AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!"(19)

And he later said the commission rejected Eucharistic Prayer #2 because it "implied transubstantiation." So this point fails because the proposal to adopt the prayer was overwhelmingly rejected by the commission he was a part of which debated adding the prayer but could not due to its Catholic content being unacceptable.

Indeed, this is certain proof that, not only has the heresy of Americanism been adopted and incorporated in the New Mass, but the fact that non-Catholics can use the SAME prayers without being offended proves that the New Mass can NOT be an unequivocal profession of the Catholic Faith. Therefore, since we pray as we believe (lex orandi, lex credendi), we cannot pray with the New Mass in Protestant Fashion and still believe as Catholics.

We are not praying "in Protestant fashion" at all. Again the Pauline Mass is a restoration of the earlier (mainly pre-fifth century) Roman Rite liturgy and the Church’s position on the doctrines have not changed. And the INTENTION is the key element far more then the words used. This is why an Lutheran minister could say the Tridentine Mass and not effectively consecrate even if the Lutherans used the same rite of ordination and were ordained by a bishop with legitimate succession. The reason is because even if the words "receive the power to offer sacrifice" were used, the Lutherans still do not believe in the Mass as a sacrifice or that while the people offer the sacrifice with the priest that it is still the priest alone who consecrates and takes the place of Christ during the Mass. In short, there can be valid form, there can be valid matter, there can be a valid successor doing the ordaining. However, the Lutheran would not become a priest without the belief that he was being ordained to offer the Sacrifice and further, that he alone effected the Consecration and not him with the people (which is what Lutherans believe happens). These are the eternal intentions of the Church whether the consecrating priest is aware of them or not. In short, the proper intention is what is the crucial determining factor and if you were to ask any Protestant minister (or Protestant layman) "could you use the liturgy of the Pauline Mass knowing that the priest offers the Son of God in sacrifice at the Mass not only to honour the Lord but also for the remission of sins of the people attending and for the souls undergoing purgatory" do you honestly believe that they would say yes??? Of course not.

Pope Paul VI in Mysterium Fidei decisively refutes this assertion. So does Ott and so does Tanquerey. I need not say any more about except this is another in your guys’ endless stream of errors (75 errors plus and counting).

The logic follows thus: IF this dogma is offensive to non-Catholics, then the New Mass certainly cannot be affirming it clearly, as the Protestants have no problem using our prayers for their "Lord’s Supper."

I am unaware of any Protestants who use any of the 4 Pauline Eucharistic prayers with the same intentions as the Church does (this remains for you insolent "trads" to prove and not to merely assume). If you want to claim that the second prayer is not explicit enough that is one thing (this does not make it an invalid canon mind you, just one that could be reformed a bit to be explicit in referring to the Mass as a sacrifice). If that was as far as you took it, you would still be orthodox. However, you guys take it far beyond that point.

Let it also be noted that an implicit denial of a Catholic Truth is far more dangerous than an explicit one; just as a wolf in sheep’s clothing is far more lethal than one who doesn’t bother to disguise himself.

But the burden of proof is on you to prove that there IS an implicit denial. You cannot merely presume that there is.

The Heresy of Ecumenism ?

The heresy of Ecumenism attempts to unite all religions at the expense and sacrifice of religious truth. Condemned: Pope Pius XI (21)

Which Vatican II and the Catholic Church has not done. Read the Catechism for crying out loud the teachings of the Church are in there and are very clear. The Church has not sacrificed the truth one iota and ecumenism as the Church understands it viz Vatican II is completely different then what it was understood before Vatican II. Pope Pius XI was addressing Pan Christians who believed that unity should come at the sake of truth as you indeed state. However, Vatican II’s view is that ecumenism properly conducted focuses on common areas and from there seeks to bring into focus the areas of difference with NO COMPROMISE ON PRINCIPLES AND BELIEFS. We explain our beliefs to THEM and seek to draw THEM into the Church and do not water down or change our doctrines in the process. This example is a non-sequitur and again the "trads" are using private judgment to interpret Magisterial documents (how Jansentist/Protestant/Anglican of them). Besides, the Pope’s actions remove any doubt. Submit to the Church or be separated from her to your own destruction. Or to quote St. Jerome:

ST. JEROME (c. 342 - 420 A.D.)

"[L]et them not flatter you themselves if they think they have Scripture authority since the devil himself has quoted Scripture texts...WE COULD ALL, WHILE PRESERVING IN THE LETTER OF SCRIPTURE, READ INTO IT SOME NOVEL DOCTRINE." [4]

Proof: One of the most striking proofs of the ecumenical nature of the New Mass is found in the fact that six Protestant ministers [Dr. George, Canon Jasper, Dr. Shepherd, Dr. Kunneth, Dr. Smith, and Brother Max Thurian.(22)] participated in its fabrication. It is important to note here that they didn’t merely "observe", as some claim, but that they had an active place in the Concilium, which was responsible for drawing up the New Mass. In 1967, Cardinal W. W. Baum, who was executive director of the American Catholic Bishop’s Commission on Ecumenical Affairs, admitted in the June 27, issue of The Detroit News:

I have already noted this error (of the Pauline Liturgy being a "fabrication") so I will not count it again here but merely note it.

"They (the six Protestant ministers) are not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participate fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical renewal. It wouldn’t mean much if they just listened, but they contributed."

Much as Trent wanted the Protestants from Germany to come to Session 13 to help consult and offer suggestions on the definition of 4 articles of the faith???

Thus, from the outset, ecumenism has dominated the atmosphere of the New Mass.

Pope Pius XI was not opposed to ecumenism properly understood. He was condemning false ecumenism. But then you have to actually READ Moralium Animos to figure this out. The Popes have asserted that VC II is in harmony with the everlasting faith which means that the Decree on Ecumenism is in harmony with Moralium Animos. Like seeming contradictory Bible verses the two documents must be harmonized and cannot be looked at as contradictory. Those who do not do this have "fallen away from the teaching of the Church and have made shipwreck of the Faith." (St. Athanasius the Great)

Here are a number of revealing statements from various individuals concerning this issue.

The December 22, 1972 issue of The London Catholic Herald quoted a prominent Anglican minister as stating:

"Today’s liturgical study has brought our respective liturgies to a remarkable similarity, so that there is very little difference in the sacrificial phrasing of the prayer of oblation in the Series Three (Anglican "Mass") and that of Eucharistic Prayer II in the Missa Normativa (New "Mass")"

There was very little difference between homoousian and homoiousian either (one letter) but the meanings were diametrically opposed. Appearances can be deceiving. Besides again they are focusing on private opinions. This clergyman’s opinion is worthless as to the validity of the Mass or not.

It is interesting to note that, as the New "Mass" is so "similar" to the Anglican "Mass", what are we Catholics to say of the hundreds of Martyrs in England during the Protestant Revolt who shed their blood, endured great hardships and trials, and even lost their very lives because they refused to attend the Anglican "Mass"? Now, as if the blood of these martyrs were worthless, we dare to conform the Catholic Mass to that of the Anglicans!

The times and circumstances are different now then 4 centuries ago. I realize that making such finely nuanced distinctions is difficult for "trads" to do though. But in light of these three (Hammer and his 2 amigos) and their track record of arrogant posturing I will continue to nail them to the wall for their errors. After all, error has no rights and if I claim that erroneous people do then I would not be faithful to the "trad" paradigm. Lucky for these guys it is not the Middle Ages because the peasants would be warming themselves by their burning corpses…

(It is worth noting that the Anglican "Mass" of the 16th century is far more orthodox and reverent than that of the 20th century, having undergone several "revisions" and "renewals") Are we not, in all truth, declaring by this action that these holy martyrs shed their blood for NOTHING? Such a position is clearly a violation of the first commandment ? degrading and blaspheming the saints, their lives and their martyrdoms in such a manner is hardly something that is pleasing to God.

The Anglican Mass was condemned because the Anglican religion denied that the priest was offering sacrifice and other essential elements that the Pauline Mass possesses. (Our opponents are not competent to prove otherwise: heck they cannot even write a simple refutation without committing more errors then a duck has feathers!!!) Only the Church is competent to make this determination and she has. Our opponents are in error again (surprise).

The Anglican Bishop of Southwark has stated on several occasions that he greatly admires the N.O. Mass, uses it himself, and would like to see it generally available to Anglicans at least as an alternative. He has also "concelebrated" Mass with Catholic priests when traveling on the continent! (23)

This does not invalidate the Mass though but instead is a sign of rebellious priests who are going against the teachings of the Church.

Perhaps what is even more revealing concerning the "ecumenical" nature of the New Mass is a key statement from M. G. Siegvalt, a professor of dogmatic theology in the Protestant faculty at Strasbourg: "... nothing in the renewed Catholic Mass need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant."(24)

Again if the professor of dogmatic theology thinks that the Mass is a sacrifice offered by a priest on an altar to God to atone for the sins of man and that these are themes that are compatible with Evangelicalism then he does not understand Evangelicalism. If he does not see these themes in the Mass then he is misinterpreting the doctrinal content of the Mass which remains unchanged. Pope Paul VI noted this several times as did Tanquerey. Dr. Ott likewise made note of the Pope’s powers of universal legislation and his protection from error in these matters. We are now up to over 78 errors committed by Hammer and his amigos!!! To use a Jewish term, you three need to become mensches and stop deluding yourselves into having any idea that you know what you are talking about. That these 3 actually think this is a "great refutation" or a "stellar refutation" on their part of my work is the funniest thing I have seen since I saw George Wallace at the Showbox Comedy Club 6 years ago!!!

Who can honestly say that the New Mass is orthodox, when even the heretics find it acceptable?

The heretics are not accepting the Mass as the Church does though. Ask any Anglican or Lutheran if they accept the Pauline Mass on the basis of Mysterium Fidei and they will all say no without exception. The proof is in the pudding.

Evangelicals are known for their strong opposition to the idea of the Mass being the Sacrifice of Calvary. If this New Mass doesn’t even "trouble the Evangelical Protestant", can we truly believe that the New Mass is unequivocal when it comes to the dogma of the sacrificial nature of the Mass?

Yes because the Church says it is. If Evangelicals are told this they will not accept it. Again looks can be deceiving.

As if in answer to this question, Jean Guitton, a close friend of Pope Paul VI and a lay-observer at Vatican II, quoted a Protestant journal as praising the manner in which the new Eucharistic prayers had "dropped the false perspective of a sacrifice being offered to God." (25)

Well he needs to listen to his "friend" Pope Paul VI then:

To make evident the indissoluble bond which exists between faith and devotion, the Fathers of the council, [VATICAN II] confirming the doctrine which the Church has always held and taught and which was solemnly defined by the Council of Trent, determine to introduce their treatise on the Most Holy Mystery of the Eucharist with the following summary of truths: "At the Last Supper, on the night He was handed over, Our Lord instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of His Body and Blood, to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until He should come, and thus entrust to the Church, His beloved spouse, the memorial of His death and resurrection: a sacrament of devotion, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is received, the soul is filled with grace and there is given to us the pledge of future glory." In these words are highlighted both the sacrifice, which pertains to the essence of the Mass which is celebrated daily, and the sacrament in which the faithful participate in Holy Communion by eating the Flesh of Christ and drinking His Blood, receiving both grace, the beginning of eternal life, and the medicine of immortality. According to the words of Our Lord: "The man who eats my flesh and drinks my blood enjoys eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day…"

However, venerable brothers, in this very matter which we are discussing, there are not lacking reasons for serious pastoral concern and anxiety. The awareness of our apostolic duty does not allow us to be silent in the face of these problems. Indeed, we are aware of the fact that, among those who deal with this Most Holy Mystery in written or spoken word, there are some who, with reference either to Masses which are celebrated in private, or to the dogma of transubstantiation, or to devotion to the Eucharist, spread abroad opinions which disturb the faithful and fill their minds with no little confusion about matters of faith. It is as if everyone were permitted to consign to oblivion doctrine already defined by the Church, or else to interpret it in such a way as to weaken the genuine meaning of the words or the recognized force of the concepts involved…[5]

Eucharistic Prayers 1,3, and 4 are VERY explicit. There is also implicit notions of making an offering in the second prayer also. Do not forget that the very words of consecration denote a sacrifice as does the separation of the blood from the flesh symbolized in the separate consecrations of the bread and the wine. I will not argue that the second prayer should be more explicit then it is but it is still a valid canon. It is theologically impossible to be otherwise according to the Church’s constant tradition. Of course "trads" know virtually nothing about that as I have shown overwhelmingly in my treatise and as I and my friends are demonstrating in this rebuttal to their "superb" (chuckle) rebuttal to my work.

This becomes even more evident when we consider the fact that most "Catholics" today deny the sacrificial nature of the Mass. We see clearly the ravages of the heresy of Ecumenism: rather than preach the dogma of the sacrificial nature of the Mass clearly and unequivocally, the reformers have succeeded in nearly expunging this idea from the New Liturgy.

Most people today period have lost a sense of the sacred. This would have happened with or without the Tridentine Mass in today’s society to some extent or another. Those who claim otherwise are again engaged in their little "Never Never Land" with Peter Pan and need to come out and look at reality.

[snipping more private irrelevant opinions from a stray Protestant theologian and another list of so-called "similarities" between the Pauline Mass, the Tridentine Mass, and other services]

One can easily see that the heresy of ecumenism has dictated most, if not all the "changes" in the Mass. "Christian unity" at the expense of Catholic Truth

This is a whopper of a lie.

downgrading (Americanism)

No, the rite was restored. But that would involve you guys actually EDUCATING yourselves by reading real scholarly works which disqualifies any "trad" publication that comes to mind today. I never realized until I started reading non-"trad" publications just how disingenuous and unscholarly the "trad" works are. How utterly bereft of facts and how overtly arbitrary and emotional they sought to play to the average person not well educated on these matters but instead who are confused. In fact, it is almost Nuremburg-esque in a way…

and expunging (Ecumenism) Catholic doctrines concerning the Holy Sacrifice (among other doctrines), simply for the sake of making Protestants "feel at home"; who can deny that the New Mass is steeped in these heresies?

Those who deny that the Pauline Mass is steeped in heresies are those that trust the Church over the ravings of a bunch of Luther wannabees (viz. our opponents). Our opponents have no authority whatsoever to proclaim anything (or anyone) to be a heresy (or to be a heretic) that the Church has not claimed is and they further must be compliant with the Living Magisterium and NOT their Jansenistic/Anglican attempts to interpret the past Magisterial documents by their own private judgment. That is all they are doing here these "Protestants of the right."

Not one Catholic doctrine has been expunged and if these lying ignorant "trads" would actually look into these matters, they might learn this. The Church has emphasized and re-emphasized that no doctrines of the Church have been abrogated yet what does the Magisterium know right??? After all, as these "trads" spiritual father Martin Luther noted "it is obvious that they (popes and councils) have erred and contradicted themselves" right??? Their arguments are no different then Luther’s were except Luther lived 400 years ago. Luther denied the authority and teachings of the Popes and General Councils, these "trads" deny by example the authority and teachings of the Popes since Pius XII and the General Council of Vatican II. Not a WHIT of difference between the two at all fundamentally.

As a closing comment to this section, let us hear the words of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which were recorded in the May, 1974 issue of World Trends:

"All these changes [in the Mass] have but one justification, an aberrant senseless ecumenism that will not attract a single Protestant to the Faith but will cause countless Catholics to lose it, and will instill total confusion in the minds of many more who will no longer know what is true and what is false"

I have already outlined in my treatise in numerous places the ignorance of the Archbishop on these matters. I hardly need to reinvent the wheel here. However I will merely note that so many Catholics were nominal before Vatican II that it was not even funny. Those that left in many cases left not because they lost the faith (many had lost it for all intensive purposes before Vatican II) but because they looked at the Catholic Faith as something they did for a few hours a week and after the Mass was restored they did not like it and stopped going. There was also the climate of the late 1960’s and the 1970’s also where liberals started playing havoc in the Church and many people left for that reason. However, the Church has been on a slow recovery since approximately 1985 (I do not think the consecration of Russia taking place a year earlier is not connected to this by the way) and the Catechism called for at the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in 1985 was compiled after 8 years of labour and promulgated to the Church in 1993. There is PLENTY of places out there to find out what is true and what is false and people can start with a $14.00-$20.00 cash commitment towards buying a copy of the Universal Catechism. Or they can access it online at different web sites.

More Catholics have been entering then leaving for a while now (about 15 years: 1985 seems to have been the point of recovery from the disasterous ‘70s and early ‘80s). Since the Universal Catechism was promulgated (1993) the movement has been gathering even more momentum albeit it is still a slow revival.

With the above as a sort of introduction to the Novus Ordo Missae, let us continue on to a line by line examination of this Great Sacrilege.

With well over 87 errors already outlined by our opponents (after only going through the first part of their "refutation" thus far: I have revised it and do not have the heart to give them the precise number now), the words about building a house on a foundation of sand mentioned by Our Lord come to mind (Matt. 7:27; Luke 6:49). This refutation of theirs is an utter laugh and the sad thing is this: THEY ACTUALLY THINK THEY HAVE REFUTED MY ARGUMENTS!!! Again unless the reader takes on the attitude of Luther, Calvin, or any other heretic in history, there is no way they can POSSIBLY agree with our opponents. I have been fully consistent in everything I have said with but two blunders made (the chief one was the Gregory part: I will fix it though in the 3 spots that this same error came up. My argument is sound but my focus was a bit off) and of course my sarcastic use of the term "Novus Ordo" in reference to the Tridentine Mass really got our opponent’s goat did it not??? The error in 3 citations was the result of my associates Lefebvre book having on page 116 what mine has on page 111. This is miscommunication on our part not error and was not intentional (nor under the circumstances is it an error). So let us see: the ratio of error sits at over 44-1 and our opponents are in sad desperate shape grasping at straws.

As I have shown here and will show later (along with my good friends Matt1618 and Dr. Art Sippo), these fellows need to repent of their errors and turn their minds back to God and obeying HIM and not the opinions of private theologians or anyone that contradicts the teaching of the Church which proceeds from the First Truth as found in Holy Writ (to paraphrase St. Thomas Aquinas). This necessitates being in true obedience to the Magisterium on all matters taught Universally be they definitive or not. Anything less then this is not Catholic as the name Catholic has always been understood. So unless our opponents want to be tarred and feathered as Modernists for changing the meaning of what it means to be Catholic (from its ancient understanding to the "trad" theological novum they currently espouse), then they need to submit to the Church’s judgment or be to me and other Catholics "treated as the heathen and the publican" (Matt. 18:17).

Bibliography:

[1] St. Athanasius the Great, Councils of Ariminum & Seleucia, 5 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:453 obtained at the following link:  http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/ecumen.htm

[2] St. Athanasius the Great, Defence of the Nicene Definition, 2 (A.D. 351), in NPNF2, IV:489 obtained at the following link:  http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/ecumen.htm

[3] Dr. Ludwig Ott: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 287, c. 1952

[4] St. Jerome, C. Dialogue Luciferians 8 (c. AD 382) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3005.htm

[5] His Holiness Pope Paul VI: Mysterium Fidei excerpt, c. 1965 obtained at the following link: http://www.newadvent.org/docs/pa06mf.htm

©2000, "Detection and Overthrow of the 'Traditionalist Catholics' Falsely So-Called" (Part 1, Section 3), written by I.Shawn McElhinney. This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.

Page created by: Matt1618. Send email with questions on this article to I. Shawn McElhinney ismac@lycos.com