Detection and Overthrow of
the ‘Traditionalist Catholics’
Falsely So-Called,
Part 3, Section 3
by I. Shawn McElhinney

The comments in dark blue are from my original treatise. The comments of our opponents are in red.

Epilogue - Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on the Liturgy:

I do not want to seem to imply when defending the legitimacy of the Pauline Rite to give the impression that I feel that everything done in the way of liturgical reform since Vatican II is good and above reproach. There are a few features of the disciplinary realm that I am uncomfortable with (and one or two I am opposed to) that are common in the celebration of Masses now that I believe should be suppressed. However, it must not be construed to imply that I am exercising private judgment on my criticisms since unlike the "traditionalists", I assent to the policies that are officially sanctioned even the ones I do not like. Self-styled "traditionalists" do not do this; therefore it is they who engage in private interpretation and play the role of their own Magistrium not I. Since I will cover them in the next section I will not go over them here but instead emphasize that supporting the legitimacy of the Pauline Rite as promulgated is not akin to endorsing the abuses of the liturgy that have happened at times during the past 30 years. I go into my views on why this has happened in the first section on Vatican II later on. In this section I want to briefly touch on the topic of liturgical diversity.

 It’s good to know that Shawn hasn’t fallen for all of the modern abuses, just the majority of them. And it’s also interesting to take note of the fact that Shawn himself has no problem with criticizing various actions of the modern church, and various "improvements" they have made to the Novus Ordo Missae. And he even admits that there have been quite a few abuses since Vatican II, on this point we are forced to agree with him.

My positions since writing that paragraph (which I wrote back in late January 2000) have become more nuanced somewhat from what I expressed in that passage. The reality though that our opponents do not want to face up to is that there would have been abuses whether the liturgy was changed or not. To claim otherwise shows a profound degree of naivete on the part of these authors. Besides, if the Church was so rock solid before VC II then things would not have gotten so bad so quickly after the Council. Also, if the Tridentine Mass was still the primary rite, it would almost certainly still be said in a sloppy manner with all kinds of irreverence as it was before the liturgical reform. There would still be people praying the rosary during Mass because they did not know what was going on, etc.

Reform of the liturgy was desperately needed and while the Pauline Mass is not perfect; nevertheless it is a much better restoration of the liturgy then these "trads" claim that it is. Those who doubt me can read Appendix A of our rebuttal where I go over this specific topic in greater detail. As for me criticizing additions to the rubrics, that is completely orthodox since I am critical but at the same time I recognize that the Church has the authority to modify certain elements even if I do not personally like it. Our opponents are rebellious schismatics and therefore have no grounds for criticizing those of us who conduct ourselves accordingly in the Household of Faith. (Since they have placed themselves outside the Ark of Salvation with their crimes of schism.) If they are not heretics then they are very much proximate to heresy in their beliefs as they have outlined them in their sad excuse for Internet bandwidth masquerading as a "superb" rebuttal of my work.

What must be recognized by all regardless of their positions on the liturgy is that the history of Catholicism on the whole is one of diversity in worship. Cardinal Ratzinger underlines this fundamental defect in the "traditionalist" mindset by their rigid insistence on the Tridentine Ritual as the "only acceptable Mass." As the Cardinal (in light of the later 1984 Indult) had noted:

Traditional Catholics willingly admit that there are other acceptable rites in the Catholic Church than the Traditional Mass. For example, the Eastern Rites have some very beautiful liturgies. But, as it is, the Novus Ordo Missae is completely unacceptable, a danger to one’s faith, and should be completely abolished.

More private opinions. Again we have already exposed the lies and deliberate disingenuousness of these 3 "trads" in the previous parts of this rebuttal. Dr. Sippo will be coming in to close the primary rebuttal sections by exposing and refuting their errors in Part 4 (before I address the errors in the Appendix sections). I am just noting here for the benefit of our readers that so far the error count is around 150 by our opponents. Now notice that they are claiming to speak for "traditional Catholics" as a group but they got mad at me earlier when I was referring to "traditional Catholics" as a group earlier. The mindset of "trads" has not changed in the past few years. If these guys are going to get mad at me speaking for "traditionalists" as a group then they had better make sure they do not speak for anyone but themselves. Otherwise they are being inconsistent.

Also, they continue to spout this lie about the Tridentine Ritual being the "traditional Mass." There is not such thing as the Traditional Mass. All approved Masses are merely different manifestations of the same Mass: they all teach the same truths and are equally efficatious when offered in accordance with their prescribed rubrics. Even if a Pauline Mass is offered where the rubrics are fudged a tad bit it is still infinitely more efficatious then the most reverent Tridentine Mass offered by schismatics and heretics. Unfortunately our opponents are too blinded by their ignorance and hatred to see this. Our opponents who suggest that the Pauline Mass is "invalid" are sadly deficient in understanding Catholic dogmatics. I have gone over this already as has Matt and Art earlier. Art will also go over this in Part 4 as well while I address the errors in the 4 Appendixes they added to the end of their project. I assure you, their sad trackrecord of error is nowhere near complete.

The reason we want the wholesale return of the Traditional Mass is simply because the "mass" that is in place now is completely unacceptable and dangerous.

Nice try Arius but we are not going to overturn Nicaea just to make you and your Arian buddies happy. We did not do it for the Lutherans or the Jansenists (the latter group claiming that Trent was "unacceptable" for being too "Humanist") and nor will we treat their spiritual descendants (Integrists who style themselves as "traditionalists") any different then we did their ancestors.

Secondly, with the exception of various small sub-rites - such as those of the Dominicans, for example -, there was no "diversity in worship" in the Roman Rite prior to Vatican II, only unity.

Diversity within certain parameters was a hallmark of Catholic worship for 1500+ years. It was the innovation of Trent that changed that and while initially it was a necessity for the reforms to take effect, it was kept in place far longer then it was needed. The spirit of the law was crushed by the letter of the law and Vatican II was a return in permitting (but not actively fostering) liturgical pluralism.

Hence, before Vatican II you could never have found gun masses, clown masses, garbage masses, marxist masses, and so forth. Any Catholic could go anywhere in the World, attend Mass at a Church, and be able to 1) understand what was going on, 2) follow the Mass, 3) attend a Mass no different than the one back at his home parish - even if he didn’t speak Spanish, or Italian, or whatever the local language was. As it is, nowadays, the person would find it impossible to follow the Mass and understand what was going on.

Again these guys are really naïve. 1.) Most Catholics did NOT know what was going on (the claim otherwise is a flat out lie). 2.) Praying the rosary during Mass is not "following the Mass" 3.) Mass in the vernacular is for the benefit of the people of the respective country where it is celebrated. Most Catholics before the twentieth century did not do a whole lot of world travelling so this point is not really relevant (but then "trads" are so good at bringing up irrelevant points as this sorry-excuse-for-a-rebuttal of theirs shows in technicolour). 4.) Notice how they must mention the actions of dissidents committing atrocities with the new rite if they are some kind of "norm" when in reality they are the very rare exceptions to the rule.

I have never in my life either before joining the "traditionalist" movement or returning to the Church seen anything as these guys claim and I live in what was once one of the worst Archdioceses in the nation if not THE worst. (Western Washington and the notorious Archbishop Raymond G. Hunthausen [retired].) I am not claiming that none of this happened in my archdioceses over the years of course; only that these "trads" are being deceptive and seeking to make the exception the norm. They have to do this because as Matt, Art, and I have shown already (and as Art will show in Part 4) their case is so weak that it collapses like a cheap tent in a big wind when it is examined with even a reasonable degree of detail. If they had a solid position, then they could avoid pictures and statistics and other means of propagandistic manipulation and stick to just the facts. But then like the Democratic Party which has one "play" in their strategy manual, so do these guys and it is the same play: demagoguing.

"Prior to Trent a multiplicity of rites and liturgies had been allowed within the Church. The Fathers of the Council of Trent took the liturgy of the city of Rome and prescribed it on the whole Church; they only retained those Western liturgies which had existed for more than two hundred years. This is what happened, for instance, with the Ambrosian rite of the Dioceses of Milan. If it would foster devotion in many believers and encourage respect for the piety of particular Catholic groups, I would personally support a return to the ancient situation, i.e., to a certain liturgical pluralism. Provided, of course, that the legitimate character of the reformed rites was emphatically affirmed, and there was a clear delineation of the extent and nature of such an exception permitting the celebration of the pre-conciliar liturgy…Catholicity does not mean uniformity…it is strange that the post-conciliar pluralism has created uniformity in one aspect at least: it will not tolerate a high standard of expression…"

Catholicity does not mean uniformity? As Father O’Brien said in his book "A History of the Mass,"

Since Fr. O’Brien’s lie has already been addressed and refuted in the urls of part 1, (and further since he is a most unreliable source in every case where our opponents have cited him thus far), I will not even give his work the time of day any more then I would the work of Lorraine Boettner or Alexander Hislop. Forget Fr. O’Brien as a credible source.

It would seem that the good Cardinal’s opinion was not universally held prior to the Second Vatican Council, and was developed in order to vindicate the Novus Ordo Missae.

Notice now that these ahistorical and liturgically-challenged "trads" are now presuming that Cardinal Ratzinger has to have some kind of ulterior motive or had to "manufacture" an opinion out of desperation of sorts. I mean they are not satisfied with approximately 150 errors already committed by them in this sad excuse for a rebuttal of theirs, nope they want to add to the growing tally. Oh well, if anyone reading this rebuttal of ours (or who reads the Mass sections from my treatise) still thinks that our opponents have a viable case then may I suggest some counselling??? Possibly some time in a psychiatric ward??? Maybe allowing them to pound a few more nails in their coffin might be of assistance to those of us on the side of Truth. Pound away boys…

Cardinal Ratzinger knows very well that the Novus Ordo Missae is not unified, and, consequently, does not have one of the four marks of the Church, hence, he attempts to make excuse for it.

So now our opponents claim to speak for what Cardinal Ratzinger "knows" and does not "know." Besides, as has already been demonstrated, there was plenty of liturgical diversity before Trent so this idea that there has to be liturgical sameness for unity is an absolute joke. Yet again though the errors of our opponents need to be rebutted I see. Some people never learn it seems:

It must be said that an apostolic liturgy in the sense of an arrangement of prayers and ceremonies, like our present ritual of the mass, did not exist. For some time the Eucharistic Service was in many details fluid and variable. It was not all written down and read from fixed forms, but in part composed by the officiating bishop. As for ceremonies, at first they were not elaborated as now. All ceremonial evolves gradually out of certain obvious actions done at first with no idea of ritual, but simply because they had to he done for convenience. The bread and wine were brought to the altar when they were wanted, the lessons were read from a place where they could best be heard, hands were washed because they were soiled. Out of these obvious actions ceremony developed, just as our vestments developed out of the dress of the first Christians. It follows then of course that, when there was no fixed Liturgy at all, there could be no question of absolute uniformity among the different Churches. [1]
Well, I guess the early Church was not "unified" then because they were not celebrating the same liturgy for the most part throughout the known world. Yet again history comes back to haunt our opponents and reveals their profound ignorance.

"Liturgy for the Catholic is his common homeland, the source of his identity. And another reason why it must be a ‘given’ and a ‘constant’ is that, by means of the ritual, it manifests the holiness of God. The revolt against what has been described as the ‘old rubricist rigidity’, which was accused of stifling ‘creativity’ has made the liturgy into a do-it-yourself patchwork and trivialized it, adapting it to our mediocrity…

I would like to emphasis Ratzinger’s first sentence "Liturgy for the Catholic is his common homeland, the source of his identity." The "identity" of the Latin Rite was completely changed when the Novus Ordo Missae was introduced. The "common homeland" of Catholics was taken away, hidden in a back corner. This would further imply that we simply can’t identify the post-Vatican II church with the pre-Vatican II church that has been around for over 1900 years.

So I suppose the "Latin Rite" was in existence when the Masses were being said in GREEK for the first 200 plus years before the shift to Latin as the language (a shift to the vernacular of the time I might add)??? Masses were primarily said in the vernacular for the first eight centuries and even after that the countries where the Romance Languages became the vernacular tongues. (And Latin was understood relatively well until the eighteenth century by anyone who spoke a Romance Language and all educated people in the West spoke, read, and wrote in Latin.) The proper terminology is actually "The Roman Rite". It can be called the Latin Rite but only when you understand the wider scope from which the term must be properly understood (which our opponents it is quite clear do not). Changing the language of the liturgy does not change the essence of the Roman Rite or else it has been changed before. As the Catholic Encyclopedia has noted on the liturgical language and the history of liturgical languages (all emphasis is mine):

The language of any Church or rite, as distinct from the vulgar tongue, is that used in the official services and may or may not be the common language. For instance the Rumanian Church uses liturgically the ordinary language of the country, while Latin is used by the Latin Church for her Liturgy without regard to the mother tongue of the clergy or congregation. There are many cases of an intermediate state between these extremes, in which the liturgical language is an older form of the vulgar tongue, sometimes easily, sometimes hardly at all, understood by people who have not studied it specially. Language is not rite. Theoretically any rite may exist in any language. Thus the Armenian, Coptic, and East Syrian Rites are celebrated always in one language, the Byzantine Rite is used in a great number of tongues, and in other rites one language sometimes enormously preponderates but is not used exclusively. This is determined by church discipline. The Roman Liturgy is generally celebrated in Latin. The reason why a liturgical language began to be used and is still retained must be distinguished in liturgical science from certain theological or mystic considerations by which its use may be explained or justified. EACH LITURGICAL LANGUAGE WAS FIRST CHOSEN BECAUSE IT WAS THE NATURAL LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE. But languages change and the Faith spreads into countries where other tongues are spoken. Then either the authorities are of a more practical mind and simply translate the prayers into the new language, or the conservative instinct, always strong in religion, retains for the liturgy an older language no longer used in common life. The Jews showed this instinct, when, though Hebrew was a dead language after the Captivity, they continued to use it in the Temple and the synagogues in the time of Christ, and still retain it in their services. The Moslem, also conservative, reads the Koran in classical Arabic, whether he be Turk, Persian, or Afghan. The translation of the church service is complicated by the difficulty of determining when the language in which it is written, as Latin in the West and Hellenistic Greek in the East, has ceased to be the vulgar tongue. Though the Byzantine services were translated into the common language of the Slavonic people that they might be understood, this form of the language (Church-Slavonic) is no longer spoken, but is gradually becoming as unintelligible as the original Greek. Protestants make a great point of using languages "understanded of the people", yet the language of Luther's Bible and the Anglican Prayerbook is already archaic...
When Christianity appeared Hellenistic Greek was the common language spoken around the Mediterranean. St. Paul writes to people in Greece, Asia Minor, and Italy in Greek. When the parent rites were finally written down in the fourth and fifth centuries Eastern liturgical language had slightly changed. The Greek of these liturgies (Apost. Const. VIII, St. James, St. Mark, the Byzantine Liturgy) was that of the Fathers of the time, strongly coloured by the Septuagint and the New Testament. These liturgies remained in this form and have never been recast in any modern Greek dialect. Like the text of the Bible, that of a liturgy once fixed becomes sacred. The formulæ used Sunday after Sunday are hallowed by too sacred associations to be changed as long as more or less the same language is used. The common tongue drifts and develops, but the liturgical forms are stereotyped. In the East and West, however, there existed different principles in this matter. Whereas in the West there was no literary language but Latin till far into the Middle Ages, in the East there were such languages, totally unlike Greek, that had a position, a literature, a dignity of their own hardly inferior to that of Greek itself. IN THE WEST EVERY EDUCATED MAN SPOKE AND WROTE LATIN ALMOST TO THE RENAISSANCE. TO TRANSLATE THE LITURGY INTO A CELTIC OR TEUTONIC LANGUAGE WOULD HAVE SEEMED AS ABSURD AS TO WRITE A PRAYERBOOK NOW IN SOME VULGAR SLANG. The East was never hellenized as the West was latinized. Great nations, primarily Egypt and Syria, kept their own languages and literatures as part of their national inheritance. The people, owing no allegiance to the Greek language, had no reason to say their prayers in it, and the Liturgy was translated into Coptic in Egypt, into Syriac in Syria and Palestine. So the principle of a uniform liturgical language was broken in the East and people were accustomed to hear the church service in different languages in different places. This uniformity once broken never became an ideal to Eastern Christians and the way was opened for an indefinite multiplication of liturgical tongues. [2]
This claim that there was a "Latin Rite" for 1900+ years is more evidence of our opponents living in "Never Never Land" whereas they need to return to reality. Latin Rite as a term is used to differentiate from the Eastern rites which are called "the Greek Rite." And while there was sound reasons at least until the Rennaissance for not translating the liturgy into vernacular tongues, since that time the arguments to defend this have gotten weaker and weaker. (The more Latin had in the century or two prior to the Second Vatican Council become unintelligible.) To again quote the Catholic Encyclopedia on the matter:
Use of Latin
The principle of using Latin in church is in no way fundamental. IT IS A QUESTION OF DISCIPLINE THAT EVOLVED DIFFERENTLY IN EAST AND WEST, AND MAY NOT BE DEFENDED AS EITHER PRIMITIVE OR UNIVERSAL. The authority of the Church could change the liturgical language at any time without sacrificing any important principle. The idea of a universal tongue may seem attractive, BUT IS CONTRADICTED BY THE FACT THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH USES EIGHT OR NINE DIFFERENT LITURGICAL LANGUAGES. Latin preponderates as a result of the greater influence of the Roman patriarchate and its rite, caused by the spread of Western Europeans into new lands and the unhappy schism of so many Easterns (see Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", 431). UNIFORMITY OF RITE OR LITURGICAL LANGUAGE HAS NEVER BEEN A CATHOLIC IDEAL, nor was Latin chosen deliberately as a sacred language. Had there been any such idea the language would have been Hebrew or Greek. [3]
My point in quoting these passages (and in all caps at that) is to drive even more nails into the coffin of Fr. O’Brien’s credibility. On these matters he has absolutely none. Fr. O’Brien is a worthless source. Thus we need not entertain this nonsense any longer except to say that our opponents again make statements that do not square with history as it happened. But then since they have erred over 150 times thus far in their so-called "refutation" of my work, why should the reader be surprised that they would err again here??? Their atrocious track record is already the stuff of Legends (albeit not the kind of legends that are ones to be proud of).

As the Cardinal elsewhere stated: "Today we might ask: Is there a Latin rite any more? Certainly there is no awareness of it. To most people the liturgy appears to be rather something for the individual congregation to arrange." (J. Ratzinger, Feast of Faith (San Francisco, 1986), p. 84.)

Of course anyone can be taken out of context with but a sentence or two being quoted. Cardinal Ratzinger celebrates the Pauline Mass but feels that it needs a bit of reforming in spots. Our opponents by selectively quoting him appear to be trying to put a certain "spin" on what he was saying. Unfortunately I do not have the book they are quoting but based on their track record of accuracy thus far (which is something that they should be embarrassed about if they have any integrity), I call into question their quoting of the Cardinal Prefect here. We have no idea of the greater context of what he was saying from this tiny snippet now do we??? Why then should we trust these clowns to be accurate with supplying context if they continue in so many other areas to make errors by the truckload???

"The Council rightly reminded us that liturgy also means ‘actio’ something done and it demanded that the faithful be guaranteed an ‘actuosa participatio’, an active participation…But the way it has been applied following the Council has exhibited a fatal narrowing of perspective. The impression arose that there was only ‘active participation’ when there was discernible exterior activity —speaking, singing, preaching, reading, shaking hands. It was forgotten that the Council also included silence under ‘actuosa participatio’, for silence facilitates a really deep personal participation, allowing us to listen inwardly to the Lord’s word. Many liturgies now lack all trace of this silence."

In short, the situation in the Church at the present time is certainly not ideal and there are problems that need to be addressed. But the problems go much deeper than the mere superficialities of reverting wholesale back to the Tridentine Ritual which would be just as disastrous for the Church as the wholesale discrediting of the Tridentine Ritual was after the promulgation of the Revised Missal.

Yes, the problems do go much deeper than just the Novus Ordo Missae - which is nothing more than a result, not the cause, of the much greater problems which are threatening the Church nowadays. And yet a return to the Traditional Mass would not at all be "just as disastrous" for the Church.

Yes it would. The primary cause of the problem with changing the rite was the quick way it was implemented and the subsequent abrogation of the older rite as if it was last Thursday’s garbage. The approach last time was disasterous and disgraceful and it would be even worse a second time around.

In those places where the Traditional Mass is said exclusively and on a regular basis - the Society of Saint Pius X, for example - religious vocations are flourishing, the True Faith is being preserved and taught, and the people are going to Mass in droves.

I was unaware that 1% of the total world’s Catholics constituted "droves" of people.

Traditional Chapels are, for the most part, packed, while the local Novus Ordo church is empty, on Sundays.

Strange comment this is since I have not seen this in the chapels I have attended in Seattle. And my state is the lowest churched state in the nation. So-called "traditional" chapels are often very small places that hold 100 to 150 people (if even that many) whereas most larger churches where the Pauline Mass is celebrated hold many hundreds more then that. Also, most churches have multiple Masses in the Pauline Rite verses one Mass in the illicit Integrist orders: quite a large difference actually. They may be relatively sparce in attendance for weekday masses but Sundays and Holy Days are well-attended.

Is this disastrous? Yes, it most certainly is - for those modernists and conciliarists who want to continue using the protestant meal service that is the Novus Ordo Missae, and continue pushing the Catholic Religion towards protestantism, and hiding True Catholicism in the back corner of their Churches where they keep the Tabernacles and the bingo tables.

Matt and I have already exposed and refuted these blatant lies earlier. Matt and Art addressed them in the first 2 urls of this part and Art will address them once I am done here in Part 4. I appeal to the reader to consider the degree of error that our opponents have committed throughout the first 3 sections (ten urls) alone. (Not counting Part 4 and the 4 Appendixes which we have not got to yet.) And ask yourselves if they can be considered in any way credible for what they say. The Pauline Mass is just as much a "meal service" and "Protestantized" as the Tridentine Mass is. After all, where do you think the Anglicans and Lutherans got their ideas for liturgy in the first place??? That is correct, the Tridentine Mass. Sure they removed a few parts that did not fit their theology but as Matt pointed out earlier, our opponents wanted to gloss over the fact that no Protestant communities use any of the anaphora prayers of the Pauline Mass exactly as they are written. So this charge is easily refuted as another stupid error by our opponents.

I reiterate: NO Protestant communities use any of the anaphora prayers of the Pauline Mass exactly as they are written. Instead, like the Lutherans and Anglicans in past centuries, the different communities that use liturgy in their worship removed problematic parts and structured a liturgy around what remained. Thus, our opponents in claiming that different church communities used the Pauline Eucharistic Prayer #2 have revealed their hands and are being blatantly dishonest. Not one community uses these prayers as written and they know it. But then when you have no case you must fudge the evidences I guess. That is what OJ did and that is what our opponents are doing. Fortunately Matt, Art, and I do not have to backtrack and seek to tell half-truths on these matters as our opponents do. "The proof is in the pudding" as Matt noted earlier. And as we have shown (and will continue to show), the evidences are not only not in our opponents favour but are overwhelmingly against them.

As I have shown in the first two "macro" sections, there is substantial conformity and structure to the texts and the Pauline Rite cannot be shown on a macro level to be at all invalid or defective.

And yet we find instances where protestants can make use of the Novus Ordo Missae without seeing any contradiction with their beliefs.

Modernists and liberals used the Tridentine Mass for decades without seeing it as problematic for their beliefs. Some actually preferred the older rite for asthetic purposes. This point is a non-sequitur. Besides, I notice that our opponents merely say they found instances but of course none are listed. And even if they were listed if you asked the Protestants if they could celebrate the Pauline Mass in accordance with the Pope’s doctrinal points of Mysterium Fidei as the proper understanding of the Catholic Mass they would flat out reject the Pauline Mass because the doctrine of Mysterium Fidei is not what Protestants believe. Yet as Pope Paul VI noted, that is what the restored liturgy teaches.

We have protestant sects which are permitting their members to attend Catholic Churches for communion now, that wouldn’t have dared do so when the Traditional Mass was in place.

But do they do so because of the Pauline Mass or because they erroneously believe that the Pauline Mass does not proclaim the same doctrine as the Tridentine Mass??? Besides, produce these Protestant sects you keep talking about or stop bringing the topic up. You imply that actual Church bodies sanction the Pauline Mass so you have to prove that they do so precisely as it is written without any subtractions or alterations to it whatsoever. Again, our opponents are being asked to put up or shut up.

We have 70% of Catholics in the United States who don’t even believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and yet who can still go attend - or even, in the case of some priests, say - the Novus Ordo, and yet still believe that they are Catholic and that there is nothing in the Novus Ordo which contradicts their heretical beliefs.

[snipped a bunch of stupid statistics]
Now there is the attempt to manipulate statistics which underscores a fundamental defect in our opponents reasoning skills here. Yes there have been some declines in a few areas of the clergy, etc. but this does not ipso facto point to the Pauline Mass as the cause. As for 70% of Catholics not believing in the Real Presence this is an example of how statistics can be manipulated. The poll actually said (as Matt pointed out earlier) that 2/3rds of Catholics believe in the Real Presence but half of them believe in "consubstantiation" rather then "transubstantiation". The problem is one of catechizing not the mere changing of the liturgy. If you were to ask the average "traditionalist" churchgoer to tell you what the difference between "consubstantiation" and "transubstantiation" is, I would bet a case of Red Stripe beer that over 80% of them could not tell you. Polls can be very deceiving and statistics are easily manipulated. Here is one example for consideration:

Belief in "Homoousian" by the Catholic Episcopate Through the First 350 Years:

33 AD-200 AD: 0%

213 AD: Less than 1% (Tertullian, who at the time was either a Semi-Montanist Catholic or a full Montanist heretic, used the Latin equivalent to homoousian in his defense of the Trinity from the heretic Praexius.)

Previously to the Council of Nicaea, Tertullian had already used the Latin equivalent of Homoousion, conceding to Praxeas the Sabellian that the Father and the Son were unius substantiae, of one substance, but adding duarum personarum, of two persons (Adv. Prax., xiii). [4]
264-268 AD: less then 1% ("homoousian" condemned by the Synod of Antioch whose decisions were not objected to by Pope Dionysius)
And Dionysius of Alexandria used the actual word in a letter to Dionysius of Rome (Athan., "De dec. Syn. Nic.", xxv, 26) and again in his letter to Paul of Samosata. On the other hand, Origen, who is, however, inconsistent in his vocabulary, expressed the anti-Sabellian sense of Dionysius of Alexandria by calling the Son "Heteroousion". The question was brought into discussion by the Council of Antioch (264-272); and the Fathers seem to have rejected Homoousion, even going so far as to propose the phrase heteras ousias, that is, Heteroousion, "of other or different ousia". [5]
It must be regarded as certain that the council which condemned Paul rejected the term homoousios; but naturally only in a false sense used by Paul; not, it seems because he meant by it an unity of Hypostasis in the Trinity (so St. Hilary), but because he intended by it a common substance out of which both Father and Son proceeded, or which it divided between them, — so St. Basil and St. Athanasius; but the question is not clear. The objectors to the Nicene doctrine in the fourth century made copious use of this disapproval of the Nicene word by a famous council. [6]
Much as Integrists do the disapproval of "ecumenism" and "ut unim sint" by a Pope Pius XI by chance??? (Ecc. 1:10)

300 AD: less then 1%

325 AD: 99% (General Council of Nicaea approves the "homoousian": where were the "traditionalists" of the time decrying the Church for "reversing" her positions???)

335 AD: 80%*

337 AD: Death of Constantine and the start of the serious Arian mayhem.

350 AD: approximately 20%*

360 AD: approximately 10%*

370 AD: approximately 20%*
(after Constantinople 1 in 381 AD)

383 AD: over 99%*

* Referring to actively supporting the homoousian: the overwhelming percentage of the Episcopate was never Arian in their theology at any time.

Let us see, it appears that the belief of the Father and Son being "consubstantial" of one another clearly declined after Nicaea. Therefore, according to the "trad" paradigm, Nicaea was responsible for the "erosion" of the faith among the episcopate!!! What other possibility can there be, after all the erosion happened after Nicaea and this is easy to prove. I hope our opponents see the sheer idiocy of their statements now and how statistics can easily be mislead.

It is as if during the Cold War American and Soviet racing cars placed 1 and 2 respectively in a head to head car race. The American paper would say (of course) "Americans win, Soviets place second" whereas the Pravda would report the race in a manner similar to the following: "Superior Soviet racing car nearly wins race…Imperialist Americans place next to last" [credit for this analogy goes to Mark P. Shea] and both stories would be telling the truth. There is an old saying that there are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. Our opponents should be very careful in how they attempt to appropriate statistics in support of their positions. After all, I have "proven" above that the Arian mayhem after Nicaea was because of Nicaea using the same faulty logic as these "trads" employ to discredit the Pauline Mass. Are our opponents now going to be consistent and condemn both the Pauline Mass and Nicaea??? Or are they still going to act like Protestants and inconsistently support one and reject the other??? Either accept both or reject both because the argument applies equally in both cases.

As we have seen above, the Novus Ordo Missae was founded upon heresy, contains heresy, and is conducive to heresy. Therefore it most certainly is defective. Not to mention the fact that it's effect upon the Church here in the United States are very telling - belief in the True Presence has practically disappeared, the number of Religious Brothers and Sisters have been slashed in half, while the number of ordinations/Seminarians isn't much better, in effect the ecclesiastical status of the Church here in the United States, when compared to the pre-Novus Ordo era, is devastating.

Our opponents continue to demonstrate their profoundly flawed reasoning skills here. We have shown throughout this response thus far (and will continue to show) that these "trads" are incapable of contrasting apples with apples but instead engage in one giant irregular exercise in non-sequitur question-begging.

However, there are still numerous other "micro" details that self-styled "traditionalists" seek to use to discredit the legitimacy or dignity of the Revised Missal. It is a maxim of the faith that one cannot do evil in the hope that good may come out of it. Those that seek to restore what they perceive is the "good" of the Tridentine Ritual by ripping down and demeaning the Revised Missal violate that maxim.

The maxim itself is a very good one, but the application is false.

Hardly. My point is dead-on accurate and properly applied.

As can be seen from what we have said thus far, there are many very good reasons why the Novus Ordo should be "ripped down" and completely abolished, and why it would actually be a violation of that maxim to keep it in place. It is a danger to our Faith, it is a danger to the Catholic Church, and it must be done away with.

Since every point raised by these "trads" has been soundly refuted already - and more then once in this response, the rest of their argument can be ignored on this point.

Furthermore, I think it’s quite interesting note that Shawn here refers to the "dignity of the Revised Missal," and yet in his very own Appendix, he cites Dr. Art Sippo who states that God Himself has no dignity and He’s not worth defending.

As for what Dr. Sippo noted in the Appendix, he was not saying that God was "not worth defending." In fact, the entire thrust of what Dr. Sippo was saying is emphasized in the first paragraph of Appendix D and reads as follows:

One of the sad corollaries of the divisions -- racial, social, political, economic, cultural and religious -- among all the people of the world is the suspicion that respect for the heartfelt beliefs of others is necessarily a betrayal of our own position. In the religious realm, many people see respect for the religious beliefs of others as disrespect to God. The systematic intolerance in the OT towards paganism and idolatry has been used as an excuse for continuing an attitude of intolerance even today. [7]
Here is the context of what Dr. Sippo was saying in the passage being misrepresented by our opponents. Here is the passage constantly raised by our opponents. They have taken a brief break from practicing "Sola Traditio" and are now engaging in a bit of "Sola Sippo" and applying their own private interpretation to the "proof-texts" they rip from context of what Art was saying ala their Protestant forebearers (all emphasis is mine):
Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. No one is saved apart from him. The way we are joined to him is by incorporation as "members" (more correctly "organs") in his Mystical Body, the Church. If the good Samaritan could be held up to us by Christ as an example for right conduct, he must have been "saved" even though he was a Samaritan, not either a Jew or a Christian.
Because of our fallen nature, we know that God is far more compassionate than we are. When we try to preserve the dignity of God we forget that after the humiliation of the Incarnation and the Crucifixion, God has no dignity left to defend. AS ST. PAUL SAID IN PHILLIPIANS:
Phillipians 2:
4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 BUT EMPTIED HIMSELF, TAKING THE FORM OF A SERVANT, BEING BORN IN THE LIKENESS OF MEN. 8 AND BEING FOUND IN HUMAN FORM HE HUMBLED HIMSELF AND BECAME OBEDIENT UNTO DEATH, EVEN DEATH ON A CROSS.
WE DO NOT NEED TO DEFEND GOD'S DIGNITY. He has already given that up for us and, frankly, he can defend himself if need be. What we need to defend is the integrity of his Word and his good will towards all men. We need to witness to this in our own lives by how we live and in how we treat other people. To do that we do not need triumphalism, intolerance, or a condescending attitude towards our fellow man. After all, what would men have been without the great religious leaders like Buddha, Mohammed, or Zoroaster? Hasn't Hinduism had a positive impact on life in India despite all of its deficiencies? Hasn't the Church made good use of the Sibyls, Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus, Cicero, and other pagans? Can we not respect what is good in other religions and recognize the prevenient grace of God in them as a preparation for the Gospel? Hasn't the Catholic Church already done that?
Whatever Catholics may have done in the past with regard to encountering other religions, there are alternative ways of showing the love that Christ has shown towards sinful man without always having a chip on our shoulder and being ready to argue. We have an obligation to evangelize the world and to preach Christ and him crucified in the hopes of converting people to the truth. But we don't need to convert everyone to our way of thinking. [8]
The whole point was directed at those in the Catholic Church who are insistent upon only one view of theology or on insisting that only their theological positions have any merit when the Church recognizes a diversity in theology. Art was also pointing out that the good in all other religions has always been seen by the Church as fragments of truth from which she builds on to bring the fullness of Truth (Catholicism) to other cultures without demeaning the cultures themselves. For example, many Evangelicals go to South America and try to impose American-style Evangelicalism on the Latin American people and treat their cultures with profound disrespect. The Catholic Church has always sought as much as possible to embrace a persons culture and purify the erroneous elements whenever possible in service of the Church. But rather then let me say it, how about letting Art clarify it in his own words when I asked him if what I initially wrote in defense of his words was correct. In affirming that my analysis was "right on the money" Dr. Sippo elaborated a bit further in the following manner:
I have been defending the dignity of Christ and his Church for several decades. The problem is that some people (Catholic and otherwise) use a phony notion of God's "dignity" as an excuse to treat unbelievers poorly. That is why the developments on Religious Liberty in Dignitatis Humanae are such a bitter pill for the Integrists to swallow. They act as if God is insulted by honest -- albeit incorrect or misguided -- attempts to do His will. God so loved the world that He sent his only Son to subjugate himself to our needs like a servant and to die with no more dignity than a condemned criminal. If God has voluntarily subjected himself to that for the benefit of all men, I think he can tolerate a few halting attempts at discerning his will by Good Samaritans. In this sense, God has no dignity left to defend before men of good will which he has not already given up for our sakes. The radical Integrists are far more concerned with their own dignity and sensibilities than those of God. The intolerance is theirs, not our Father's. When Our Lord and Savior said, "Be ye perfect as my heavenly Father is perfect," he was using an interesting Semitic idiom. An alternative translation would be, "Be ye tolerant as my heavenly Father is tolerant."
If God really wanted to defend his dignity, he would have left us humans in our sins and allowed us just to damn ourselves. And we would have deserved it. The cost of our salvation was the humiliation and death of His Son on the cross. If God could endure the cross and its indignities, He can also endure the sincere and stumbling attempts at ecumenical dialogue and understanding that the Catholic Church has engaged in over the last few decades. [9]
These "trads" have blatantly misrepresented what Dr. Sippo was saying. He was not making a statement that "God is not worth defending" as our opponents claim. In fact, he never makes this claim at all and these deceivers owe Dr. Sippo an apology for their despicable sin of bearing false witness (Ex. 20:16; Deut. 5:20). Art was addressing the triumphalistic "Ku Klux Katholicism" as espoused by our opponents and others like them that think the way to preach Christ to others is to coerce them to become Catholics against their will and then (when people resist being coerced) chalking the reticence up to a "stubborn heretic mentality" when often the problem was the way Christ was preached to other people. That was the point that Dr. Sippo was making: THAT IN HOW PEOPLE PREACH CHRIST TO OTHERS IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE MESSAGE ITSELF. Our opponents though seem incapable of making these kinds of finer distinctions manifested in their whole response being about as subtle as a chainsaw cutting through an evergreen tree. With such an inability on their part to avoid the Protestant-like dichotomous mentality that saturates Integrist thinking, it should not surprise that they have problems understanding the full context of the events in the post Vatican I through post Vatican II periods.
[snip of material not directly reflecting the issues at hand (and points already covered)]

As it is, at least one of the sections which Shawn brings up below as being a "crucial defect" are not claimed by Traditional Catholics. Whether or not Vatican II had the authority to change the Mass is irrelevant, especially when one considers the fact that the Novus Ordo (sometimes called the "Pauline Rite" but I hate that term so I will not use it) was hardly the liturgy that was envisioned by the fathers of the Second Vatican Council.

And do our opponents actually provide any legitimate sources for this??? Of course not. The discussion here deals with VALIDITY and DOGMATIC SOUNDNESS OF THE PM MISSAL, not whether or not the rite was what was envisioned by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. (Which is another subject altogether and beyond the scope of this project.) As Matt pointed out earlier even Cardinal Ottaviani after the Pauline Mass was promulgated had a vastly different view on this matter:

I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Novus Ordo] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS. [10]
Oh and footnote eight from Part 1, Section 2 of this rebuttal is the full public address delivered by Pope Paul VI from November 19, 1969 that Cardinal Ottaviani spoke of. Apparently the Cardinal found it as reassuring as I did when I read it over the first couple of times (back when I thought the Pauline Mass was "Modernist" influenced: Pope Paul’s discourses helped thaw the ice a bit on my views of the Pauline Mass). Yet who do our opponents supply as a citation???:

As Archbishop Dwyer stated:

"We are in a veritable landslide of vulgarization. What was intended by Vatican Council II as a means of making the liturgy more easily understood by the average Christian, has turned out to be something more like an orgy of stripping it of all sense of reverence, bringing it down to the level of commonness where the very people for whom the changes were made now only yawn out of sheer boredom with the banality of the result." - The Clarion Parish Bulletin (Glenview, Ill.), 26 July 1970.

Of course this was right after the Mass had been promulgated and had been in use for less then 1 year. Apparently Archbishop Dwyer was unaware of the plain and simple origins of the Roman Rite before the Gallican embellishments of later centuries. There are serious problems with our opponents position when the arguments used to denigrate the Pauline Mass are surrounding ceremonial elements and erroneously declaring a lack of such ceremony to be "a lack of a sense of reverence". In reality, this view is profoundly faulty:

It also does not hurt to point out that the ceremonial of the Mass as far as different gestures are concerned was embellished over the centuries in ways that were not commonly utilized in the early Church. Therefore, if the "traditionalist" is going to complain that the Pauline Mass should have more outward signs of reverence then it does that is fine but they cannot use outward signs of reverence as the criteria for a Mass being "more pleasing to God." If this is the foundation of their arguments then it falls apart when one examines the history of the liturgy which (as Fr. Adrian Fortescue notes), used to be much simplier and plainer then the Tridentine Rite of Mass:
[A]t the latest by the tenth or eleventh century the Roman Rite has driven out the Gallican, except in two sees (Milan and Toledo), and is used alone throughout the West, thus at last verifying here too the principle that rite follows patriarchate. But in the long and gradual supplanting of the Gallican Rite the Roman was itself affected by its rival, so that when at last it emerges as sole possessor it is no longer the old pure Roman Rite, but has become the gallicanized Roman Use that we now follow. These Gallican additions are all of the nature of ceremonial ornament, symbolic practices, ritual adornment. Our blessings of candles, ashes, palms, much of the ritual of Holy Week, sequences, and so on are Gallican additions. The original Roman Rite was very plain, simple, practical…
The Rt. Rev. Dom Fernand Cabrol likewise concurred:
The kissing of the altar is another act which frequently takes place in Mass. In the seventh century this gesture was far less common, but was surrounded with a greater solemnity. Thus at the beginning of the Office of Good Friday, as has bealso does not hurt to point en mentioned, the Pontiff, after the conclusion of Nones, left his throne to go and kiss the altar, returning afterwards to his place. This rite at the beginning of Mass was already a characteristic of the Papal Mass in the seventh-eighth centuries. It is still preserved to-day, with the "Oramus te, Domine," which gives the reason for it--"Sanctorum quorum reliquiae hic sunt." The altar is a sacred stone, containing the relics of Saints; it is the "mensa" which recalls the table of the Last Supper, or again, the stone of Golgotha. It is unnecessary to compare this act with that of the Romans, who kissed their pagan altars, in order to understand the act of veneration accomplished by the Priest at this moment.
Today the Priest kisses the altar each time he comes to it, as well as before the "Dominus vobiscum" of the prayers…
Thus that there is less outward signs of reverence does not diminish the Pauline Mass unless the "traditionalists" are going to claim that the older simpler Roman Rite showed God less dignity and respect than the Gallicanized rites did (which of course they will not do). Thus the argument about ceremonial externals is laid to rest as having no credibility whatsoever as an argument against the Pauline Rite of Mass. [11]
I doubt I need to say anymore here to show the serious flaw in our opponents logic and what their current arguments taken to their logical conclusions actually signifies. As for the comments of the Archbishop (Dwyer), all I will note is that indeed it was quite a shock for the faithful to actually understand what was being said at Mass. It must also have made praying the Rosary during Mass rather difficult which would have been quite an adjustment for many people…

Of course, this is not to mention the fact that many of the points brought up by Shawn as examples of what Traditional Catholics use to prove the fact that the Novus Ordo Missae has been protestantized are also irrelevant.

Good then stop making such superficial arguments (it is nice to see such an admission from our opponents here).

Furthermore, whether or not the liturgy is said in the vernacular is likewise irrelevant to the legitimacy of the Mass. While we admit that the above points are dangerous, and the effects of them have been disastrous to the Church, we must keep in mind that they don’t necessarily prove, in and of themselves, that Novus Ordo Missae is protestant.

This is a significant admission by our opponents and I welcome them making it.

Now to my knowledge (and I may be mistaken), Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre never claimed that the Pauline Rite was not a valid rite per se (at least not explicitly) but many in the Society (as I showed in the first macro section) and many if not most "traditionalists" have made these claims as to what they claim are crucial defects in the rite (albeit in less dignified ways). There are 4 main charges leveled by self-styled "traditionalists" claiming that either A) The Pauline Rite is illicit or B) It is a sacrilege or C) It is not a valid Mass or D) If valid, then it is a valid sacrilege. These claims are supported by the following arguments:

In the first place, I’m very happy to see that Shawn didn’t try to provide any citations from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, considering the fact that at least three were highly inaccurate - if not fabricated outright.

This is false. They are on page 111 of Lefebvre’s book. As I noted earlier my source and I have different numbered copies and I did not properly scrutinize them because of my source’s reliability is above reproach. He reconfirmed his citations when I asked him about them and only by accident (when he mentioned a certain chapter starting on a different page in his book then it did in my book) did I discover the difference in numbering. The citations are 100% accurate. Care to put that in your pipe and smoke it or will you ignore it as you "trads" so often do???

In the second place, whether or not the Mass is said in the vernacular does not effect the illicity, sacrilegious nature, or invalidity, of the Novus Ordo Missae - although it does effect the unity of the liturgy, which we shall get into further down. It is a side issue.

This is another welcome admission made by our opponents.

Doctrine on the Sacrifice of the Mass:


On not celebrating the Mass every where in the vulgar tongue; the mysteries of the Mass to be explained to the people.

Although the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless, IT HAS NOT SEEMED EXPEDIENT TO THE FATHERS, THAT IT SHOULD BE EVERY WHERE CELEBRATED IN THE VULGAR TONGUE. Wherefore, the ancient usage of each church, and the rite approved of by the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, being in each place retained; and, that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger, nor the little ones ask for bread, and there be none to break it unto them, the holy Synod charges pastors, and all who have the cure of souls, that they frequently, during the celebration of mass, expound either by themselves, or others, some portion of those things which are read at mass, and that, amongst the rest, they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice, especially on the Lord's days and festivals. [1]

This is clearly a pastoral provision being set forth here and not a doctrine of the faith being declared (yes you "traditionalists" who hang that "pastoral council" title on Vatican II: there were sections of Trent---and virtually every other Ecumenical council---that were "pastoral" also). Note that this does not prohibit absolutely the celebration of the Mass in the vernacular in some places. Nor does it preclude the possible usage of the vernacular in the future. What the Fathers were saying here is that, given the conditions in Europe following the Protestant Revolt, that the shift to the vernacular was not advisable or advantageous considering the circumstances of that time period. Lets look further at the actual canons promulgated by the Council of Trent concerning the use of vernacular tongues.

In the first place, the Council Fathers did not even mention the protestant revolt in the paragraph above-quoted by Shawn, nor did they say that it was only because of the protestant revolt that the Mass was not said in the vernacular.

Since the Protestant revolt was obvious to the Council Fathers (and since Trent was called to address the so-called "reformation") why should the Fathers of Trent have to mention it in the decree??? It should be quite obvious that the Fathers were responding to the claims of the Protestants that Mass must be said in the vernacular only. But then what is obvious is unfortunately often beyond the grasp of our opponents it seems…

There are many good reasons why the Mass should not be said in the vulgar languages - many of which reasons are being proved correct -, such a mistranslations in the Mass - several of which we have pointed out above -,

None of which demonstrate any defect in the Pauline Mass doctrinally I might (as we pointed out above).

a decrease in respect for the liturgy —

I was unaware that mumbling the liturgy at "Warp factor 7" was a sign of profound respect. I think it is far more respectful to have a sleeker liturgy that recited slower showing reverence to God then a longer one that can be mumbled and run together because the laity have no idea what is being said anyway.
the very changing and elimination of the Canon shows this disrespect,

I know, how dare the fifth and sixth century popes overhaul the Canon as they did. Such disrespect they had for the ancient Mass…according to our opponents apparently.

as well as the way the Eucharist is treated in most Conciliar churches (i.e. communion in the hand) -.

I covered the communion in the hand topic in my treatise and my views on it have changed over the months from what I wrote back in late January and early February of 2000. [They have also changed a bit since the part written below as this writer has had more time to look at this issue objectively and set aside personal preferences - ISM 1/25/03] Here is in part how the Micro section from September of 2000 addressed this point:

Self-styled "traditionalists" are almost superstitious in their notions about what does and does not constitute reverence and what is and is not sacrilegious. The most important point in this area as far as Eucharistic Ministers go is this (and I know "traditionalists" will have problems grasping this for I did and occasionally still do in some ways):
In the early days of the Church the faithful frequently carried the Blessed Eucharist with them to their homes (cf. Tertullian, "Ad uxor.", II, v; Cyprian, "De lapsis", xxvi) or upon long journeys (Ambrose, De excessu fratris, I, 43, 46), while the deacons were accustomed to take the Blessed Sacrament to those who did not attend Divine service (cf. Justin, Apol., I, n. 67), as well as to the martyrs, the incarcerated, and the infirm (cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VI, xliv). The deacons were also obliged to transfer the particles that remained to specially prepared repositories called Pastophoria (cf. Apostolic Constitutions, VIII, xiii)…
Therefore, unless our early Christian brethren were committing sacrilege or being disrespectful to God, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the faithful touching the Body and Blood of Our Lord with their hands. Disrespect for the Eucharist cannot logically come from holding Our Lord in one’s hands or the early Christians were PROFOUNDLY disrespectful since they not only held Our Lord in their hands but they took Him home also. Oh and I hope I do not have to point out that they did not eat with forks and knives at that time but with their hands. Will self-styled "traditionalists" now call the early Christians "sacrilegious" for their actions??? [12]
I still have a problem with communion in the hand because I do not feel that modern man who is shorn of a proper sense of the sacred should be handling the Eucharist (except for Eucharist Ministers properly trained for such service of course). If times and circumstances were different then I would not object to communion in the hand but since they are not, I do object and not because the practice is itself intrinsically inappropriate but because modern man is not properly disposed to utilize the practice profitably. That is all.

However, the Church at the moment allows it so I assent to her teachings despite not being pleased with this protocol for the reasons I noted above. And since it is allowed, I will not resort to the sin of partiality which the Apostle James condemned (see James 2) and which our opponents clearly seem to practice on a regular basis.

To cite Father Michael Mueller…

[small snip: I am only addressing the parts of Fr. Mueller’s quote that need addressing and leaving out the parts where he is more accurate for the sake of space constraints]
The Catholic looks upon his priest as a minister of Christ, whereas the Protestant considers his preacher more as a minister of the people. When the Catholic priest stands at the altar, he stands there as a mediator between God and the people; he has an office to perform in which they have nothing to do with him, or for him, as assistants or coadjutors; in a word, he has a sacrifice to offer, which is an act that passes between God and himself alone, to complete which, or to render it more acceptable, no assistance of the people is necessary. He offers it indeed for the people, and in company with them, but not that they have any part in offering it in the strict sense of the word. For the character of a priest is essentially distinct and separate from that of a layman, and nothing marks this distinction so absolutely as the power of offering sacrifice, which is his exclusive right.

This reminds me of the Protestant argument against veneration of Our Lady and the Saints. "Why do you pray to other people when the Bible says Jesus is the only one mediator between God and man???" No one denies that the priest consecrates alone and makes the offering to God. But the laity offering the sacrifice with the priest is much like Our Lady interceding on our behalf: she does not circumvent Our Lord as the mediator between God and man by her intercession. Likewise the laity in offering the sacrifice do not usurp the unique role of the priest presiding over the offering at Mass either. He consecrates and offers the sacrifice. The laity also offer it in a subordinative sense. Again, it is both/and not either/or.

[snipped the argument about offering parts of the Mass in silence. I address this issue in the revised treatise but in brief: the pronouncement of the canon parts in silence is a later development in Church history. Prior to the fourth century the canons were said aloud. Also snipped was a passage where this source appeals to an elitist snobbery to justify saying Masses in languages that the laity cannot understand.]

Thus the complaints so common among Protestants about the use of the Latin language in the Mass are purely founded on a want of knowledge of our religion. Let them inform themselves upon this subject, and all difficulties will disappear at once. To Catholics it is a great consolation to reflect that, in this as in every other respect, the Church always adapts her discipline to the necessities of her flock, or to the dignity and order of her public service. (11)

Indeed and she has sanctioned the use of the vernacular on a wide scale since Vatican II. Art, Matt, and I are not our own popes but instead we recognize the authority of the one pope of Catholicism and obey him. Our opponents though prefer to rebel against the Pope and be their own anti-papal popes ala John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Luther, and John Knox. Another facet of Protestantism that Integrists share…

[I snipped the lies and errors of Fr. O’Brien already decisively refuted more then once in the three urls of Part I of this rebuttal. Also snipped are the historically illiterate opinions of some Fr. Cochem who exalts the idea of the laity standing at Mass like dumb sheep unable to understand what is going on. ]
The ignorance of those who defend the notion of keeping the Mass in a language that most people cannot understand simply because they "like it that way" is distressing because these people are the embodiment of every common Protestant stereotype of the Catholic Church from the Middle Ages period. This "the Bible and the Mass must be kept ‘inaccessible’ to the comprehension of the layman" attitude is disgraceful.

Of course, all these reasons are inconsequential to the innovators. Who cares if mistranslations enter into the Liturgy? It’s only a communal meal anyway.

More lies. The Protestant dichotomous mentality of our opponents rears its head again…

Why would one want a uniform Liturgy? We already know that uniformity really isn’t Catholic anyways.

Notice the snide attitude of our opponents now. I love the beauty and diversity of the Catholic Faith and the diversity of charisms manifested in divers rites throughout the world. I know that Matt and Art feel this way too. Catholicity indeed is NOT monolithic nor has it ever been. As Fr. Melvin Farrell noted in his booklet "Theology for Parents and Teachers" (an overall excellent booklet if you exclude the flaws in the section on papal infallibility), there is a "ghetto" mentality among many people who were the most vociferous about the reforms of Vatican II that demonstrates a profound defect in fully understanding Catholicism from a historical standpoint.

This form of the "ghetto church" grew out of the turmoil of the Protestant Revolt. The emphasis was purely on areas of difference with Protestants and often to the point of utilizing the very "either/or" dichotomy that the Protestants used. The Mass lost its dual metaphor view prevalent throughout history and became only  a sacrifice. The sacrifice was no longer offered through the hands of the priest by both the priest (directly) and the people (indirectly) but instead by the priest only. The Church was no longer both a visible entity and possessing of a degree of invisibility as to some of its aspects (thus the term "Mystical Body of Christ") but instead the Church was only visible. As Fr. Farrell astutely noted:

The ghetto image of the Church is not wrong; it is incomplete. What it lacks is a balanced understanding of the Church’s responsibility towards the world. The dynamic outward thrust of the apostolic Church, which remained strong for centuries, begin to die down noticeably after the Reformation. It could not have been otherwise. When a man’s house is on fire, he is in no position to host the neighbours. When the Protestant break occurred, the Church had to bend all of its energies to shore up crumbling foundations.
Inevitably, however, the Catholic Church yielded more and more to isolationism. It became a ghetto closed in on itself. The "barque of Peter" was captained single-handedly by the pope. The bishops were viewed as the officers of the ship and priests and religious as the crew. Where did the laity fit into the picture? Here is the rub. The laity were viewed as paying passengers. They had no active role in the Church. As one bishop put it at the Second Vatican Council, the laity were expected only to pay, pray, and obey. Catholics raised on the ghetto idea of the Church tend to regard themselves as an elite group to whom salvation belongs as an exclusive privilege. They are members of the Church in order to be saved. They did not deny the Church’s obligation to offer salvation to others; indeed they support missionary programs. Yet to their way of thinking missionary work is something the Church does as a sideline. Its first concern is to tend to its own flock and shield them from the world’s contagion.
The modern theological revival has gradually given rise to a new dimension in the Church’s self understanding. We can call this second model the missionary image of the Church. Around the mid 20th century the Church started to shed the defensiveness which had characterized it ever since the Reformation. It found itself relating more easily, often on a friendly basis, with Protestant churches. More importantly, studies in theology made the Catholic Church keenly aware of a forgotten responsibility to the world at large.
The Church was founded by Christ to continue His work. His work is saving all men. It is wrong therefore, for the Church to be almost totally absorbed in internal concerns. It must reach out to the world. This realization brought about a fresh burst of missionary interest in the Church just prior to the Second Vatican Council…
As missionary image [however], the Church continued to be viewed essentially as a closed society, admitting only that it should take far more initiative in winning converts. The basic thrust of the Church remained inward, directed to itself. The leaven model of the Church has an outward dynamism. Today the Church is increasingly understood as the servant of mankind.
Building upon the Vatican II documents in the Church, theologians in recent years have uncovered, as never before, the original understanding of what the Church is supposed to be. The first centuries were dominated by the leaven image, found in Matthew 13:33. The Church saw itself as a Spirit-filled organization impregnating mankind with the saving power of Christ. It viewed its purpose in in terms of three functions, each directed towards the world at large.
First the Church must proclaim the Gospel…freely bestowed through faith and Baptism…
The second task is to embody the Gospel in a tangible way…through fellowship vivified through liturgical prayer especially the Eucharist
Finally, the task of the Church is to witness Christ to the world through service. As portrayed in the Gospels, Jesus is eminently a man for others. He insists that he came to serve not be served…
Gospel, fellowship, service: these are the three essential elements of the Church as Christ established it, and as it was understood from the beginning. Christ gave His Church certain organizational structures to unify it, to stabilize it, and to preserve it until the end of time. Yet all of these structures are subordinate to the Church’s three basic functions in relation to mankind as a whole.
Is this really the same Church? Definitely yes. But it is a Church recovering from a long historical seige of defensiveness and inwardness. It is a Church renewing its youth by recapturing its original meaning and purpose. It is a Church rededicated to Christ’s commission to proclaim the good news, to live it as a community, and to bear witness to it through generous service to the world’s suffering people. [13]
Hopefully our opponents can learn to build upon their ghetto concept of the Church and embody the other elements so lacking in self-styled "traditionalism": missionary work, and service. Along with the Gospel they form a threefold cord. Holy Writ tells us after all that "a threefold cord is not easily broken" (Ecc. 4:12).

And, as we know, the Liturgy needs to be more "vibrant," more "entertaining," and "sleeker," so the Latin language is completely unsuitable. To those who wish to reform the Liturgy, it’s simply not as much fun as the English. Furthermore, it would seem to be quite obvious that the saying of the Liturgy in the vernacular is also one of the reasons the protestants find it so agreeable - hence the reason why Catholics should find it disagreeable.

Is not the attitude of these Integrists precisely the sort of elitism spoken of by Fr. Farrell??? Stephen Hand of TCR (Traditional Catholic Reflections) who like yours truly used to be an insolent self-styled "traditionalist" made the following comments recently on the attitude of Integrists such as our opponents in addressing the recent schismatic manifesto from the Remnant — a paper he used to write for on occasion:

In their Ad Hominem attacks and howling mockery (Integrism is a joyless bitter affair) we hear the death rattle of a tragic suicide, namely, de facto implicit Sedevacantism. The love of endless argument, for those who fall prey to the counter-magisterium mentality, seeks to fill a deep spiritual and existential vaccum. Only repentance can restore the graces lost. Steadfastness in error is a vice, rooted in disastrous pride. [14]
I could not put it in any better words then those. Our opponents are in serious error and suffer from intense and disastrous pride. Like the Pharisees, their father is the devil as is the case with all people who are in error as a result of deliberate pride. Our opponents are not only in error but in embracing the theology of Fr. Leonard Feeney, rejecting the authority of the General Council Vatican II, denigrating the Pauline Rite of Mass by claiming that it is heretical and full of errors, and finally their refusal to submit to the Magisterium of the Church as to Our Lord Himself (Matt. 10:40; Luke 10:16, John 13:20) they are proximate to heresy and imbued with the mark of Cain (Gen. 4:15). There is no salvation possible for them since they know better and are obstinate in their rebellion.

I pray that they eschew their errors and confess that they have remained in schism and obstinate error as a result of their pride and through this admission seek to return to the Lord. Such an admission will not be easy. However, as those who have done it (F. John Loughnan, Steve Hand, William P. Grossklas, Pete Vere, Fr. John Rizzo, Fr. Gary Campbell, myself, and countless others) can attest to, it is the only form of closure that they will receive on these issues. You cannot fight against the Catholic Church because she is of Divine institution. By fighting her as you are, you are opposing yourselves to God Himself (Acts 5:34-39). Please repent of your sins of rebellion and return to the Church who "nevertheless, as an affectionate mother that groaneth and travaileth, most ardently desiring and labouring after this, that, amongst those who bear the Christian name, there may be no schisms, but that, even as all acknowledge the same God and Redeemer, so may all say the same thing, believe the same, think the same,- trusting in the mercy of God, and hoping that the result will be that they may be brought back to the most holy and salutary concordof one faith, hope, and charity" (Council of Trent: Session 13). Otherwise you will find yourself with Korah, Dathan, and Abiron because there is No Salvation Outside the Church. And God is not mocked.


[1] Catholic Encyclopedia: Excerpts from the subject "Liturgy of the Mass" authored by Adrian Fortescue, 1913

[2] Catholic Encyclopedia: Excerpts from the subject "Roman Rite", 1913

[3] Catholic Encyclopedia: Excerpts from the subject "Roman Rite", 1913

[4] Catholic Encyclopedia: Excerpts from the subject "Homoousian", 1913

[5] Catholic Encyclopedia: Excerpts from the subject "Homoousian", 1913

[6] Catholic Encyclopedia: Excerpts from the subject "Paul of Samostata", 1913

[7] Dr. Art Sippo on Ecumenism: Excerpts from Appendix D of my treatise "A Prescription Against ‘Traditionalism’" c. 2000. [Though this Appendix piece reads exactly the same, it was moved to Appendix E of the revised and updated treatise version which is viewable here - ISM 1/25/03]

[8] Dr. Art Sippo (ibid.)

[9] Dr. Art Sippo: Text from an email exchange - Aug 17, 2000

[10] Matt1618: Excerpt from Part 2 of this rebuttal. [Since the first ten urls read 99% as they did before - and I made only minor alterations to this url and the first three which were written by me - it may take some effort but I assure you it is on one of the three urls now comprising Part II. Though I divided the original single url into three for easier reading, I am not sure offhand which url it is on.) - ISM 1/25/03]

[11] I. Shawn McElhinney: "A Prescription Against ‘Traditionalism’" - Excerpt from ‘A Macro Look’ (revised section), c. 2000. [This piece was updated and the new version is viewable here -  ISM 1/25/03]

[12] I. Shawn McElhinney (ibid.)

[13] Fr. Melvin L. Farrell: "Theology for Parents and Teachers" pgs. 18-19; 20 (c. 1972)

[14] Stephen Hand: Excerpt from his article "Integrists Showing Their Hand" c. 2000

©2000, "Detection and Overthrow of the 'Traditionalist Catholics' Falsely So-Called" (Part 3, 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 or comments on this writing to I. Shawn McElhinney


Go to Next Section of “Detection and Overthrow 
of the ‘Traditionalist Catholics’ Falsely So-Called” Response

Return to Index Page of“Detection and Overthrow 
of the ‘Traditionalist Catholics’ Falsely So-Called” Response

Return to Matt's Catholic Apologetics Page

Go to Matt’s Ultratraditionalist Page